@DeathpooltheT1000:I thought IM2 was a pretty good movie,and what ever flaws it did have were a result of it being an Avengers lead in.

@entropy_aegis

I grant that Gordon disabled the bomb, but other than that...meh. Gordon was still in a non-factor in most of the movie. He was a victim for Scarecrow. I believe he did rally the troops at the end, but that was pretty much the most basic thing he could have done.

I remember a lot that Fox did in The Dark Knight. Creating new armor for Bruce, the sonar device, disabeling the building security, tracking down Joker.

In Rises, I remember him talking to Bruce about the exploding plot device.

@DeathpooltheT1000:

Other than the Nolan movies and Watchmen, I cannot think of any superhero movies that were really deep.

I can see undertones of the homosexual movement in X-Men, but the movie was not about being gay.

@NazarethSavage:

I'm with Death on this one though I cannot seem to get any of my friends to agree with me. Iron Man 2 was not good. There were no good action scenes except the one at the end. That's a pretty significant flaw for an action movie. The plot was just kind of meandering, and it had no themes worth mentioning. It was okay as a setup for Avengers, I guess.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch said:

@entropy_aegis

I grant that Gordon disabled the bomb, but other than that...meh. Gordon was still in a non-factor in most of the movie. He was a victim for Scarecrow. I believe he did rally the troops at the end, but that was pretty much the most basic thing he could have done.

I remember a lot that Fox did in The Dark Knight. Creating new armor for Bruce, the sonar device, disabeling the building security, tracking down Joker.

In Rises, I remember him talking to Bruce about the exploding plot device.

You do realize that had he not disabled the bomb the city would've been blown to hell,cause Batman was in no position to save it at that point.

So it was Gordons biggest accomplishment in the entire series.

You talk about Fox as if we saw him sitting down and creating the armor etc with his own hands,in Rises he gave Bruce the Bat,the jamming device, leg strap,was one of the only 2 people who knew about the location of the reactor and it's security protocols.

Everything that's praised to the level of The Dark Knight will get a similarly strong backlash. If they're "overrated", they are likewise overBErated. This is true for anything.

I will say I think Rises gets an unfair pass because people just went into it with a TDK is the bestest thing ever, so this will be, too! state of mind, when in truth Rises has some huge, fundamental problems. To be completely honest, I think a lot of people praise The Dark Knight without understanding what it is about it that is worthy of praise. When you go "grit - check, elaborate villain monologues - check, dramatic music - check" and think those equate Rises to TDK, you will most definitely shower Rises with more love than it deserves.

Not to harp on the point and sound like a jerk, but the fact that you have a huge number of people championing The Dark Knight without grasping why they should, also means you get a large portion of naysayers that have no reasonable arguments to argue against - thus birthing the hands being thrown in the air and movie deemed "overrated".

@NazarethSavage:

I'm with Death on this one though I cannot seem to get any of my friends to agree with me. Iron Man 2 was not good. There were no good action scenes except the one at the end. That's a pretty significant flaw for an action movie. The plot was just kind of meandering, and it had no themes worth mentioning. It was okay as a setup for Avengers, I guess.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

Everything that's praised to the level of The Dark Knight will get a similarly strong backlash. If they're "overrated", they are likewise overBErated. This is true for anything.

I will say I think Rises gets an unfair pass because people just went into it with a TDK is the bestest thing ever, so this will be, too! state of mind, when in truth Rises has some huge, fundamental problems. To be completely honest, I think a lot of people praise The Dark Knight without understanding what it is about it that is worthy of praise. When you go "grit - check, elaborate villain monologues - check, dramatic music - check" and think those equate Rises to TDK, you will most definitely shower Rises with more love than it deserves.

Not to harp on the point and sound like a jerk, but the fact that you have a huge number of people championing The Dark Knight without grasping why they should, also means you get a large portion of naysayers that have no reasonable arguments to argue against - thus birthing the hands being thrown in the air and movie deemed "overrated".

No

@NazarethSavage said:

@SimonM7 said:

Everything that's praised to the level of The Dark Knight will get a similarly strong backlash. If they're "overrated", they are likewise overBErated. This is true for anything.

I will say I think Rises gets an unfair pass because people just went into it with a TDK is the bestest thing ever, so this will be, too! state of mind, when in truth Rises has some huge, fundamental problems. To be completely honest, I think a lot of people praise The Dark Knight without understanding what it is about it that is worthy of praise. When you go "grit - check, elaborate villain monologues - check, dramatic music - check" and think those equate Rises to TDK, you will most definitely shower Rises with more love than it deserves.

Not to harp on the point and sound like a jerk, but the fact that you have a huge number of people championing The Dark Knight without grasping why they should, also means you get a large portion of naysayers that have no reasonable arguments to argue against - thus birthing the hands being thrown in the air and movie deemed "overrated".

To me it's overrated because I simply didn't enjoy them and massive amounts of people are acting as if this is the greatest trilogy ever and as a Batman fan and a comic reader I don't feel the character was done enough justice for the reaction it got. The films were alright but nothing special. I didn't even see the first one all the way through because I was bored to sleep. I had to watch it on network television to see the whole thing and I had to make myself not turn it off.

