Yes, that’s right. I said it.

I never understood people’s fascination with Batman. When reading stories about superheroes, I like them to be epic (as in, when they fight big threats and the destiny of the humanity or the world depends on their victory). Batman always bored me because he usually fights street-level villains, and the worst it could happen if he were to lose, would be the destruction of Gotham City.
I guess that’s the reason Ra’s Al Ghul is one of the few Bat-villains I like.

Good post.

I’m a fan of both, but I can’t help but want to side with IM because of the way TDK fanboys tend to act, I feel like I SHOULD go against them because of this fact, but I still keep my argument based on logic.

But don’t worry, I’m not letting that simple fact affect my opinion on the film… too much… I guess it’s impossible for it to not at all, but I still like it, but it does have many flaws. I would just like for the fanboys to at least acknowledge the flaws. They act like it is a flawless movie, and it’s not, not by a long shot. It actually has many more plot holes and things that go against logic compared to many other movies, but there are plenty of good qualities that balances it all out so you’re willing to accept them. Maybe even make up excuses for them in your mind just to keep a positive view.

Just like I, or any other IM fan, would admit IM’s many faults, some of these blind people need to wake up and realize that TDK had just as many, if not more, flaws. But it was aiming higher, and you’re bound to make more mistakes when the ambitions are so high. Higher than they should have been in my opinion. I would have liked a slightly simpler movie from TDK, because sometimes it seems like it’s trying real hard to be high brow. When something seems like it’s trying real hard instead of it just coming naturally, it’s distracting.

The Dark Knight has a few flaws but the rest of the film is so remarkable who cares?

I don’t think you should compare TDK and IM. One is a crime thriller not fit for children. The latter is a fun, family comic-book movie. The genre they fit into is completely different as far as plausibility, style and tone.

Just to argue, if Tony Stark is as brilliant as they make him out to be — why wouldn’t he be able to build that suit? That’s kind of the point.

But then we have a reactor that someone can fit inside of a hole in his chest while he flies around in a suit of armor that can take a direct hit from a tank’s sabot round…

The only difference is, Iron Man never tried to be more serious and more realistic than it actually was, while TDK did. So that is why some people find it harder to accept the unrealistic aspects of TDK. **IN MY FREAKIN OPINION**

lol, sorry, couldn’t help myself.

“**Personally, I felt** that entire last 20 minutes or so could have been cut…”

“That ending was mainly what killed it for me and made Iron Man an overall better and funner film to watch **in my opinion.**”

“…they could have Two-Face as the villain, which would be pretty cool, **I think.**”

“**I think** that would have made a great and exciting ending…”

“**I felt** it was over long before it actually was.”

“The ending really hurt the movie **in my opinion.**”

Could I have made it more clear? It’s MY OPINION. So sorry if I’m going to continue having them. What a weird world we live in right? People having opinions… pish posh, back in my day, it snowed in Florida and I had to walk to school 5 miles uphill both ways, and people didn’t have opinions…

Nowhere did I claim my analysis is some definitive “matter of fact” statement of the movie’s qualification or anything like that. Notice I even tried to point this out to you in my sarcastic response to you. “We’ll think twice from now on about stating our OPINIONS on the film.”

So since you DIDN’T get the sarcasm, I’ll just explain it to you. What I described is a flaw IN MY OPINION. I’m still allowed to have those right?? Of course it was the movie maker’s choice. My point is that *I* FEEL that he made a bad choice. Do you kind of notice all of the adjectives are not factual ones but subjective (opinions) ones??

Yes, you’re allowed to have opinions too, I understand you liked the movie, I liked it too, but to try to justify your position that my opinion about the ending is “wrong” because Two Face has been done in another film, is pretty ridiculous, in so many ways…

OK, guys let’s relax. Old Man, I know that Ken J can be pretty ascerbic, but I think you read too much into his comment.

Ken J, sometimes I do wish you would dial back the edginess in some of your comments.

Daniel F, let’s not go down the name-calling accusation path, shall we?

Vic

“It’s obvious that what happened is what Nolan wanted. It’s not a flaw It’s a choice. He could have changed the movie up several ways to carry Two-Face into a sequel.”

