The Realism Debate thread

[The Squirrel]

Oh, yeah, but nothing compared to the Nolanites who would probably accept a two year old with baby powder on his face, ketchup on his lips, and green crayon in his hair in the guise of "realism." I'm not a Burtonite, but the extremists on both sides are full of crap.

Just like Republicans and Democrats!

Funny how you can never escape Extremists.

[CaptainClown]

Omfg Burton Did A Better Job Then Nolan!

Omfg Nolan Made A Gritty Realistic Batman!

Omg Burtons Joker Didn't Have Make Up!

Omg Its Realistic!

[8atman]

Wow last time I rush a thread trying to leave work, lost track of time and didn't want to not post it before I left. Sorry for any confusion, it is a bit jumbled (didn't even finish the title).

What I'm saying is do you think it's possible that Nolan is going to put one big final twist in his version or story of Batman? A twist that shows us Batman's failure? Realisticaly your not going to get the main players of this new franchise to stick with this for years to come pumping out movie after movie. So why not let Nolan tell his story and if there is still life in the Batman series give it another revamp. They are obviously not afraid to do that if someone else will be portraying Batman in the JLA movie. Plus Bale hinted they should hold off till the end of their series. Would seem to me that there is an end at sight.

My guess is Nolan has an end to go with his begining of the story that he's telling. Nolan isn't the type to have one of those happy endings, especially if he's giving some realism to it. In interviews anytime the character of Batman or Bruce is talked about its mentioned how this is a tragic tale. The idea of becoming Batman wasn't brought forth by sane rationalizing, this was an act of desperation or borderline insanity. For a character to go to those depths it's very likely he'd meet a tragic end. With all this talk about Bruce's identity being at risk it might be the opening of a door to a tragic end for him.

Is that better?

[The Dark Guybrush]

Wow last time I rush a thread trying to leave work, lost track of time and didn't want to not post it before I left. Sorry for any confusion, it is a bit jumbled (didn't even finish the title).

What I'm saying is do you think it's possible that Nolan is going to put one big final twist in his version or story of Batman? A twist that shows us Batman's failure? Realisticaly your not going to get the main players of this new franchise to stick with this for years to come pumping out movie after movie. So why not let Nolan tell his story and if there is still life in the Batman series give it another revamp. They are obviously not afraid to do that if someone else will be portraying Batman in the JLA movie. Plus Bale hinted they should hold off till the end of their series. Would seem to me that there is an end at sight.

My guess is Nolan has an end to go with his begining of the story that he's telling. Nolan isn't the type to have one of those happy endings, especially if he's giving some realism to it. In interviews anytime the character of Batman or Bruce is talked about its mentioned how this is a tragic tale. The idea of becoming Batman wasn't brought forth by sane rationalizing, this was an act of desperation or borderline insanity. For a character to go to those depths it's very likely he'd meet a tragic end. With all this talk about Bruce's identity being at risk it might be the opening of a door to a tragic end for him.

Is that better?

again, batman will not meet an untimely demise in a nolan film.
the whole point of the batman character is, to me, a symbol of hope when there should be no hope. bruce wayne suffered something tragic, and overcame it the only way he could.. nolan's nailed the character pretty straight on the head so far, i doubt he'll muck things up for the sake of having a "twist ending".. tragic figure or not, BATMAN WILL NOT DIE IN THESE FILMS. christ. i understand what you are saying but it's not making a whole heck of a lotta sense..

[fcrowelle06]

I Am Iron Man!!!

[Mr. Socko]

There is certainly an aspect of "realism" present in much of Begins. But when people say it means Batman might die or such and such villain must be changed in a 180 to fit into this batman universe, it's ridiculous.

[8atman]

again, batman will not meet an untimely demise in a nolan film.
the whole point of the batman character is, to me, a symbol of hope when there should be no hope. bruce wayne suffered something tragic, and overcame it the only way he could.. nolan's nailed the character pretty straight on the head so far, i doubt he'll muck things up for the sake of having a "twist ending".. tragic figure or not, BATMAN WILL NOT DIE IN THESE FILMS. christ. i understand what you are saying but it's not making a whole heck of a lotta sense..

I'm not even meaning death when I say Batman's demise, maybe he just can't be Batman anymore but he still makes a difference. I didn't think it was that far fetched.

[The Dark Guybrush]

bruce wayne will never stop being batman.

[The Marvel]

.....least untill he gets a heart attack at least.....




:cwink:

[Spider-Bat]

It's A Comic Book, Shove The Realism, Even Though Batman Has No Actual Powers That Doesn't Matter, It Is In A Realm Of Fantasy, And There Are Weird Things And People In His Universe.

If I Want To See Realism I'll Watch The News.

Just Make The Comic Come To Life!

[CConn]

No, don't make the comic come to life. Unless you're adapting a single, specific comic, it's impossible to do. A character like Batman's comics are extremely varied and thematically and artistically different. Believe it or not, there ARE Batman comics as realistic - if not moreso - than Batman Begins.

What they SHOULD do, however, is bring the characters to life. It's one thing to take a certain tact when adapting a comic book. Realism (for Nolan), Gothic Noir (for Burton), it's all good in its own way. What's bad is when you start altering the very well-established status quos of the characters simply to fit whatever particular vision you have.

You like realism? That's great. Put Batman in Chicago. It's certainly looked like Chicago once or twice in the comics. Leave out some of the more fantastic elements of the universe like Clayface and the Mad Monk. What you should not do, however, is start editing every character in the film to proscribe to that realism (or whatever approach you're taking). When you start doing that - when you (seemingly) are ashamed to show the Scarecrow with his mask on, and can't even say the Joker's skin is bleached, what's the point of adaptation anymore? What's the point of translating a comic book to film when you don't even care enough about the characters to carry their integrity over into film? That's my thought.

[The Sage]

No, don't make the comic come to life. Unless you're adapting a single, specific comic, it's impossible to do. A character like Batman's comics are extremely varied and thematically and artistically different. Believe it or not, there ARE Batman comics as realistic - if not moreso - than Batman Begins.

What they SHOULD do, however, is bring the characters to life. It's one thing to take a certain tact when adapting a comic book. Realism (for Nolan), Gothic Noir (for Burton), it's all good in its own way. What's bad is when you start altering the very well-established status quos of the characters simply to fit whatever particular vision you have.