That doesn't actually say anything about the films themselves, though, and you can hardly blame people for not being spot on in guessing your relationship to them. I fall asleep watching horse racing - that doesn't mean horse racing is overrated, it just means horses bore me to tears. The Nolan Batman films pay very little attention to what the Batman and Joker are in terms of established characters, and rather take a step back and interpret them both. The result is two very fascinating character studies, but obviously not fan-service to any preconceived notions. I'll definitely grant that they're not the best Batman films, because they give little attention to who the Batman is and what makes him cool in his comic book and cartoon incarnations - but that certainly doesn't diminish their success at simply being great movies. This is exactly what I mean by people praising them for the wrong reasons. They are *not* great representations of established characters, they are *not* the most satisfying THING WHERE BATMAN PUNCHES A DUDE, they're great, interesting stories extrapolated from the icons of Batman and Joker. As such, they're the work of a storyteller, not of a translator.

And as Rises proves, a storyteller that doesn't handle scale very well, because geez, that film has some MAJOR issues with basic geography and time.

What I grow tired of is people trying to discredit all opposing viewpoints by deeming them a Nolan "lover or hater." 

@entropy_aegis: Sure, disarming the bomb was crucial, but beyond that, Gordon did very little. As a character, he had no growth through the film.

In The Dark Knight, I would say Gordon and Alfred had roles that were about equally important. In Rises, Alfred's role was about the same, but Gordon did almost nothing...except the most basic requirement of his job during the brief time he was alive and yes, save the city, but those are two significant scenes in a three hour movie.

I'll concede on Fox.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@SimonM7:

I'm with you on everything you said to Simon except that I do not think Dark Knight Rises was a good film even divorced from Batman. In addition the whole time and space issues, there were a freakin' ton of plot incongruities. It had some good things going for it, but to me, it was just okay.

@k4tzm4n said:

What I grow tired of is people trying to discredit all opposing viewpoints by deeming them a Nolan "lover or hater."

Indeed...though that is really a problem much larger than the Nolan movies. It is very present in the political world. Look at the way the abortion issue is described. Those who oppose it are anti-choice and those that are against it are pro-death...at least that is the message present in the typical names of the two positions. Wordplay makes it easy not to actually think through a problem.

@NazarethSavage:

True, but the actions scenes just didn't work for me. There was the fight at the racetrack which looked cool with the whips, but though Whiplash looked menacing, Iron Man really did very little. Whiplash being defeated by a car undermined the whole scene for me. Then there was Iron Man vs. War Machine which was about as basic as could be. Punch...one character gets throw threw wall. Punch, another character lands on a piano. Yawn. The fight scene at the end where Iron Man and War Machine take on the bots was awesome, but even that was bit short for a final scene. I don't even recall any other Iron Man fights.

To each their own, but it didn't work for me.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch: The worst part, they didnt knew how to end the final fight and they end it in the most horrible way the find.

That doesn't actually say anything about the films themselves, though, and you can hardly blame people for not being spot on in guessing your relationship to them. I fall asleep watching horse racing - that doesn't mean horse racing is overrated, it just means horses bore me to tears. The Nolan Batman films pay very little attention to what the Batman and Joker are in terms of established characters, and rather take a step back and interpret them both. The result is two very fascinating character studies, but obviously not fan-service to any preconceived notions. I'll definitely grant that they're not the best Batman films, because they give little attention to who the Batman is and what makes him cool in his comic book and cartoon incarnations - but that certainly doesn't diminish their success at simply being great movies. This is exactly what I mean by people praising them for the wrong reasons. They are *not* great representations of established characters, they are *not* the most satisfying THING WHERE BATMAN PUNCHES A DUDE, they're great, interesting stories extrapolated from the icons of Batman and Joker. As such, they're the work of a storyteller, not of a translator.

And as Rises proves, a storyteller that doesn't handle scale very well, because geez, that film has some MAJOR issues with basic geography and time.

@NazarethSavage:

True, but the actions scenes just didn't work for me. There was the fight at the racetrack which looked cool with the whips, but though Whiplash looked menacing, Iron Man really did very little. Whiplash being defeated by a car undermined the whole scene for me. Then there was Iron Man vs. War Machine which was about as basic as could be. Punch...one character gets throw threw wall. Punch, another character lands on a piano. Yawn. The fight scene at the end where Iron Man and War Machine take on the bots was awesome, but even that was bit short for a final scene. I don't even recall any other Iron Man fights.

To each their own, but it didn't work for me.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

You can't please everyone, and with a franchise like Batman I always accept that everyone has their own idea of "Batman" and how he should be or act. I think what separates a hater from a critic is simply the complaints. There are some aspects of the film that I can understand people complaining about and some I can't that (to me) just comes off as nitpicking where a person's trying to find a reason to dislike the movie, like saying they changed it from the comics so it sucks.

 There are some aspects of the film that I can understand people complaining about and some I can't that (to me) just comes off as nitpicking where a person's trying to find a reason to dislike the movie, like saying they changed it from the comics so it sucks.

@NazarethSavage said:

@Nathaniel_Christopher said:

There are some aspects of the film that I can understand people complaining about and some I can't that (to me) just comes off as nitpicking where a person's trying to find a reason to dislike the movie, like saying they changed it from the comics so it sucks.

How is that nitpicking?

It's an adaptation of a work to another medium, i'd think it's obvious it wouldn't be exactly the same as the comics, that it's impossible for it to be. That also says nothing about the actual content of the film. It doesn't judge the film itself on what it actually is. So criticizing it for that aspect of it comes across as completely unnecessary. That's how I see it anyways.