…Dude, I never mentioned Two-Face dying. The flaw was that the conflict at the end with Two-Face wanting to kill Gordon’s kid would have been solved if Batman had told Harvey what happened: that they meant to rescue Rachel first, but were tricked by the Joker.

I would also like to add while there was no reason for him to make the comment about being married to Nolan and it may of been a tad childish. You seem to be overly offended by it. Which shows you to be far to sensitive. Also sadly the part that you are most offended by seems to be that it makes a tiny reference to you being gay which he never directly sad. So I must ask if you are a bigot ? Or just a really really extremely sensitive person ? Most people would have just rolled their eyes at the comment but you took extreme offense that he hinted that you were married to a guy. Had the director been a female he would of said the same thing. Would you of been just as offended?

I also want to inform you that being “married to Chris Nolan” isn’t a requirement for respecting the man’s art. Your homosexual allusion is extremely offensive to me and mis characterizes myself and Mr. Nolan. I didn’t think you would stoop that low to get the last word. But this encounter and your inflammatory remarks to me in the “Dragonball” thread, seals my opinion of you. In the future I’ll make sure to ignore your comments and endeavor to stay out of the way of such an incisive mendacious mind.

We’ll think twice from now on about stating our OPINIONS on the film. Any other film you get defensive about we should know about?

KenJ said, “REBOOTED universe”
Well, in light of that, Nolan has no responsibility to the past to carry Two-Face any farther than he sees fit!

And Daniel F, that would be an excellent way to end the film too. And I agree, if they had done that, the movie would have been twice as awesome as it was. The ending really hurt the movie in my opinion. I really wanted to love the movie, but after the movie FINALLY ended, I found myself a bit annoyed by that ending. Normally that would have made me not like the film because for me the ending can make or break a film, but the rest of the movie was really darn good, so I was willing to recommend this film despite the ending.

That’s what I’m talking about when I say “dragging the story.” You want a sequel but Two Face has already been showcased in “Batman Forever.” Like it or not Two Face had a purpose and that was it.

Ben said ” All what I did was point a flaw”

It’s obvious that what happened is what Nolan wanted. It’s not a flaw It’s a choice. He could have changed the movie up several ways to carry Two-Face into a sequel. Instead he shows us the hero’s clay feet, if the argument is valid that Two Face would have believed Batman. Ok, Batman failed! He failed to keep Harvey alive, which he couldn’t have known how the fight was going to ultimately turn out anyway. Nolan is saying; yeah, bad things happen to heroes too!
You got the extra footage of a last showdown of Two-Face and Batman, Nolan could have just killed him in the car crash. That would have tightened the movie up even more!
It says something about Nolan’s character. He gives the audience what they want, a masked vigilante that gets away with it, and even has certain support of the establishment. Which would never go over in real life. He*l they prosecute you if you shoot a thief or killer in your own home in the middle of the night! But Nolan refuses to descend into kitsch by taking every possible controversy and complication out of the story, or milk the situation into two movies when he could wrap it up in one. That’s his choice not his plot hole.

“Two Face had already had an entire movie.”

No he didn’t. Harvey Dent have about 4/5 of the movie and Two-Face had about 20 minutes and then he was dead… A character that is one of the core villains, a recurring villain like Joker was in the comics and in the animated series lasted 20 minutes.

“When your on a roll the last thing you want to do is make the story drag.”

Yah, I agree, and that’s why the last 20 minutes needed to be cut from the film, because it was dragging on and on and on and on… I felt it was over long before it actually was. I liked the movie up to the point where I thought it ended, then it kept going and it started to annoy me, then they killed Harvey and that pissed me off, then they started nagging the point about how Batman has to make sacrifices and he is the hero he needs to be blah blah blah, and I was annoyed again…

“If you let the villains totally steal the show you might as well have made a movie and called it “The Joker and Two Face.””

Again, I’m not sure if you intended to point this out or not, but this is another flaw of the film. I’m sorry, but it’s too late, they DID let the villain steal the show. But just one of them. The film focused around The Joker while Batman was a costar. Two-Face was a cameo. And my idea for cutting out the end would show even less of Two-Face. It would be like a reference to what the sequel will be about like the Joker card was at the end of Batman Begins.