Perhaps you're right, and I apologize for hinting that batman return fans are naive and stupid.
However, there are a lot of people making remarks about this film that sound absolutely absurd. Which is why I make such sarcastic remarks towards the fact that people are calling this "real". To me it's like saying, "Wow, I just got back from watching 'From Justin to Kelly'. I loved the implimentation of film noir!". With Batman, there was nothing real about it! How many people do you know go to Asia to join a cult, learn Ninja, own a company that owns a city practically and become a crime fighting superhero? On top of that, how many Micro-wave emitters have you seen that evaporate water from pipes, but for some strange reason don't evaporate the water out of human bodies (which makes up 70% of it!)?
It's pure fantasy! And there's nothing wrong with that, just call it by the right name. Sure, it may seem "darker", and they manage to give an explanation for everything Batman (Dr Exposition...aspiring screenwriters, avoid him at all costs), but that doesn't make it more "real" than the first four Batman movies.
Also, I don't understand some individuals' absoulte hatred of interpretation. There have been several people not only here, but on other forums and in life I know, who will hate a film just because "it's not like the book/comic/previous film". I think that first of all, it's a stupid reason to say, "Batman isn't a middle aged guy a la Michael Keaton! That's not the way he is in the comics!" Why is it a bad argument? Because it's void of argument! I could ask, what is the original text? The original 30's comics? The Dark Knight series? There are a few set rules about Batman: a mortal man with a tragic past who wants to fight crime using whatever methods are at his disposal...oh and he dresses up like a bat. So once we have that, people should be allowed to make interpretations about this. This is why I absolutely adore Tim Burton's films. They're HIS creations, HIS interpretations. I will agree they are not without faults, but I feel more connected with this humourful yet altogether quiet Bruce Wayne than the Christian Bale one whose humanity and character was about as subtle as a Dutch porn shop.
I will say that although the idea, story and premise of Returns was dead on, it is nevertheless plagued with a weak script, weak antagonists and lazy direction. I expected more from Nolan, but alas, his talents lie elsewhere.
IMO...of course.
However, there are a lot of people making remarks about this film that sound absolutely absurd. Which is why I make such sarcastic remarks towards the fact that people are calling this "real". To me it's like saying, "Wow, I just got back from watching 'From Justin to Kelly'. I loved the implimentation of film noir!". With Batman, there was nothing real about it! How many people do you know go to Asia to join a cult, learn Ninja, own a company that owns a city practically and become a crime fighting superhero? On top of that, how many Micro-wave emitters have you seen that evaporate water from pipes, but for some strange reason don't evaporate the water out of human bodies (which makes up 70% of it!)?
It's pure fantasy! And there's nothing wrong with that, just call it by the right name. Sure, it may seem "darker", and they manage to give an explanation for everything Batman (Dr Exposition...aspiring screenwriters, avoid him at all costs), but that doesn't make it more "real" than the first four Batman movies.
Also, I don't understand some individuals' absoulte hatred of interpretation. There have been several people not only here, but on other forums and in life I know, who will hate a film just because "it's not like the book/comic/previous film". I think that first of all, it's a stupid reason to say, "Batman isn't a middle aged guy a la Michael Keaton! That's not the way he is in the comics!" Why is it a bad argument? Because it's void of argument! I could ask, what is the original text? The original 30's comics? The Dark Knight series? There are a few set rules about Batman: a mortal man with a tragic past who wants to fight crime using whatever methods are at his disposal...oh and he dresses up like a bat. So once we have that, people should be allowed to make interpretations about this. This is why I absolutely adore Tim Burton's films. They're HIS creations, HIS interpretations. I will agree they are not without faults, but I feel more connected with this humourful yet altogether quiet Bruce Wayne than the Christian Bale one whose humanity and character was about as subtle as a Dutch porn shop.
I will say that although the idea, story and premise of Returns was dead on, it is nevertheless plagued with a weak script, weak antagonists and lazy direction. I expected more from Nolan, but alas, his talents lie elsewhere.
IMO...of course.