It's an adaptation of a work to another medium, i'd think it's obvious it wouldn't be exactly the same as the comics, that it's impossible for it to be. That also says nothing about the actual content of the film. It doesn't judge the film itself on what it actually is. So criticizing it for that aspect of it comes across as completely unnecessary. That's how I see it anyways.

@NazarethSavage said:

@Nathaniel_Christopher said:

It's an adaptation of a work to another medium, i'd think it's obvious it wouldn't be exactly the same as the comics, that it's impossible for it to be. That also says nothing about the actual content of the film. It doesn't judge the film itself on what it actually is. So criticizing it for that aspect of it comes across as completely unnecessary. That's how I see it anyways.

It's not impossible. Have you seen Sin City,Watchmen,or 300? They are pretty damn close to the comics.

Seen the last two, but not the first and i'll agree its not absolutely impossible, but I never feel it should be expected for an adaptive work to be the same as the original. And this may just be the way I view it, because I never go into a movie (Spider-Man, Superman, Green Lantern, Batman, Iron Man, Avengers, etc.) expecting to see the same thing that I did in the comics. I'm not against it, I just don't expect it and am therefore not disappointed when it's different.

@k4tzm4n said:

What I grow tired of is people trying to discredit all opposing viewpoints by deeming them a Nolan "lover or hater."

after a while you get tired of explaining your opinion to the sea of simpletons. and even after you explain your point of view, they will still call you a hater/fanboy of something else/something insulting. that's why most use these words. they start out happy and willing to explain but after a few immature idiots they get frustrated, jadded and resort to the same tactics. sad circle.

SCENE 1

JIM: Everyone loves this movie. I hate it.

STEVE: Why, Jim?

JIM: Because I'm cool.

STEVE: You're an asshole, Jim.

Steve walks away, leaving Jim.

SCENE 2

Jim sits on a park bench and contemplates life.

I ironically hated the Nolan trilogy before it was cool to hate it.

@_Zombie_ said:

I ironically hated the Nolan trilogy before it was cool to hate it.

You hipster :P

@NazarethSavage said:

@Nathaniel_Christopher said:

It's an adaptation of a work to another medium, i'd think it's obvious it wouldn't be exactly the same as the comics, that it's impossible for it to be. That also says nothing about the actual content of the film. It doesn't judge the film itself on what it actually is. So criticizing it for that aspect of it comes across as completely unnecessary. That's how I see it anyways.

It's not impossible. Have you seen Sin City,Watchmen,or 300? They are pretty damn close to the comics.

Lies, Watchmen redesigns the costumes and change the colors, not only that, all the last part of the movie was change.

Sin City and 300 arent about Supeheroes, so there is no point to talk about those, since both of those thing are based on movies and for the same will work in a movie.

Sin City is based on noir films and 300 was a movie Frank Miller saw as a children.

It would make more sense to compare Scott Pilgrim for the type of comic book it was, but still they change many things.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch: The worst part, they didnt knew how to end the final fight and they end it in the most horrible way the find.

You know, I do not even remember how Tony beat Whiplash, so it must have been pretty lousy.

@BatWatch said:

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch: The worst part, they didnt knew how to end the final fight and they end it in the most horrible way the find.

You know, I do not even remember how Tony beat Whiplash, so it must have been pretty lousy.

It was the same ending that Ghosbusters

Lies, Watchmen redesigns the costumes and change the colors, not only that, all the last part of the movie was change.

Sin City and 300 arent about Supeheroes, so there is no point to talk about those, since both of those thing are based on movies and for the same will work in a movie.

Sin City is based on noir films and 300 was a movie Frank Miller saw as a children.

It would make more sense to compare Scott Pilgrim for the type of comic book it was, but still they change many things.

As good as the movies were, Begins and The Dark Knight are overrated, especially TDK. People call that thing the greatest comic book movie of all time. It doesn't compare AT ALL to the Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Thor, Iron Man, and many more.

@Skewer said:

Everytime I hear someone say that Christopher Nolans trilogy is overated I feel like they are doing it because its cool. It really makes me sick everytime someone says that because I hear it nearly every time.

You and me both. While the movies aren't flawless, they're still beyond epic and definitely live up to their hype.

@NazarethSavage said:

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

Lies, Watchmen redesigns the costumes and change the colors, not only that, all the last part of the movie was change.

Those are small changes. The Watchmen film was closer to it's source material than pretty much any comic adaptation film.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

Sin City and 300 arent about Supeheroes, so there is no point to talk about those, since both of those thing are based on movies and for the same will work in a movie.

They are comics though and they were released before the films based on them. They are also fantastical in nature.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

Sin City is based on noir films and 300 was a movie Frank Miller saw as a children.

And?

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

It would make more sense to compare Scott Pilgrim for the type of comic book it was, but still they change many things.

Whatever, the point was..that it's not impossible to follow the source material more closely.