You like realism? That's great. Put Batman in Chicago. It's certainly looked like Chicago once or twice in the comics. Leave out some of the more fantastic elements of the universe like Clayface and the Mad Monk. What you should not do, however, is start editing every character in the film to proscribe to that realism (or whatever approach you're taking). When you start doing that - when you (seemingly) are ashamed to show the Scarecrow with his mask on, and can't even say the Joker's skin is bleached, what's the point of adaptation anymore? What's the point of translating a comic book to film when you don't even care enough about the characters to carry their integrity over into film? That's my thought.

:up::up::up:

[MAKIEVELLI]

I like how you framed your argument. Very well said man. To make the Joker a permanent white alien, makes him a cartoon character which doesn't fit into Nolan's world. This will be a very interesting and crazy joker, yes he's a man. I think some fanboys don't want to accept that the Joker is just a human that doesn't need to go through a white transformation to be THE JOKER.

When you go through a transformation process, it is very comic bookish. It is trying to get kids to identify a character as being beyond human. You don't need to do that in a movie, it works much better the way Nolan is doing it.

Yes he does, otherwise he's just some crazy screw-up who paints his face like a little kid. The thing that makes him the Joker and not "Jack Napier" is that he doesn't wear a goddamn costume.

[Super_Ludacris]

Nolan's Scarecrow wasnt that far off than the canon Scarecrow....so I dont why people point to him as a flaw.

[The Dark Guybrush]

TDK slogan- "MORE realer. LESS faker."

[Mr. Socko]

Nolan's Scarecrow wasnt that far off than the canon Scarecrow....so I dont why people point to him as a flaw.

As I posted on the Begins board...


Scarecrow is one of my favorite villains who has alot of potential. In Begins film, he was wasted entirely. The reason is because there was no real quality to the character, let alone quantity. He wears a normal suit and a potato sack for all but one scene he's in. He served no more than the role of a small pawn. He honestly wasn't very memorable, not a single bit. In his finale scene, when he's remotely looking like the Scarecrow, he's atop a horse, looking so badass and making you think something awesome is about to happen...then he's electrocuted and rides off screaming in a scene that lasted less than a minute.

But that's not to say he was all bad, because he wasn't. Murphy did a good job, I liked the way he delivered the lines, and he looked the part. Murphy could have been perfect had the Scarecrow had more to do. A good actor in a very underused role.

It's a shame he won't have a bigger part in TDK either. From the news we've heard, he'll be in even less of TDK than Begins. Shame what Scarecrow has become on film.

[Super_Ludacris]

He seemed the same, minus the scarecrow outfit....Nolan did his ass a favour lol

[Rorschach II]

I know this is a little off-topic, but Scarecrow is probably the villain best-suited to Burton's Batman. In retrospect, the sequel should've had him as the villain instead of Penguin.

[Mr. Socko]

He seemed the same, minus the scarecrow outfit....Nolan did his ass a favour lol


As I said, Murphy would have been the perfect Scarecrow had the filmmakers utilized suched a fascinating character instead of degrading him to around 5 minutes of screentime and a suit & potato sack. The potential was certainly there, but they made him into a C-rate pawn who did nothing memorable throughout the entire movie.

Murphy as the Scarecrow was in no way bad, but he lacked definition.

[Super_Ludacris]

People complain about his outfit but I was watching BB yesterday and I was thinking "You know he would have looked dumb with thewhole outfit on anyway". You had to show some transistion to him becoming a rogue in the future but I mean its just as well he didnt go all out

[Mr. Socko]

People complain about his outfit but I was watching BB yesterday and I was thinking "You know he would have looked dumb with thewhole outfit on anyway". You had to show some transistion to him becoming a rogue in the future but I mean its just as well he didnt go all out

I hope you realize the lack of characterization for such a potentially memorable arch-nemesis of Batman goes long past a "bad costume." Hardly any motivation, completely underused, 5 minutes of screentime, yelling the word "fear" every other minute he was on screen. He became nothing more than a little pawn and his finale was awful. It wasn't even an entire minute. And now in TDK, his screentime is supposedly even less than in Begins. Such a wasted character.

[MAKIEVELLI]

As I said, Murphy would have been the perfect Scarecrow had the filmmakers utilized suched a fascinating character instead of degrading him to around 5 minutes of screentime and a suit & potato sack. The potential was certainly there, but they made him into a C-rate pawn who did nothing memorable throughout the entire movie.

Murphy as the Scarecrow was in no way bad, but he lacked definition.

In Nolan's defense there is not much to do with Crane to begin with. There are only so many shots you can have of people cowering in fear and their hallucinations pounding relentlessly at the screen. At some point it just gets repetitive.

[BubbaGump]

No, don't make the comic come to life. Unless you're adapting a single, specific comic, it's impossible to do. A character like Batman's comics are extremely varied and thematically and artistically different. Believe it or not, there ARE Batman comics as realistic - if not moreso - than Batman Begins.

What they SHOULD do, however, is bring the characters to life. It's one thing to take a certain tact when adapting a comic book. Realism (for Nolan), Gothic Noir (for Burton), it's all good in its own way. What's bad is when you start altering the very well-established status quos of the characters simply to fit whatever particular vision you have.

You like realism? That's great. Put Batman in Chicago. It's certainly looked like Chicago once or twice in the comics. Leave out some of the more fantastic elements of the universe like Clayface and the Mad Monk. What you should not do, however, is start editing every character in the film to proscribe to that realism (or whatever approach you're taking). When you start doing that - when you (seemingly) are ashamed to show the Scarecrow with his mask on, and can't even say the Joker's skin is bleached, what's the point of adaptation anymore? What's the point of translating a comic book to film when you don't even care enough about the characters to carry their integrity over into film? That's my thought.

Good post, but I don't agree with the last paragraph. Just as Nolan has his vision, so did Burton (despite the "oh, he made a true BATMAN movie"). Burton edited his characters to fit his vision as well. Catwoman was totally wrong, yet she was great. Penguin wasn't exactly his comic book counterpart either, yet he functioned so well--he's probably my favorite villain in all the films.

