Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:54:45 GMT
And now they a defense to stand on in court in light of Gordon's own shady dealings as well. A deleted scene specifically states that The Scarecrow's kangaroo Court was still fairer than how Gordon treated Dent's prisoners.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 21, 2017 23:59:32 GMT
Scarecrow's kangaroo court specifically sentenced people to die by freezing. Not exactly a fair treatment.
Besides, given that those prisoners were basically trying to enforce the law, and were supporting the example set by a terrorist, those are some pretty solid grounds for them to be arrested again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:04:35 GMT
And yet in that deleted scene, when Scarecrow pointed out his "court" gave those he sentenced more representation than Gordon did to Dent's prisoners, Gordon said nothing to defend himself. That gives those crooks grounds to defend themselves in court next time around. Besides which, the crisis Gotham is in the middle of will create new criminals or bring established ones from other cities to fill the power vacuum. And now Gotham has a bankrupt Wayne company and a second rate Batman to fall back on. No matter how optimistic you look at it, there is still plenty that can and WILL go wrong in Gotham's future which paints things in a pretty gloomy light.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 0:13:30 GMT
Nothing Gordon could've said would've made a difference, given that the people running that "court" were formerly incarcerated criminals. You could also make the argument that the crisis that Gotham endured would've made people more willing to fight against corruption, given that they now had Batman as their new symbol of hope, hence the statue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:16:08 GMT
Crane did have a point, though. That's why the scene was deleted.
The public has to have the backing and the ability to push back against crime for their resolve to be effective. The immediate future has a very potent window for criminals to move in and establish themselves very soundly.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 0:25:17 GMT
The entire trilogy had already established that there was indeed corruption in the city's police force. That doesn't literally mean that Scarecrow's court was more fair than Gotham's normal judicial system.
Blake having access to the Batcave was pretty clearly established as being a firm step in helping make Gotham a better place, and Wayne Manor had officially become an orphanage, which was a better alternative than just having Bruce live there as a recluse.
Speaking of which, Bruce's entire character arc for the trilogy was pretty much resolved by the end of the film, so he certainly had a happy ending, especially given that he managed to save millions of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:28:38 GMT
It is when Dent's prisoners are denied representation in court. If you're arrested, you either get a lawyer or are supplied with one, and you go to court where you are sentenced by an impartial judge or jury. This system exists for a reason. Gordon risked having Dent's prisoners set free even without Bane's intervention by violating our legal system.
That doesn't make Blake as capable as the original.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 0:33:36 GMT
Crane's court hardly gave anyone representation. They basically grabbed people they considered guilty, and forced them to choose between death by freezing...or death by freezing.
No one said he's as capable as the original, but Fox, Alfred, and even Gordon are also there to help out. Bottom line, the city wasn't rendered as helpless as you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:59:41 GMT
It still gave them more representation than Gordon gave Dent's prisoners.
So Gotham now has a less capable Batman when its hit rock bottom. If I were a Gotham citizen, I think I'd rather take my chances in Detroit.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 1:08:28 GMT
How? In what way did it give them more representation, when they basically grab them specifically so they can kill them? That's not representation in the slightest.
Also, Gotham is pretty much always established as being the worst city in America. Pretty much all of its citizens would probably rather live in Detroit. Besides, who says Blake has to become Batman right away, or that he even needs to become Batman in the first place in order to help the city?
Frankly, it seems that you're basically just twisting certain things around, and making other stuff up in order to fit your argument that the movie had a downer ending, when it really didn't. Civil War actually had a more downbeat ending than TDKR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 2:33:18 GMT
No, the ending was downbeat when you actually put some thought into it. Well, more thought than Nolan ever did. It takes more to convince me that Gotham's going to be okay than "Nolan says so."
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 2:54:38 GMT
Gotham certainly looked like it was in far better shape compared to how it was when Bane and Talia were holding it hostage. Millions of lives were not only saved, but Gotham had a new symbol of hope in Batman, and Bruce himself was finally able to conquer his demons and live a normal life. That doesn't strike me as a very downbeat ending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 3:08:51 GMT
Except that Bruce's happy ending ends the instant someone with an iPhone snaps a picture of him, AND he's with the woman who cheated him out of everything he had once. No, she didn't come back to save him. She was saving herself from the dirty bomb.
My problems with the ending actually start before the ending: 1. Bruce didn't take the dirty bomb far enough out to keep the city safe. No, you don't get the use the excuse that "its a movie", since Nolan prides himself on keeping it grounded. 2. Bruce's back should still be broken and you cannot justify his unnoticed return to the States.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 3:44:46 GMT
Bruce Wayne was declared dead, and his fame is mostly restricted to Gotham. No one was going to take an iPhone picture of him because no one recognized him in the first place. Also, the film itself made it pretty clear that she did come back to save him. You're deliberately twisting in order to fit your argument that the film had some depressing downer ending when it really didn't.