1.Isnt small changes as people love to say it, those changes are huge:

• In the film Veidt's plan to create global stability is based around the exile of Dr. Manhattan. In the graphic novel Veidt's plan involves deceiving the world's governments into thinking they are under attack from extra terrestrials.
• In the film Watchmen characters display superhuman strength and endurance whilst the graphic novel emphasizes the fact that they are only human. For example there is a scene in the film where Rorschach jumps from window after which he engages the police in combat, the same scene depicted in the graphic novel shows Rorschach breaking his ankle and being easily subdued.
• The film is more violent. For example the film depicts Nite Owl and Silk Spectre fighting an army of prisoners whilst rescuing Rorschach from prison. In the graphic novel this scene consists of one panel during which the characters punch two unsuspecting enemies.
• The film is less morally ambiguous than the graphic novel. For example a scene in the film where Rorschach confronts a suspected child killer contains dialogue making it clear that the man is guilty, the graphic novel does not contain this dialogue making Rorschach's actions less justified.

Huge changes.

2 and 3. Are based on movies, in nature are movies, beside arent comic book that has been there for ages, i mean you want a movie that has over 50 years of comic books history, not even the Animated Series did that and had years to do it.

Besides that if you are going to make an adaptation, you have to adapt thins into the media you are moving.

Arkham City would never work as a movie.

Is like the people who hate The Lord of the Rings movies, because dont have all the book en every movie.

4. Scott Pilgrim follows the source material, yeah but still changes things, but still Batman punching people and thing in the air describe the sound of the punch or the move, would be pretty lame.