As long as the edits are done well, I really don't have a problem with directors' different interpretations of characters. I see it as new ways of looking at characters, settings, etc. Even if Nolan's Joker isn't perma-white (though I have a feeling leaning otherwise...), it's not like we still won't have the comic books, TAS, or Jack Nicholson.

[Mr. Socko]

Good post, but I don't agree with the last paragraph. Just as Nolan has his vision, so did Burton (despite the "oh, he made a true BATMAN movie"). Burton edited his characters to fit his vision as well. Catwoman was totally wrong, yet she was great. Penguin wasn't exactly his comic book counterpart either, yet he functioned so well--he's probably my favorite villain in all the films.

As long as the edits are done well, I really don't have a problem with directors' different interpretations of characters. I see it as new ways of looking at characters, settings, etc. Even if Nolan's Joker isn't perma-white (though I have a feeling leaning otherwise...), it's not like we still won't have the comic books, TAS, or Jack Nicholson.


Well said.

[BubbaGump]

In Nolan's defense there is not much to do with Crane to begin with. There are only so many shots you can have of people cowering in fear and their hallucinations pounding relentlessly at the screen. At some point it just gets repetitive.

Stop kissing his ass. :cmad: :oldrazz:

[Crook]

In Nolan's defense there is not much to do with Crane to begin with. There are only so many shots you can have of people cowering in fear and their hallucinations pounding relentlessly at the screen. At some point it just gets repetitive.
Well then initiative should have been taken to make him interesting. For example, Mr. Freeze in the comics was pretty much a lame and wasted character before Dini/Timm came along and breathed new life into him. They made a tragic and compelling narrative out of something that was nothing more than dog****.

Scarecrow definitely has potential. The fear theme alone can be utilized to such an awe-inspiring visual element, if handled by a director with a unique vision. Frankly, the "hallucinations" in BB were pathetic. Glowing eyes and a shaky background? That was...disappointing.

Personally I think Nolan should handle characters that are more closer to his element, which is clearly no where near the fantasy-realm. The Mob, Riddler, Two-Face, and others, are right up his alley. He should leave the other ones alone imo.

[TheBatman072]

Scarecrow definitely has potential. The fear theme alone can be utilized to such an awe-inspiring visual element, if handled by a director with a unique vision. Frankly, the "hallucinations" in BB were pathetic. Glowing eyes and a shaky background? That was...disappointing.


Yeah. Bat-Demon. Very pathetic.

[Crook]

I was clearly talking about the entire group as a whole. I admit that the Bat-Demon was cool, but that was pretty much the only unique design I saw.

[CaptainClown]

I think he was trying to play it safe and not give kids nightmares. I mean that right there is a huge opportunity to go crazy.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I mean that right there is a huge opportunity to go crazy.

Yay verily.

I think it would be most opportune for Mr. Nolan to wait until BB3 to go crazy with Fear Gas, and whatever else he wants to go crazy with. That way, his trilogy is complete, and he doesn't have anything to fear. So the Brothers Warner give him the boot for making a movie thats "too scary" or "too dark". Who cares? He's tied up his storylines, and the majority are pleased. :up:

-Morzan

[TheBatman072]

Yay verily.

I think it would be most opportune for Mr. Nolan to wait until BB3 to go crazy with Fear Gas, and whatever else he wants to go crazy with. That way, his trilogy is complete, and he doesn't have anything to fear. So the Brothers Warner give him the boot for making a movie thats "too scary" or "too dark". Who cares? He's tied up his storylines, and the majority are pleased. :up:

-Morzan


We're going to see what Joker looks like through the eyes of someone under Fear Gas in TDK.

[Mr. Socko]

We're going to see what Joker looks like through the eyes of someone under Fear Gas in TDK.


And I'm quited excited to seeing that after viewing what Batman looks like under the fear gas in Begins.

[SodaPop]

We're going to see what Joker looks like through the eyes of someone under Fear Gas in TDK.
i heard he's going to resemble the comic's joker. i cant wait to see that.

[Crook]

i heard he's going to resemble the comic's joker. i cant wait to see that.
Most funniest unintentional post in a while? Quite possibly. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/Dex4788/Smilies/Laughing/001.gif

[SodaPop]

Most funniest unintentional post in a while? Quite possibly. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/Dex4788/Smilies/Laughing/001.gif
it sounded a lot better in my head.

[The Marvel]

You know what would be cool? If the Joker gets fear gassed we get close up of batmans face, and we see tremondus terror an a unholy blood curdiling scream, the audience gets crepped out and then..... BAM

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8889/tegneserie2zq3.jpg

EVERY PERSON WITHIN A 50 FEET RADIUS WILL CRAP THEIR PANTS.

[jimmy]

Arkham Asylum. :up:

[CaptainClown]

Ya, I hope he looks like that

[Mr. Socko]

i heard he's going to resemble the comic's joker. i cant wait to see that.


That's something that disturbs me.

Joker in the film should already resemble the Joker of the comic books, but instead we will only be visually subjected to the true comic book Joker for one scene involving fear gas?...

[Super_Ludacris]

I always figured with Nolan's world we are seeing an evolution from real to a contemporary Gotham world that most people are familar with. So initially people like Scarecrow and Joker are gonna look like ordinary, undefined criminals with a slight identity complex that manifests itself over time.

[CaptainClown]

I think that is the current feeling, especially with how you see the Joker seems to change with each picture.

[Doc Samson]

I always figured with Nolan's world we are seeing an evolution from real to a contemporary Gotham world that most people are familar with. So initially people like Scarecrow and Joker are gonna look like ordinary, undefined criminals with a slight identity complex that manifests itself over time.

Something I (and others) have been saying for sometime, and it seems, with little success. The theme is escalation, it seems quite plausible the Joker (and crime, not to mention Gotham itself) will evolve similar to Batman's progression. Remember this is essentially Batman's first year on the job, things aren't that bad, just yet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, by the third film, Gotham starts to resemble a certain Tim Burton flick from 1989...

[Gianakin_]

I don't think they're actually gonna put gargoyles as the escalation progresses and the crime rises, however I also think that it will become more of a freak-town as the movies go.

[Super_Ludacris]

That's the point, its almost like no one listened to what Gordon was saying on the roof in the final scene of BB.

