The Trilogy Trend

If they used Joker's full potential then the film would have been rated R. As for the rest of the villains, Two-Face had very little screen time then dies, and Catwoman didn't get much screen either. Hell, Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was better developed than Anne Hathaway's, so there are no excuses.

Mecha wrote:

If they used Joker's full potential then the film would have been rated R. As for the rest of the villains, Two-Face had very little screen time then dies, and Catwoman didn't get much screen either. Hell, Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was better developed than Anne Hathaway's, so there are no excuses.

Look at the condition you just set. I'm saying the same thing. If Catwoman and Two Face were used to their full potential, this wouldn't be a 2 hour movie, rather a TV series.

I meant Nolan never took advantage of these characters like the older films did. It doesn't have to be to it's very fullest, but enough to do the character justice.

The 3rd movie always sucks because the film makers have already made so much fucking money off the first 2 that they just stop giving a shit. OR they're not sure if there is going to be a 4th one so they cram a bunch of shit into the 3rd one. I don't like any of those 3rd films you listed and I'm never in the future going to think back and say any of them were a good trilogy.

Mecha wrote:

I meant Nolan never took advantage of these characters like the older films did. It doesn't have to be to it's very fullest, but enough to do the character justice.

The old Batman movies? A lot of characters in them were terrible.

Oh fuck it. All I know is, these characters have a lot more to offer. The Joker and Bane were the only two villains that got the respect they deserved.

Well that's cause they were the main villains. The other villians were used to more dynamic to the Batman world in the movies. I think the only villain done bad was Scarecrow.

If anything Ra's al Ghul is the real main villain in The Dark Knight trilogy. But he was treated poorly. The only reason people even like Ra's al Ghul in the film is because he's played by Liam Neeson. Nolan should have brought him back to life in The Dark Knight Rises, so that he can be the threat he was created to be.

Ra's was great! I like how they explained his "immortality". The only villain I think they could have done more with was Scarecrow, but even then Scarecrow is a b-list villain. The only thing older Batman films took advantage of was the over the topness. Also making Penguin into Killer Croc in Batman Returns was as bad as what they did to Bane in Batman & Robin. Also Ra's does comeback in TDKR, even if it was just a dream.

Mecha wrote:

If anything Ra's al Ghul is the real main villain in The Dark Knight trilogy. But he was treated poorly. The only reason people even like Ra's al Ghul in the film is because he's played by Liam Neeson. Nolan should have brought him back to life in The Dark Knight Rises, so that he can be the threat he was created to be.

So is Nolan not allowed to take any artistic liberty with the character? It was clear from the start that his trilogy wouldn't have any supernatural elements to them, so bringing him back to life would be very out-of-place.

Of course Nolan has every right to make changes if he wants. However, that doesn't mean he improved the story or characters by doing so. Ra's al Ghul is one of Batman's greatest enemies, but he comes off as a cliche movie villain in the film. Not only that, but he also had little screen time and went out like a bitch. Same thing happen with Talia al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises as well. Also the plan to destroy Gotham City didn't make a whole lot of sense, since Ra's al Ghul was dead.

Ra's al Ghul coming back from the dead wouldn't have been realistic, but it would have made the story a bit better.