Diference of Scott Pilgrim

• Lisa Miller and several other characters do not appear in the movie although Lisa Miller does appear in theanimated short.
• Where the book series takes place over a year, the film takes place over a couple weeks.
• In the graphic novel series, Scott begins as a 23 year old and eventually turns 24. In the movie, Scott is 22 and because the movie takes place over a shorter period of time, he never has a birthday.
• Ramona changes her hairstyle eight times throughout the book series, where in the movies her hair color is changed only three times.
• Scott doesn't receive a letter from Patel, only the e-mail.
• In the party scene where Scott meets Ramona, he (instead of shaping out her hair) draws a rough doodle when asking Comeau about her. The picture was actually drawn by Bryan Lee O'Malley.
• The scene where Scott urinates and his Pee Bar depletes is now in one of the dream sequences, instead of when he was at Sneaky Dee's (a place not in the movie). Also, the Pee Bar's design differs from the movie and comic. In the comic, it simply reads, "Pee", and it is longer and is designed to look more like a bar from a retro game. In the movie, it reads, "Pee Bar", and it is smaller and is just a simple yellow bar.
• During the first evil ex battle, Matthew Patel originally had the line "That doesn't even rhyme!" In the movie, Scott says this.
• Patel's loss is less humiliating in the movie. Instead of being an easy win for Scott, Patel actually gives Scott a run for his money before being defeated (he actually lands several punches on Scott).
• Crash and the Boys do not perform the songs Zog or Last Song Kills Audience (though the latter appears in a deleted scene). As such, the audience is conscious to witness Scott's battle with Patel (except Knives who fainted when Sex Bob-omb started playing).
• Scott's friends don't help him out in his fight against Patel, as was shown in the comic.
• During the fight between Scott Pilgrim and Matthew Patel, Scott's friends are surprised by Scott's ability to fight. In the book, Scott's fighting skills are already known to his friends.
• Crash and the Boys are actually incinerated in the movie by a stray fireball from Patel. As such, they do not return involume 3 as The Boys! and Crash!! to assist Scott.
• Patel drops $2.40 instead of $2.10 in comic.
• After the fight against Patel, Scott was seen talking to Ramona on a bus when she told Scott about her exes. In the comic book this took place on the TTC subway, presumably Yonge line northbound as its destination reads Finch station.
• Knives Chau dyes part of her hair red in Book 2. In the film, she dyes part of her hair blue to match Ramona's.
• In Book 2, Knives fought Ramona for the first time in a reference library. In the movie, they only fought in theChaos Theatre during Scott and Gideon's battle.
• Lucas Lee in the books was a decent guy who didn't strive for the defeat of Scott. In the movie he is more of an asshole, never giving Pilgrim the break he offered, instead tricking him into letting his guard down so he could punch him.
• Scott's fight against Lucas Lee started with a battle against his stunt doubles in the movie, but Lee still does the dare.
• Scott does not receive the Mithril Skateboard after defeating Lucas Lee.
• The plot involving Todd cheating on Envy with Lynette is left out.
• Knives is punched by Todd Ingram instead of Lynette Guycott.
• After Todd starts fighting Scott, he throws Scott through the wall of Lee's Palace into the back alley, and after a brief scene, vegan police immediately arrives and strips Todd of psychic power, ending the fight.
• The backstory behind how Scott and Envy met was removed.
• Honest Ed's is in the movie, but can only be seen in the background in Pizza Pizza after the fight with Todd Ingram
• The Vegan Police are introduced in a different way. Scott tricks Todd into drinking a cup of coffee containing half and half, which then causes the Vegan police to come crashing through the wall of Lee's Palace to remove his Vegan powers.
• Scott tricks Todd into drinking half-and-half. In the book, Todd drank it on his own knowingly.
• Mr. Chau is never seen in the movie
• Scott's fight with Roxie Richter doesn't involve defeating her with the Power Of Love, which he first gains in the climax.
• In the movie, Roxie's name is spelled Roxy, possibly a reference to her being the 4th evil ex (Roxy is 4 letters).
• When Scott finds out about Roxie and Ramona's relationship, we see a meter in his head which goes from, "No clue" to, "Gets it". In the comic, a baby chicken hatches from his brain when he finds out.
• Part of the fight against Roxie involved Ramona controlling Scott's movements to attack. This was based off a 2006 FCBD (Free Comic Book Day) comic involving poster copies of movie star Winifred Hailey.
• Roxie does not explode into little furry creatures like the series, instead bursts into coins.
• Scott meets Roxie (evil ex number four) for the first time in the movie before fighting Todd (evil ex number three).
• Scott earns a Extra Life after defeating the Katayanagi Twins in the movie, rather than earning it from Todd Ingram.
• In the movie, Roxie was defeated after Scott poked the back of her knees. In Book 3, he does the same thing to Envy, except only paralyzing her. Also, the battle with Roxie occurs at the after party for the The Clash At Demonhead show.
• Instead of fighting Envy with a hammer, Ramona uses the hammer to fight her evil ex Roxy.
• Scott's fight with the twins is a music battle, with Sex Bob-Omb fighting the twins' electronic music project.
  • The twins don't speak, either. (this is due to the fact the actors don't speak English)
  • Scott's battles with the twins' robots are also omitted from the movie.
• In Book 5, Ramona confronted Scott about whether he cheated on her with Knives or vice versa. In the movie, Scott accidentally blurted that he cheated on Knives with Ramona.
• Sex Bob-omb never splits up and Gideon becomes their sponsor, although Scott is replaced by Young Neil.
• Scott remembers less of the actual truth of how he and Kim began dating.
• Instead of random gigs, Sex Bob-omb are involved in a band tournament for a record deal.
• Ramona never receives the Power of Love during Scott's fight with Gideon.
• Gideon never steals the Power of Love from Scott. Instead, it breaks and Scott (instead of getting The Power of Understanding like in the comics) gets a different sword called the Power of Self-Respect, which also breaks during the fight.
• In the movie, Scott came to terms with his own faults and thus decides to fight for himself against Gideon, gaining the sword "Power of Self-Respect". In Book 6, he admitted and understood that he was no better than Gideon in terms of relationship, thus earning him the sword "The Power of Understanding".
• Gideon doesn't have his backup katana hidden inside Envy's dress. Instead he uses a seven-seal hand technique to summon it.
• There is no mention of Gideon tampering with Scott's memories.
• Scott and Negascott's fight doesn't happen and Negascott appears after the fight against Gideon but even then, the two get along. Their fight seems akin to fighting games in which after facing the last boss you then 'face yourself' by then fighting a clone of your character, which is different from the purpose of their fight in the comics.
• In Book 6, Ramona was absent during the fight between Gideon and Scott, until Scott was revived due to hisExtra Life. In the movie, Gideon held Ramona hostage via the mind chip, luring Scott to the final battle.
• In the movie, Ramona knees Gideon in the balls whilst saying "Let's both be girls." In the books, it is Envy who does the same exact thing to Todd, whilst Ramona never does this.
• In the climax of the fight against Gideon, Scott and Knives defeated him in the movie, rather than Scott and Ramona doing so in Book 6.
• In the original version of the film, Scott actually ended up with Knives instead of Ramona. This alternate ending was scrapped because of Bryan Lee O'malley's decision to end the story with Scott getting Ramona, rather than his oiginal plan to have Scott end up alone.
• Stephen Stills doesn't admit he's gay to his friends in the movie.
• Joseph doesn't appear in the movie and thus there's no relationship between him and Stephen Stills.
• The Glow from volume 6 isn't mentioned in the film. Also the details about Subspace are quickly mentioned when Ramona delivers Scott his package, and they flirt with going through Subspace a few times in the movie, but it is not entirely explained nor used as any plot points like it is in the comics.
• The Subspace Suitcase is not explained either. The only thing we see about the Subspace Suitcase in the movie is just Ramona pulling her hammer out of there.
• Gideon's 6 other exes are not in the movie.
• In the movie Gideon bursts into 7,000,000,000 coins instead of 7,777,777 coins.
• In the Movie, instead of using "The Glow" to tamper with Scott's and Ramona's emotions, Gideon uses an electronic device stuck to the back of Ramona's neck.
• Gideon, the cat that Ramona owned that ran away in Book 5 but Scott found and kept is never mentioned or seen in the movie. He has a quick cameo on Scott's mug of cocoa, but that's it.
• When Gideon impales Scott, he does not bleed at all, whereas in the comic, he does.
• When Scott comes back using the 1-Up he got earlier, instead of immediately coming back to where he was when he died, he has to start over from the part where he got the 1-Up (although it is fast forwarded to the beginning of the fight).
• Wallace & Jimmy's kiss took part after Crash and the Boys played Last Song Kills Audience in the books. In the Movie, they kissed after Scott defeated Matthew Patel.
• In Book 4, Roxie's ambush took place at night while Scott is leaving his new job. In the movie, it takes place in the daytime and the subplot of Scott getting a job is not used.
• The fight against Todd takes place over several days in the books, including their first meeting, the battle at Honest Ed's, and their final battle at Lee's Palace. In the movie, it takes place through all the evening they first meet.
• Lynette has no significant role in the movie. Thus Todd never cheats on Envy.
• Envy's role is much shorter in the movie then the books. She is never seen again after Todd is beaten, meaning she has no ties with Gideon and isn't present at the final battle.
• In the movie, Kim never moves to a new apartment, or back to her parent's house. Scott also doesn't go to visit her on his "wilderness sabbatical," which also didn't take place.
• The entire beach party chapter isn't in the movie, and as such, Kim and Knives don't make out drunk.
• Julie doesn't throw tons of themed parties in her "amazing apartment" which is never mentioned.
• Mobile, Wallace's boyfriend, isn't seen in the movie. Instead, Wallace's boyfriend is Other Scott.
• Wallace does inform Scott that he wants him to move out, but Scott never leaves to go stay at Stephen Stills', Lisa's, etc.
• Instead of the custom drawn icon for the extra life in the book, the film adaptation uses a sprite of Scott's head from the official video game.
• Scott never gets his job at the Happy Avocado in the movie. The place is never mentioned and Dominique, the manager, isn't in the film.