[metalhead971]

If BB is any indication, the escalation in Gotham will be incredible by Shadow of the Bat (????). Murder and mayhem everywhere. That's Gotham to me. With Batman there to stop it.

[The Dark Guybrush]

knowing escalation is the theme of TDK..
what do you people think the theme of the third movie will be?

[Gianakin_]

Climax?

[metalhead971]

Maybe Batman second-guessing his ability to control the crime spreading across his city. Doubting whether he can truly make a difference. He's young, so i'd like to see some doubt creep into him as to how he's going to be able to fight such rampant violence and crime. Maybe sets up for the future introduction of the Batman family, as a means to ensure he has help (though he may not want it).

[The Dark Guybrush]

eh.. i think any second-guessing batman may have will show in TDK.

[Gianakin_]

I think that's closer to what TDK will be about.

[The Dark Guybrush]

and the family thing... not gonna happen.

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, not until the 4th movie or beyond, anyway.

[metalhead971]

Yeah, that's what I was picturing. A setup for the next franchise (whenever the hell that may be).

So if he's second-guessing himself in TDK, maybe in BB3 he'll be more paranoid and more prepared, the one-step-ahead Batman that we know so well from the comics. Begins gave us some of that, but not much. It looks like TDK will build on it as well, but I would hope the 3rd one would really flesh it out and make him a paranoid, intellectual crime-fighting genius.

[thegameq]

Something I (and others) have been saying for sometime, and it seems, with little success. The theme is escalation, it seems quite plausible the Joker (and crime, not to mention Gotham itself) will evolve similar to Batman's progression. Remember this is essentially Batman's first year on the job, things aren't that bad, just yet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, by the third film, Gotham starts to resemble a certain Tim Burton flick from 1989...

God I hope so to some degree.....put the fantasy and style back in Batman.

[Gianakin_]

BB had fantasy. Just because some people have understood Nolan's words wrong, doesn't mean it's true. As for style, to each his own, but I found that Nolan has a unique style that makes him recognizable- and so does BB.

[metalhead971]

The whole point of these three movies is to get Batman back to place where you can be more engaged in what's going on, to present a world that is more realistic so you can feel like this stuff actually happens. I think that is great because later, when the real fantastical stuff starts to happen, you're as bewildered as Batman is to find things like this going on in a REAL world (figuratively speaking). The stories involving Joker, Two-Face, and Scarecrow, to me, don't have fantastical elements. That makes them great for telling realistic Batman stories that present a complete world, and not just a comic book world.

[thegameq]

BB had fantasy. Just because some people have understood Nolan's words wrong, doesn't mean it's true. As for style, to each his own, but I found that Nolan has a unique style that makes him recognizable- and so does BB.

Yes, yes, but where is that iconic fantasy Batman imagery and style? ...sigh..

It's almost as if people think you can't have fantasy Batman and a good, solid serious tone at the same time; you must exclude as much fantasy as possible so that the film can be taken serious and that simply isn't true.

I think at the heart of this constant argument is quite frankly dollars. It's much safer to make a conservative film that may appeal to most, rather than risk profits with a stylized fantasy film that may or maynot appeal to everyone. Frankly, I feel that's a bs argument because audiences have proven time and time again that they love fully blown, well done fantasy films...of course there are exceptions.

Again, I understand what Nolan was going for and admit his film was very good. But as a Batman fan and overall comicbook film fan, his vision is very underwhelming and disappointing. I feel the same way about Nolan's vision for Batman as I do for Singer's vision of X-men: very underwhelming and lackluster; devoid of so much of the fantastic style and imagery that makes the source material so enjoyable in the first place.

Would a stylized fantasy Batman film bomb at the box office?

[Gianakin_]

It's almost as if people think you can't have fantasy Batman and a good, solid serious tone at the same time; you must exclude as much fantasy as possible so that the film can be taken serious and that simply isn't true.

That right there is the definition of "People take Nolan's words and purpose the wrong way".



Would a stylized fantasy Batman film bomb at the box office?

If it was too stylized? Yes. I saw a frame-by-frame adaptation of Year one (2 scenes of it involving Gordon". Highly stylized. Iconic. Also, crap.
Dead End: Comic accurate. Iconic to the boot. Also, MEGA-crap.
I think there are several ways to approach Batman, and they all work. Burton's worked, so did Nolan's, IMO. And so will another guy's, as long as it's of great quality. That's what matters to me: the quality of the style, not the style itself.

[Crook]

If it was too stylized? Yes.
Doubtful. People don't really care too much for style, as long as it's not intrusive. If anything, more visual flare would actually help this franchise.

I saw a frame-by-frame adaptation of Year one (2 scenes of it involving Gordon". Highly stylized. Iconic. Also, crap.
Dead End: Comic accurate. Iconic to the boot. Also, MEGA-crap.
I think there are several ways to approach Batman, and they all work. Burton's worked, so did Nolan's, IMO. And so will another guy's, as long as it's of great quality. That's what matters to me: the quality of the style, not the style itself.
If your comment about over stylization also applied to you, then this quote right here sorta invalidates that.

[metalhead971]

Whatever style you use for Gotham and Batman, it has to at least be believable. Too much style will just make it another eye-gouging view like BF and B&R were, with neon and crap everywhere. Those are perfect examples of too much style. B89 had a cool style, although when you see the skyline of Gotham City, you can clearly tell it's a comic book movie. It has that gothic, toon look to it. BB doesn't have that. It just looks like a huge ****in city.

[Gianakin_]

Doubtful. People don't really care too much for style, as long as it's not intrusive. If anything, more visual flare would actually help this franchise.

It's mere speculation, but I don't think a 300-style Batfilm would work. That's what I had in mind when I said "too stylized" anyway.


If your comment about over stylization also applied to you, then this quote right here sorta invalidates that.

You're actually right. It does contradict the above. But in this case, I have the above example(s): I've seen the styles, I believe they're done well (ergo good quality), but they don't work for me.
Also, what I said above is not to be taken in an absolute way. There can be and there are exceptions, in both the quality and the style type parts of my argument.

[Crook]

Whatever style you use for Gotham and Batman, it has to at least be believable.
Not really. Audiences don't care about it much. The look of the film is just that, something to look at. Unless it's something bothersome to the eye, it won't matter.