Also, the trilogY has never been completely accurate to real life physics. In real life, there is no cape that allows someone to glide through the air. The LoS' plan in BB also doesn't have much scientific credibility to it. Hell, there's no such thing as fear to toxin either.
When people say TDK Trilogy was "realistic" they mean that it's realistic compared to the comics, since it doesn't have any supernatural elements, and it attempts to offer semi-realistic explanations for Batman's gadgets.
You're really reaching here. It's obvious that you're just desperate to try and convince me that the film was as depressing as you claim it to be, since it wouldn't fit your narrative otherwise.
You want to talk about depressing? How about the fact that Cap and his friends became wanted fugitives by the end of CW, or how Cap seemed to have no problem smooching his recently deceased ex-lover's niece.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 3:48:37 GMT
Haha, no. Falcone in the first film especially states that Bruce would have to travel far and wide to find someone who didn't know his name. So there goes that argument right there. I'm twisting nothing. You just don't want to accept that your perfect little trilogy is full of holes.
I told you, I'm not accepting that excuse. Nolan is so sure of himself that it's sickening. So I'm holding him to "grounded" and "realistic" claims to tear him apart.
I'm not reaching anywhere. These are common complaints. You just want your narrative to be the true one.
At least Cap's crew aren't a bunch of dirty quitters.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 4:02:23 GMT
I'm pretty sure he meant out of Gotham. Also, when did I call it a "perfect little trilogy"? You sure are good at coming up with all kinds of bizarre assumptions in order to try and be as condescending as possible. I didn't like Katie Holmes' acting as Rachel. Some of the extras had some bad acting. The pacing can feel a little rushed at times, and Talia's death certainly could've been handled better. The only film in that trilogy that I would truly consider to be near perfect is TDK.
When exactly has Nolan shown to be any more sure of himself than any other filmmaker? I don't get it. The only real statements I recall Nolan making about his Batman movies is that they're meant to take place in a world where superpowers don't exist. The fact that he cited the Richard Donner Superman film as a source of inspiration for BB seems like a pretty clear indication that he doesn't necessarily look down upon superhero films, he just preferred doing something different with Batman.
You are indeed reaching, given that you're trying to tack on some bizarre narrative that clearly wasn't even part of the film. No one in the cafe at the end was shown recognizing Bruce.
You're right, they aren't a bunch of dirty quitters. They're just a bunch of criminals who were perfectly willing to help their pal Bucky, despite how dangerous he was. Speaking of which, is there any reason that Wanda isn't on death row for being a willing accomplice to both Hydra, and Ultron, in addition to the collateral damage that she caused at the start of the film?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 4:54:56 GMT
No, I'm not. I'm just applying the real world logic Nolan seems to want to apply to Dark Knight trilogy. Yeah, no one recognized Bruce because of bad, lazy writing.
And with that last paragraph, you just proved what an utter moron you truly are. Calling the Anti-Accords side "just a bunch of criminals" really shows that you don't understand anything about, well, anything, really. Glad I learned this now. I know to just ignore you in the future. You're just another jackass who doesn't understand that Bucky NEEDS help, not punishment. As for Wanda, the collateral damage at the beginning of the film wasn't her fault. Someone is going to die the instant you include a suicide bomber in a scenario, and if anything, she actually reduced the number of deaths in that scene quite. If he'd exploded at ground level, the casualties would have been tenfold worse. Of course, you're too stupid to know that.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 5:07:53 GMT
You don't seem to have a particularly strong grasp on any kind of logic.
Cap and his friends were criminals no matter how you look at it. If you want to argue that Bruce is an a-hole for retiring, even though he had no obligation to continue being Batman, Steve is most definitely a criminal, and Wanda is a bigger one for having worked with Hydra and Ultron in the past. Using real world logic, that makes her someone who would most certainly not be allowed to walk free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 5:13:03 GMT
Alright, then, better a criminal than a toady to a bunch of dirty, back-stabbing politicians who'd sell out their own mothers to get ahead. At least Team Cap is still free to actually make a difference in the world at the end of that film as opposed to everyone who signed The Accords, who now can't so much as glance at a mugging without political permission. In any case, I'm done with you.
Also, when did I say anything about applying real world logic to the Marvel films. Your smug counterargument only works if that universe was actually trying to settle itself in reality. So, you fail again. You're quite good at failing. You were born a failure and you will die a failure. Good day, sir.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 22, 2017 5:19:22 GMT
You do realize that Jon Favreau has stated that his intention with the first Iron Man film was to make it grounded in reality, right? No, of course you don't. That would require you to not be a biased moron, which is impossible.
Good day to you too, buddy.
|
|