Thst why is called and adaptation.

Besides Batman has over 70 years of comics, those things are graphic novels and dont last ages and redefine their characters every now and then.

There isnt many writters and many vision for a character, for the same want a Batma movie that follows the same logic it would last 10 000 hours.

@NazarethSavage:

Yeah, I thought Batman's fight with the SWAT team at the end of The Dark Knight was way better than any of Bruce's fights with Bane in Rises.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch said:

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch: The worst part, they didnt knew how to end the final fight and they end it in the most horrible way the find.

You know, I do not even remember how Tony beat Whiplash, so it must have been pretty lousy.

It was the same ending that Ghosbusters

Oddly enough, I've never seen Ghostbusters.

scott pilgrim sucked ass, and if that was close to its source material then the comic must of suck ass as well. also Heath ledger as the joker was amazing he was how the joker is suppose to be, and Bale is a bad ass, now TDKR wasnt my favorite of the movies but it was a good ending for Nolans work, but he did get a lot of his stories from frank millers year one and dark knight returns not to say he copied them word for word, but he used them as inspiration, which is a hell of a lot better then older batman movies shall we go back to batman having nipples and bright neon lights over every piece of equipment?

@BatWatch said:

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch said:

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch: The worst part, they didnt knew how to end the final fight and they end it in the most horrible way the find.

You know, I do not even remember how Tony beat Whiplash, so it must have been pretty lousy.

It was the same ending that Ghosbusters

Oddly enough, I've never seen Ghostbusters.

WHAT!!!!!

@BatWatch:Please take some time and watch the movie, if you dont watch it then the terrorist win man

@NazarethSavage:

Yeah, I thought Batman's fight with the SWAT team at the end of The Dark Knight was way better than any of Bruce's fights with Bane in Rises.

Isnt small changes as people love to say it, those changes are huge

Besides Batman has over 70 years of comics, those things are graphic novels and dont last ages and redefine their characters every now and then.

There isnt many writters and many vision for a character, for the same want a Batma movie that follows the same logic it would last 10 000 hours.

scott pilgrim sucked ass, and if that was close to its source material then the comic must of suck ass as well. 

@TheCannon: thor was a horrible movie it wasnt even in the same league as the other movies you mentioned.

@havoc1201 said:

scott pilgrim sucked ass, and if that was close to its source material then the comic must of suck ass as well.

Uh, eh heh heh... no.

@SmashBrawler: pretty sure IMO it sucked ass

@havoc1201: Well, the movie's debatable (I loved it), but the comic can't suck ass for various reasons:

1. It sold a lot for an indie comic.
2. It received a lot of critical acclaim.
3. It got its own movie adaptation.

And this isn't the 90's, when studios would chose to adapt random comics just to have a comic book movie in their hands; after stuff like Barb Wire and Tank Girl, studios have grown a little bit wiser. We're derailing the thread here, anyway.

@NazarethSavage said:

People aren't raving about horse racing though. Your comparison between horse racing and Nolan's Batman films doesn't work. The films aren't overrated because I didn't think they were that great, they are overrated because people give them more credit than I think they are worth. It doesn't really matter as far as how people feel about those films what people are praising those films for, it's all subjective but I'm not going to change my mind. Nolan did very well writing villains. Joker and Bane were two of the best depictions of villains in a superhero related film i've ever seen (although I think Nicholson's Joker was better than Ledger's) but as far as Batman himself, I wasn't impressed with Bale on any level and since the movie is ABOUT him, that's kind of important.

I didn't compare Nolan's Batman to horse racing, I compared your falling asleep when watching Batman to my falling asleep watching horse racing - implying that those reactions don't say anything about quality, just preference. Saying I fall asleep during Antiques Roadshow obviously isn't relevant to whether antiques are worthwhile or interesting, it just means I don't see the appeal. Likewise when you say Nolan writes villains well, I think you're wide off the mark of where the real appeal of those movies lies. Sure, there are people that go WOAH, BATMAN PUNCHES A MAN! and reckon that's the reason they're great, but as I was saying I think those people are wrong. They're perfectly allowed to enjoy the movie for whatever reason, of course, but that is definitely not the primary strength of those movies. Putting that argument out there only serves to let people yell "overrated!" because they've never really had the noteworthy parts highlighted to them.

The main issue (of a few) Nolan's Batman faces is that it's not a terribly good Batman as a character film, but I already explained why I think that in my previous posts.

@BatWatch said:

@SimonM7:

I'm with you on everything you said to Simon except that I do not think Dark Knight Rises was a good film even divorced from Batman. In addition the whole time and space issues, there were a freakin' ton of plot incongruities. It had some good things going for it, but to me, it was just okay.