Too much style will just make it another eye-gouging view like BF and B&R were, with neon and crap everywhere. Those are perfect examples of too much style.
It's not what I'd prefer, but that was the least of those films' problems. BF had a hyper-stylized neon city, but that didn't stop it from being a huge blockbuster for that year.

It's mere speculation, but I don't think a 300-style Batfilm would work. That's what I had in mind when I said "too stylized" anyway.
You mean an all-cg background plating? Hard to say. 300 didn't feature much "landscape" with it's scenes, and those that did, were built in real-life.

But in terms of the gold filter, crushed blacks, and high contrasts, I don't see that having any effect on the quality of the movie, or audience perception.

[Gianakin_]

You mean an all-cg background plating? Hard to say. 300 didn't feature much "landscape" with it's scenes, and those that did, were built in real-life.

But in terms of the gold filter, crushed blacks, and high contrasts, I don't see that having any effect on the quality of the movie, or audience perception.

No, I actually mean the overall style of the movie, not just the aesthetical part. I'm also talking about the voiceovers, the direction etc. Note that I'm basing this to a Batman Year One fanfim, as well as the Frank Miller script from the same movie, which I didn't like at all. Now, also note that it's one example of a style out of so many, I don't want to get into the Miller-style mode alone. It's just that this is the one I had in mind when I was thinking "too stylized".
It's a style that in theory (always IMO) could work, but now that I've seen it, it doesn't for me. If you tell me of a Bat-film shot a la... I dunno, Matrix, I won't say yes or no, because I haven't seen it. I know the style, but I haven't seen it applied on Batman and his world. I hope I'm making sense to you.

[Crook]

No, I actually mean the overall style of the movie, not just the aesthetical part. I'm also talking about the voiceovers, the direction etc.
Well it's hard for me to really argue with that. Snyder's direction of 300, was to basically take the comic book panels, and directly translate them onto the screen. The result was a whole slew of fantastic "shots", many times they looked like "moving paintings". Considering the plethora of iconic images found in the bat-books, I can't really say that I'd be against that type of directing, lol.

As for voice-overs. I'm a huge fan of film noir. And those who watch film noir know it was a genre known for it's voice-overs. Also to add, I'm sure many batfans know that film noir would actually fit very well as a style for Batman. Again, I can't really say I'd be opposed to this as well.

Note that I'm basing this to a Batman Year One fanfim, as well as the Frank Miller script from the same movie, which I didn't like at all.
You have a link to this Y1 fan-film?

It's a style that in theory (always IMO) could work, but now that I've seen it, it doesn't for me. If you tell me of a Bat-film shot a la... I dunno, Matrix, I won't say yes or no, because I haven't seen it. I know the style, but I haven't seen it applied on Batman and his world. I hope I'm making sense to you.
Kinda. But on one hand, what are you basing your opinion of a 300-style Batman not working? It hasn't been done, and even if it has, independently by some fan, that's not remotely close to what a major motion picture studio could do with it.

[Gianakin_]

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5nI9zkuAuM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Esuperherohype%2Ecom%2Fs howthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D281314%26page%3D2)

I'm sure the studio could do better, but it gives a pretty good idea of what it can be. Plus, the actual official script, like I said before, did nothing to me. Watch it and tell me what you think.

[Cyrusbales]

The key point of film noir, is the play between shadow and light with heavy symbolism. BB is already too self aware to do a noir style with this particular franchise, not too mention Nolan doesn't really use any symbolism, I think a neo-noir approach would work, but we won't get one.

[OctaviusINC]

I really don't mind Nolan's vision of Bats. I'm just not a big fan of his Gotham city. I mean, I like the way he portrays it's citizens and inhabitants, but I just don't like that he chose Chicago as Gotham. I've lived in Chicago my whole life, 5 minutes away from downtown, and every time I see BB, I see Batman in Chicago..not Gotham. I loved Burton's Industrial Wasteland Gotham, and I thought Nolan would give us something of that manner. It's just in the comics, the make Gotham so Gothic and artistically beautiful, while in Nolans universe it's just a city. I liked when he introduced the Narrows, that made it stand apart. IDK, maybe it's b/c I live in Chicago. Just an opinion. But a monorail doesn't make it Gotham to me.

[CaptainClown]

I've never been to Chicago so I'm not really effected by that, it just felt like Gotham was some big city nothing too special. I can see what you mean though.

[Gianakin_]

I don't think that Gotham is always... well, gothic in the comics.

[MAKIEVELLI]

I love that Gotham was grounded in reality. It made it feel all the more real for me. That's something I have to congratulate Nolan for. Of course I find some bad things in BB, but the good far outweighs the bad IMO.

[Doc Samson]

One thing I will say in regards to this realism debate, is that starting with this film I do hope they bring some of the fantastical elements back to Batman, at least a little bit. That was one of the trade offs when explaining all of his back story in BB, when he finally appeared, it didn't quite feel dramatic enough, IMO. One thing I enjoyed in B89 was the mythical approach to Burton's Batman, he was like a ghost almost, a mysterious figure not just to the movie characters but even to the viewing audience as well, whereas Nolan's Batman was much more personal to the point where I didn't feel the seperation. It wasn't Batman the Dark knight anymore, it was just Bruce Wayne in a suit, which made it less of a spectacle whenever he showed up on screen, which I suppose was the point. I think for certain characters, Spiderman being one, helping the audience identify with them is essential. And I'm not saying I didn't like BB approach because its easily the best portrayal of the character to me, but certain heroes like a Batman or Superman need more of mythical god-like quality to them...

[CaptainClown]

I never felt like Batman had that god like quality, he was like that mortal that always tempts the fate of the gods.

[The Dark Guybrush]

criminals are gonna fear batman, not know if he's just a guy in a suit or some sort of urban monster.. while the crazies are gonna pull the copycat thing and emulate him by dressing up- but wreak havoc instead of fight crime.

[Doc Samson]

I never felt like Batman had that god like quality, he was like that mortal that always tempts the fate of the gods.

Maybe not as God-like as Superman, but certainly an urban legend as The Dark Guybrush suggested. Just to me, after breaking down every element of the Batman character into such a grounded reality, it takes away from his aura.

