The Nolan films respected the audiences? That's why they had such blatant plot holes and ankle deep faux philosophical bullshit?
Characterization in those movies was pretty terrible, specially Christian Bale's Swatman. People praise the writing in those movies but half the dialogue is characters giving speeches and over explaining what they are about to do. I don't get where did you get that those movies "don't explain things to the audience" when half of Clown Kobain's dialogue is explaining himself over and over.
Right. YOU don't get it. Doesn't mean it's not there.
Was any of what Ledger Joker said ACTUALLY what he was doing? No. Never. Barring aside the one-liner comments he made which he followed up on within a minute of saying it (example, "No no, I shoot the bus driver." and "I will make THIS pencil... disappear!"), his actual exposition was ALWAYS bullshit. When he described himself as a dog chasing cars and that he was not a man with plans, it was clearly bullshit, because he was planning all kinds of things, and he even freely admitted that Harvey was his planned "Ace in the hole". When he said he would blow up the boats at midnight, did he? No. He was using it as a threat to get them to blow each other up. Though he did have the means to blow them both up, it was never his expected course of action, because he was sure it would never come to that. When he told his "origin story" about how he got his scars, THAT was total bullshit, because he kept giving conflicting accounts (a subtle nod to
The Killing Joke) so his actual origins remained a mystery. When he gave Batman the two addresses of Harvey and Rachel, he told them Rachel was where Harvey was and that Harvey was where Rachel was, so that no matter who anyone tried to save, they would ALWAYS fail.
Ledger's Joker didn't given lengthy speeches because they were delivered to the audience to explain what was happening in the film. He gave lengthy speeches so the audience could see how what he promised was never what he fulfilled. If anything, they were tests to see if the audience was paying attention. TESTING your audience is a sign of respect. Lengthily and deliberately spelling things out for you, by contrast, is a sign of blatant disrespect. Like how painfully one must explain the obvious to another, for instance.....
The only major Nolan film that was heavy on audience-addressing exposition was
Inception, and that was because the plot HINGED entirely on the audience understanding this dream sharing idea. Even then, it wasn't full-blown exposition, because they TOTALLY skipped out on all the important details... like how I.V.'s allow people to share their consciousnesses with one another, for instance, or for that matter how the machine worked AT ALL. Those weren't important. The audience didn't need to be babied by the specifics of exactly how this or that was going to go down. All they needed to know was, "We have this convenient plot device. Here's a single line of dialog that explains away a plausibly acceptable reason for this plot device's existence. Just know that this is what this plot device does; that's all that matters." That's not heavy exposition, that's establishing a premise. It required some level of exposition to accomplish this, but it's not the same as characters speaking to each other in such a way that a discerning viewer can tell that what they're REALLY doing is talking directly to them and saying, "This is what's happening, stupid, cause we know you can't follow along unless we tell you that."
That's the difference between respecting your audience and treating your audience like children. Bale having the worst Batman voice in history has nothing to do with it. Shitty gravel-gargling though it may have been, I'd take that over Clooney speaking exactly like Clooney whether he's being Wayne or Batman. Cause THAT is disrespect of your audience. Not very dissimilar to the entire premise of Superman's "secret identity", for that matter.....
I never get this dumb squeeziness about "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" american people have with movies... it's a fight between two super beings while a terraforming device is destroying earth..... what where you expecting to happen? Zod and Superman to stop and calculate the monetary cost of their battle and agree to limit the destruction?
I guess that explains why you like the look of the film so much more... their lack of respect for you is justified.
The "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" complaint isn't a LITERAL complaint about damage per capita, you dunce. It's a multi-faceted analysis of flaws in the film, from the perspective that Superman is idealistic to such a level that he would do his best to avoid causing undue harm to a city, if it could be helped, to the fact that the film thought indiscriminate damage being taken to ridiculous levels would make it "better" when all it actually did was more of that "over-the-top, and not in a good way" that I mentioned. It was spectacle without substance. It was MASSIVE damage that had all manner of consequences completely brushed off as nothing more than "it looks cool".
The same people who complain about "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" also point out that the film had unnecessary time-sink filler in the form of (and I quote) "hentai tentacles" coming from the machine. Why were their "hentai tentacles" engaging Superman? Was it compelling? Was it advancing the story? Did it add to the drama? Did it help sell the urgency of the scene? No, it was just to soak up some time. It was just random nanotech-ish tentacles out of nowhere, and of course Superman can't fight against it... for about 2 minutes... then he can... for reasons.
Also Bats V Supes seems to be picking up from the aftermath of all that, with even "alternate perspective" versions of the events of man of steel.
Whatever gave you that idea? Was it the bright, blazing neon sign in the "Frank-Miller-Meets-9/11" scene I already mentioned, which read in gigantic letters, "THIS IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN SUPERMAN AND ZOD FROM THE PREVIOUS FILM" by any chance? Cause for the life of me, I couldn't IMAGINE how you arrived to such a daring conclusion!
Was the sarcasm thick enough? I hope it was obvious. Cause it was supposed to be obvious.