Oh yeah, I could go on for a couple of pages about why I thought TDKR was poor. I think the most heartbreaking thing about the way it was poor, however, was that it brought up a lot of themes I thought were fitting for a finale. It just bungled the execution of them horribly, and I attribute that to Nolan's inability to make coherent films on that scale.

Nolan tells stories on an emotional and philosophical level more than on a cold, hard, concrete level, but as his movies grow in scale and get more visual, it becomes a problem. When the crux of your movie is spelled out in hard, physical terms like TDKR, and you sometimes only circumvent the crux on an emotional level, it makes no god damn sense. TDKR spoiler: For example, when Bruce teleports back into Gotham after climbing out of the prison, the philosophical/emotional point of that is that Bruce Wayne has crawled his way back from a dark emotional place - he has reconstructed and redefined himself again. Batman - who needed to be *more* than a man - now needed to be just a man again to succeed. He needed to feel again in order to climb out of the cave, a mirror image of the scene in Begins where he falls into a cave and subsequently becomes The Batman. At that point, Bruce has already stripped himself of the mantle, and the ending isn't as out of left field as it may ultimately seem.

But, of course, when you're following the plot and those scenes are put into the context of an overall predicament that is extremely literal (unlike TDK, where Nolan dealt with clashing philosophies, and that was played out entirely on a philosophical level at the end) it basically breaks the movie. And it does break the movie. This really isn't a case where you can rationalise away the gaping chasms that are the plotholes, or simply the way it mishandles large chunks of the cast. By the end of it, there isn't a single aspect that feels thoroughly satisfying, not even the thematic ones, which would've been of at least some comfort. :(

I didn't compare Nolan's Batman to horse racing, I compared your falling asleep when watching Batman to my falling asleep watching horse racing - implying that those reactions don't say anything about quality, just preference. 

Likewise when you say Nolan writes villains well, I think you're wide off the mark of where the real appeal of those movies lies. 

The main issue (of a few) Nolan's Batman faces is that it's not a terribly good Batman as a character film, but I already explained why I think that in my previous posts.

@DeathpooltheT1000:

I've lived a very deprived life.

@havoc1201 said:

@BatWatch:Please take some time and watch the movie, if you dont watch it then the terrorist win man

Maybe I am conspiring with the terrorists. Surprise plot twist!!!

@NazarethSavage:

A lot of people talk about how cool the sewer fight with Bane was...but I'm not feeling it.

This is literally all I remember of that fight scene. They were locked in a section of sewer together. They faced each other as thugs watched. Selina looked kind of sad at one point. Famous back breaking pose that looked way cooler in the comics. That's it. I do not remember any of the back and forth of blows between the two. Nothing. I could remember lots of action from the fight scenes in the Dark Knight, but there have been so many conversations I have had with people where they reference scenes from Rises where I have to squint my eyes real hard before I vaguely remember the scene. (shrugs shoulders)

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@SimonM7:

I agree that the Dark Knight Rises was beautiful thematically. Despite the bundled delivery, I still felt the themes showed through pretty well. That and the acting always gain highest praise from me, but I disagree that Nolan is unable to pull off films of that magnitude. Rises was about the same magnitude as Inception and the Dark Knight, and I loved both of those, especially The Dark Knight.

I do see what you are saying though that the movie makes sense when you just look at the themes and not the plot. Interesting analysis.

@NazarethSavage:

A lot of people talk about how cool the sewer fight with Bane was...but I'm not feeling it.

This is literally all I remember of that fight scene. They were locked in a section of sewer together. They faced each other as thugs watched. Selina looked kind of sad at one point. Famous back breaking pose that looked way cooler in the comics. That's it. I do not remember any of the back and forth of blows between the two. Nothing. I could remember lots of action from the fight scenes in the Dark Knight, but there have been so many conversations I have had with people where they reference scenes from Rises where I have to squint my eyes real hard before I vaguely remember the scene. (shrugs shoulders)

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@NazarethSavage: So the fact they change the last "enemy" and made it less ambigous is not a huge change?

Are you nuts, Watchmen is about morality the morallity change is a huge change.

Burton made Batman kill people and enjoy it, as much as people want to live in the past and say the past was better times, this is an example ofe people living in a lie.

Burton Batman was the worst Batman of all.

@NazarethSavage said:

@BatWatch said:

@NazarethSavage:

A lot of people talk about how cool the sewer fight with Bane was...but I'm not feeling it.

This is literally all I remember of that fight scene. They were locked in a section of sewer together. They faced each other as thugs watched. Selina looked kind of sad at one point. Famous back breaking pose that looked way cooler in the comics. That's it. I do not remember any of the back and forth of blows between the two. Nothing. I could remember lots of action from the fight scenes in the Dark Knight, but there have been so many conversations I have had with people where they reference scenes from Rises where I have to squint my eyes real hard before I vaguely remember the scene. (shrugs shoulders)

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

Well there's no doubt that it wasn't that intriguing but if I had to choose one 1v1 fight that Batman had throughout all the films that I thought was the best, that would be it. The fight with Ra's was very unimpressive for Batman and the Joker isn't really a fighter.

I guess in terms of physical battle, it was the best 1v1 battle.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@NazarethSavage: So the fact they change the last "enemy" and made it less ambigous is not a huge change?

Are you nuts, Watchmen is about morality the morallity change is a huge change.

Burton made Batman kill people and enjoy it, as much as people want to live in the past and say the past was better times, this is an example ofe people living in a lie.