Not to compare the movies because I feel they both worked well for their particular interpretation, but just watch the opening appearance of Batman in B89, or even the Axis chemical scene. He was menacing without saying a word, with a wonder and awe about him, almost regal in his demeanor. Nolan tried to convey the same thing with Bale's physicality and imposing will, but with all of the back story it just seemed to lack the same impact. IDK, maybe the music had alot to do with how I feel about it, but B89 just had alot more of that mystique to the character, something I think TDK hopefully will bring back...

[CaptainClown]

Again it depends on the viewer. I felt 89 wasn't that much of an improvement either. If you wanted to see that mythic quality you would have to see it from the criminals point of view. You never know when he is watching. It all depends on your preference clearly you didn't care for it.

[thegameq]

That right there is the definition of "People take Nolan's words and purpose the wrong way".




If it was too stylized? Yes. I saw a frame-by-frame adaptation of Year one (2 scenes of it involving Gordon". Highly stylized. Iconic. Also, crap.
Dead End: Comic accurate. Iconic to the boot. Also, MEGA-crap.
I think there are several ways to approach Batman, and they all work. Burton's worked, so did Nolan's, IMO. And so will another guy's, as long as it's of great quality. That's what matters to me: the quality of the style, not the style itself.

Depends on what one would call "too stylized". Many might argue that 300 and sin city were too stylized. I believe you could make an argument for The Fountain being overly stylized; while I haven't seen it personally, the reviews I've read seem to point to that. The style or stylization should fit the tale being told. If it's not your cup of tea that's something else altogether.

Batman...any comicbook or character is an amalgam of story, character and style. Style is inherent in the medium itself and inseparable. Moreso, it is the story, character and style as a greater combination that make the material so enjoyable in the first place. Guess what happens when you remove the very things that make the source material so enjoyable?

How much fun would Superman or Spider-man be without their fantasy or stylization? I know, I know: "but Batman doesn't have super powers, so he needs to be realistic". Why? Who said? Where is this law that because Batman doesn't have super powers, his film representation has to be realistic?

What makes it worse is that Batman is a heavily stylized character. So why in the world would one choose to take away the very stylizations that help make the character what he is?

[Gianakin_]

Depends on what one would call "too stylized". Many might argue that 300 and sin city were too stylized. I believe you could make an argument for The Fountain being overly stylized; while I haven't seen it personally, the reviews I've read seem to point to that. The style or stylization should fit the tale being told. If it's not your cup of tea that's something else altogether.

Haven't seen the Fountain, so I can't comment. The Miller-type stylization is fine for me. But I don't think it'd work for Batman. Hell, I saw those 2 Year One scens as I mentioned before and I have a pretty good idea of what it'd look like. and I don't like it.


Batman...any comicbook or character is an amalgam of story, character and style. Style is inherent in the medium itself and inseparable. Moreso, it is the story, character and style as a greater combination that make the material so enjoyable in the first place. Guess what happens when you remove the very things that make the source material so enjoyable?


Agreed.


How much fun would Superman or Spider-man be without their fantasy or stylization? I know, I know: "but Batman doesn't have super powers, so he needs to be realistic". Why? Who said? Where is this law that because Batman doesn't have super powers, his film representation has to be realistic?

Wait, wait, wait. Don't assume I'm one of those "realism rules" guys. This was never gonna be an argument for me.
Having said that, I found Nolan's Batman stylized enough. Just because it didn't have weird angles and intimidating gargoyles doesn't mean there is no stylization.


What makes it worse is that Batman is a heavily stylized character. So why in the world would one choose to take away the very stylizations that help make the character what he is?

Again, I don't think they were taken away, they're just different... and in a good way, for me. Aparrently not for you, hence the disagreement. But I stand by my view that there is stylization in the Nolanverse.

[thegameq]

Wait, wait, wait. Don't assume I'm one of those "realism rules" guys. This was never gonna be an argument for me.

Not at all, just explaining a point, and true we don't need to overdue the goth angle and it isn't a requisite. It just fits the character so well.

I guess it's just sticking in my and others "craw" that Nolan opted to do away with so many of the things that make Batman enjoyable in the first place. While there have been variations, all the variations share a commonality that makes their work clearly the Batman we all love regardless of the artist......in some ways Nolan's Batman is still Batman, but why so far off to the left with his vision is beyond me--regardless of the few bones here and there thrown to the fans.

The hope no doubt (much like with x-men) is that Nolan's film(s) are going to eventually evolve into the Batman fans have cherished....but I doubt it, the Batsuit, Joker and Batpod alone leads me to believe that Nolan will continue to push his vision farther from the comics, using the box office clout he gained from the first film as the means and justification to do it.

[Gianakin_]

I understand where you're coming from. I respectfully disagree, but I understand. I will give you the Batpod, but I'll say that the same kind of costume was used in Burton's films, which were pretty stylized. As for the Joker, haven't seen him, can't tell you. I certainly can't give you Joker as a taking-away of stylization, now, can I?

[terry78]

edit

[Super_Ludacris]

Not at all, just explaining a point, and true we don't need to overdue the goth angle and it isn't a requisite. It just fits the character so well.

I guess it's just sticking in my and others "craw" that Nolan opted to do away with so many of the things that make Batman enjoyable in the first place. While there have been variations, all the variations share a commonality that makes their work clearly the Batman we all love regardless of the artist......in some ways Nolan's Batman is still Batman, but why so far off to the left with his vision is beyond me--regardless of the few bones here and there thrown to the fans.

The hope no doubt (much like with x-men) is that Nolan's film(s) are going to eventually evolve into the Batman fans have cherished....but I doubt it, the Batsuit, Joker and Batpod alone leads me to believe that Nolan will continue to push his vision farther from the comics, using the box office clout he gained from the first film as the means and justification to do it.

But its like I said earlier in this thread. It looks like the whole point of this series is showing how a real world turns into a contemporary gotham bat-world. So of course when first introduced those things are gonna look more reality based. Is that gonna take anything away? No

[Gianakin_]

But its like I said earlier in this thread. It looks like the whole point of this series is showing how a real world turns into a contemporary gotham bat-world. So of course when first introduced those things are gonna like more reality based.

To play the devil's advocate here, we don't know that yet. We ccertainly WANT it to happen, but we don't know. It could very well be than Nolan isn't doing that. Maybe the freaks won't take over Gotham in every way.

[Super_Ludacris]

To play the devil's advocate here, we don't know that yet. We ccertainly WANT it to happen, but we don't know. It could very well be than Nolan isn't doing that. Maybe the freaks won't take over Gotham in every way.

If this movie sucks, it wont be because the Joker didnt look right or the pod or the suit. I dont get why people **** there pants over trivial stuff like that. Its about the script subplots and the pacing of the movie that matters. Everything else wont matter. I wish people would get over the costumes and looks. Its over-stated complacency.

[Mr. Socko]

Nolan's approach is more realistic than the other films, as Ebert said, it acts as if it's real even though it isn't. Right now I'm really enjoying this take as well. This is about Batman if he were real, and it's only natural he's in a city that looks just like a real rotting city in America. So far I think this direction is going fine and look forward to it for two more films from Nolan.

I love the more fantasy type Batman too, if not more, but I don't have a problem with it being set aside for one series. After Nolan's films, in a few years we may very well get the "urban legend" noir type Batman, which would be just as good. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

[Crook]

I wish people would get over the costumes and looks. Its over-stated complacency.
That stuff wouldn't matter in a novel, but this is a movie we're talking about. Of course the appearances matter. Not to say it is of the upmost importance, but it's up there. Film is all about how you set up the aesthetics. To suggest otherwise is being ignorant.

[Gianakin_]

If this movie sucks, it wont be because the Joker didnt look right or the pod or the suit. I dont get why people **** there pants over trivial stuff like that. Its about the script subplots and the pacing of the movie that matters. Everything else wont matter. I wish people would get over the costumes and looks. Its over-stated complacency.

But I'm not talking about this stuff. You said that Nolan's going for a "fantasy elements will be added as the trilogy progresses" approach and I said we don't know that.

[Super_Ludacris]

That stuff wouldn't matter in a novel, but this is a movie we're talking about. Of course the appearances matter. Not to say it is of the upmost importance, but it's up there. Film is all about how you set up the aesthetics. To suggest otherwise is being ignorant.

Not as much, if anything past comic book movies have taught us its that if the script and directing work well then people accpet all the director's changes they had with the set pieces visually (Spiderman's web and X-Men's outift).

End of the day for example if the Joker's characterstics are captured perfectly by the story and remind fans of say the Killing Joke or the early 40's comics then I dont see how whether or not for most of the film he's in make up matters.

Besides the key to the Batman mythology in all adaptations is that they've altered apperances while the best presentations retain the spirit of the character's world in the story. That's why he's lasted so long in comics and on screen and is really the only DC character mainstream audiences are checking for.

[Super_Ludacris]

But I'm not talking about this stuff. You said that Nolan's going for a "fantasy elements will be added as the trilogy progresses" approach and I said we don't know that.


Are we really gonna pretend to act that clueless about that, really were gonna do that right now? :dry: .
Come on duke, even if its not exactly like the comic book world, its still gonna be similar to that from what we DO know.

Continuity wise we already know from BB and the little info about TDK from the spoilers (which supposedly takes place 6 months after BB), that over a span of a year basically Gotham goes from what looks like a non-fantasy, regular crime town to one where a man in a batsuit inflicts justice, half the inmates in the asylum escape and retaliate with similar theatrics (word to Gordon's roof top scene) to a man dressed as a clown creating a divide in the city between the gangs and supporters of Batman (the idea of Gotham being a warzone) to the DA getting his face scarred so badly he is traumatised into switching sides.
This is all the escalation into the legend, and all the realism is presented to show the initial evolution.

[Crook]

Not as much, if anything past comic book movies have taught us its that if the script and directing work well then people accpet all the director's changes they had with the set pieces visually (Spiderman's web and X-Men's outift).
I'm not denying that, but one could argue some of those changes were pretty pointless in the first place. For example, had Singer gone with a more "realistic" depiction of "costumes" such as these:

http://www.thecomicfanatic.com/solicit%20images/ultxm65.jpg

I doubt comic fans or the audience would be complaining about it looking corny or something.

End of the day for example if the Joker's characterstics are captured perfectly by the story and remind fans of say the Killing Joke or the early 40's comics then I dont see how whether or not for most of the film he's in make up matters.

Besides the key to the Batman mythology in all adaptations is that they've altered appearances while the best presentations retain the spirit of the character's world in the story.
Then I don't need to remind you why a Joker putting on make-up is of great controversy here.

[Gianakin_]

Are we really gonna pretend to act that clueless about that, really were gonna do that right now? :dry: .
Come on duke, even if its not exactly like the comic book world, its still gonna be similar to that from what we DO know.

Continuity wise we already know from BB and the little info about TDK from the spoilers (which supposedly takes place 6 months after BB), that over a span of a year basically Gotham goes from what looks like a non-fantasy, regular crime town to one where a man in a batsuit inflicts justice, half the inmates in the asylum escape and retaliate with similar theatrics (word to Gordon's roof top scene) to a man dressed as a clown creating a divide in the city between the gangs and supporters of Batman (the idea of Gotham being a warzone) to the DA getting his face scarred so badly he is traumatised into switching sides.
This is all the escalation into the legend, and all the realism is presented to show the initial evolution.

I honestly don't get that from all we've heard. I don't get the idea of freaks unleashed in a level that allows fantaasy to fully kick in. Note that I'm not saying it won't happen, and I know Iwant it to, but that I can't be sureand fully agree with you yet.

[Super_Ludacris]

I'm not denying that, but one could argue some of those changes were pretty pointless in the first place. For example, had Singer gone with a more "realistic" depiction of "costumes" such as these:

I doubt comic fans or the audience would be complaining about it looking corny or something.

Then I don't need to remind you why a Joker putting on make-up is of great controversy here.

Well one can also argue that the reason the whole franchise was successfully resurrected and got it the critical and fan praise was because Nolan's formula of realism worked in Baman Begins. So how pointless can it be when it saved the franchise, reinvented the character for a new movie audience and changed people's (non-comic book fans) previous expecations?