Burton Batman was the worst Batman of all.

Really? How do you see Burton's Batman as worse than Schumacher Batman?

@BatWatch said:

@NazarethSavage said:

@BatWatch said:

@NazarethSavage:

A lot of people talk about how cool the sewer fight with Bane was...but I'm not feeling it.

This is literally all I remember of that fight scene. They were locked in a section of sewer together. They faced each other as thugs watched. Selina looked kind of sad at one point. Famous back breaking pose that looked way cooler in the comics. That's it. I do not remember any of the back and forth of blows between the two. Nothing. I could remember lots of action from the fight scenes in the Dark Knight, but there have been so many conversations I have had with people where they reference scenes from Rises where I have to squint my eyes real hard before I vaguely remember the scene. (shrugs shoulders)

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

Well there's no doubt that it wasn't that intriguing but if I had to choose one 1v1 fight that Batman had throughout all the films that I thought was the best, that would be it. The fight with Ra's was very unimpressive for Batman and the Joker isn't really a fighter.

I guess in terms of physical battle, it was the best 1v1 battle.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@NazarethSavage: So the fact they change the last "enemy" and made it less ambigous is not a huge change?

Are you nuts, Watchmen is about morality the morallity change is a huge change.

Burton made Batman kill people and enjoy it, as much as people want to live in the past and say the past was better times, this is an example ofe people living in a lie.

Burton Batman was the worst Batman of all.

Really? How do you see Burton's Batman as worse than Schumacher Batman?

Schumacher gets flak,Burton gets praised even though he mishandled the characters equally.It's just Burtons movies have that dark tone that makes people ignore his characterizations.

@entropy_aegis:

I'm not saying that the Burton films were without problems, but I felt I could respect his vision, distorted as it was. I thought it was a cool Gothic version of the characters. By the same token, I can appreciate Batman Forever as a fun, goofy, sixties-ish interpretation of Batman, but Batman and Robin was just crap no matter how you cut it in my view.

@BatWatch: @entropy_aegis: Like entropy say, it was darker, but the Batman is the main aspect of the movies.

Characterization is the thing you should care more, it was the reason why Tas was so great.

@DeathpooltheT1000 said:

@BatWatch: @entropy_aegis: Like entropy say, it was darker, but the Batman is the main aspect of the movies.

Characterization is the thing you should care more, it was the reason why Tas was so great.

Hmmm. Nah, I can appreciate a movie even if the characters are messed up at least to a certain extent. I understand what you are saying though. Bruce quitting the role of Batman is one of the character screw ups that ruined TDKR for me.

My problems with the films:

Batman Begins:

Reducing Henri Ducard to an alias.

Omitting the detective aspect of the character

Dumbing down Bruce so he couldn't understand what Lucius said about the antidote

Murdering Ras al ghul

The Dark Knight:

Having the joker applying makeup to get white skin

Not having Batman create the Joker, meaning no symbiotic relationship

Having Batman kill Two-Face

Giving Two-Face such a minor part

Omitting the detective aspect again, having a computer do all the work for him

The Dark Knight Rises:

Having Batman stop being Batman because of a fling...not the love of his life, a fling. Completely out of character

Having Batman hand all of his shit to a rookie cop

Having him underestimate Bane...out of character

Bane's portrayal. It was poorly done IMO.

Have Bruce Wayne maybe die.

Catwoman as just a thief...dumb backstory of wanting to start anew.

Bruce Wayne, a celebrity, just sitting in a cafe in Italy without being recognized after possibly dying.

I still enjoyed them, don't get me wrong. I just don't think they were true to the characters really. Oh, and the Batsuit sucked in pretty much all of them.

@MuyJingo said:

My problems with the films:

Batman Begins:

Reducing Henri Ducard to an alias.

Omitting the detective aspect of the character

Dumbing down Bruce so he couldn't understand what Lucius said about the antidote

Murdering Ras al ghul

The Dark Knight:

Having the joker applying makeup to get white skin

Not having Batman create the Joker, meaning no symbiotic relationship

Having Batman kill Two-Face

Giving Two-Face such a minor part

Omitting the detective aspect again, having a computer do all the work for him

The Dark Knight Rises:

Having Batman stop being Batman because of a fling...not the love of his life, a fling. Completely out of character

Having Batman hand all of his shit to a rookie cop

Having him underestimate Bane...out of character

Bane's portrayal. It was poorly done IMO.

Have Bruce Wayne maybe die.

Catwoman as just a thief...dumb backstory of wanting to start anew.

Bruce Wayne, a celebrity, just sitting in a cafe in Italy without being recognized after possibly dying.

I still enjoyed them, don't get me wrong. I just don't think they were true to the characters really. Oh, and the Batsuit sucked in pretty much all of them.

All these complaints point towards the fact that you're a guy more concerned with aesthetics than substance,

you complain about Bruce Wayne being unrecognized but tell me could you recognize a billionaire Arabic Sheikh if he sitting in front you in Western clothing?

Bane's portrayal which used Knightfall,Legacy,No Mans Land and Secret Six(that's like 85% of his stories) is poor?

Never realized Catwoman was supposed to be something other than a thief

He underestimated Bane back then

Have Bruce Wayne may die? seriously WTF is this?

He gave up because the city no longer needed him after the Dent act not because of Rachel and she was far cry from a fling.