And as far as the Joker goes, if the character still has the traits of being this sinister, troubled, twisted sadistc individual that's more important because far more key to the plot that he and Batman clash not only as good guy and bad guy but we get this rich experience and understand of them being the way they are.

I've heard stuff like hes in making for most of it and by the thrid act he gets the acid treatment. That's even better because we know what he's like before the accident and a gauge of his criminal mind. By the time the accident happens, we get this great perspective of the Joker and a much richer origin story for him depth wise


And as far as X-Men and Spiderman go, you had complaining still about the costume and powers back then before the film came out, because even though that picture was one way of seeing them, people were use to the popular canon apperance. Others argued it would be ok. Just like we are here with the Joker.

[Super_Ludacris]

I honestly don't get that from all we've heard. I don't get the idea of freaks unleashed in a level that allows fantaasy to fully kick in. Note that I'm not saying it won't happen, and I know Iwant it to, but that I can't be sureand fully agree with you yet.


From the 3 spoilers we got, you dont think that when a normal city changes into a battle zone of clown gangs and Arkham escapees traumatised from the night in the narrows and are out to get Batman with similar theatric methods thus flipping the town upside down in a span of six months, it shows escalation from realism into full on comic book world? We already know about characters from BB coming back for revenge like scarecrow, we know they are mock Batmen running around, we know the mob turns to an eccentric gang leader in the joker and that the commisner is gunned down and Gotham City's streets are put under National Defence security as the spoilers and set reports are reporting

So that's a lot to progress on all under somewhat realism world explinations. This is why I think Nolan's handling of the plot and pacing matter way way waaaay much more. Cause it then justifies everything else like the Joker, the Pod etc etc etc.

[Gianakin_]

From the 3 spoilers we got, you dont think that when a normal city changes into a battle zone of clown gangs and Arkham escapees traumatised from the night in the narrows and are out to get Batman with similar theatric methods doesnt flip this town upside down in a span of six months, it shows escalation from realism into full on comic book world?

The whole discussion was about fantasy being added and from all that, no, I can't honestly swear that it'd happen.

[CaptainClown]

still at it giankakin?

[Gianakin_]

Well, not continuously, bet yeah. It's my University exams, see and I don't leave the house much.

[Super_Ludacris]

The whole discussion was about fantasy being added and from all that, no, I can't honestly swear that it'd happen.

But I'm explaining to you how it works and how it can be transistioned. What part of this dont you get? This is like really, really really simple comprehension and plot understanding explinations I'm giving here. I mean come on now:csad:

[Crook]

Well one can also argue that the reason the whole franchise was successfully resurrected and got it the critical and fan praise was because Nolan's formula of realism worked in Baman Begins. So how pointless can it be when it saved the franchise, reinvented the character for a new movie audience and changed people's (non-comic book fans) previous expecations?
When did I mention Nolan? I was referring to the individual ideas of organic webshooters and leather suits. None of those 2 alter the story in any way, hence why I said including them does nothing to the story.


And as far as the Joker goes, if the character still has the traits of being this sinister, troubled, twisted sadistc individual that's more important because far more key to the plot that he and Batman clash not only as good guy and bad guy but we get this rich experience and understand of them being the way they are.
Once again, making Joker putting on make-up doesn't achieve any of this.


I've heard stuff like hes in making for most of it and by the thrid act he gets the acid treatment. That's even better because we know what he's like before the accident and a gauge of his criminal mind. By the time the accident happens, we get this great perspective of the Joker and a much richer origin story for him depth wise
You mean the chemical bath? So he's already putting on make-up and ****, and THEN gets into an accident that makes his skin a permanent image of what he was dressing himself up as?

That's beyond retarded.

And as far as X-Men and Spiderman go, you had complaining still about the costume and powers back then before the film came out, because even though that picture was one way of seeing them, people were use to the popular canon apperance. Others argued it would be ok. Just like we are here with the Joker.
That's not remotely same thing. A comparative example would be the arguing of Joker wearing a black tuxedo instead of his traditional purple outfit. The make-up debate goes much deeper than a superficial cosmetic issue.

[Super_Ludacris]

Well, not continuously, bet yeah. It's my University exams, see and I don't leave the house much.

Do some revision then and stop worrying about this movie! lol

[Gianakin_]

But I'm explaining to you how it works and how it can be transistioned. What part of this dont you get? This is like really, really really simple comprehension and plot understanding explinations I'm giving here. I mean come on now:csad:

And I get it, believe me, I'm just not 100% sure that in Batman 3 we'll get a full-blown fantasy-induced universe. But I can definately see it happening the way you explain it and expect it to be like that, too.

[Gianakin_]

Do some revision then and stop worrying about this movie! lol

Heh, I'm done by this hour usually, right now I'm waiting for some firends to pick me up and go out.

[Fenrir]

Then I don't need to remind you why a Joker putting on make-up is of great controversy here.

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!


:dry: :confused::up:

[Gianakin_]

In a way, you're actually right. Everything in art is a controversy. No matter how someone will do art, there will be people will always disagree on it. That's the way it is and should be.

[CaptainClown]

you forgot Jokers sneakers and all the segments of the Joker controversy.

I think Controversy is throwing it way out of proportion like Fenrir pointed, lets just call them arguments. Teeny minuscule arguments.

[Fenrir]

I think Controversy is throwing it way out of proportion like Fenrir pointed, lets just call them arguments. Teeny minuscule arguments.

If by "teeny minuscule arguments" you mean quote wars spanning pages over why Aaron Eckhart did not dye his hair for the role, then ok. :ninja:

[CaptainClown]

well they are nerd wars that affect only the comic book population, and by comic book population I mean Batman fans

[Crook]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?
Well let's take a look...

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
A lot of people cherish the "fantastical" aspect of the mythos, and considering how Nolan does seem to meddle these down to more "realistic" interpretations, it's a fair concern.

Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Regardless of their performance, they do look like pieces of ****. :o

Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Well compared to the casting of BB, which was all-star after all-star announcement, this time around might seem like a downgrade.

Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Hardly. That lasted a week at most.

Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
I personally like it, but I can see why people don't like the hi-tech look. Some were lead to believe this franchise would stray away from that type of style.

Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
It's understandable. That's one of the biggest critiques of the first film.

Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
I don't really need to go over this one.

Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
These go hand in hand. You always have to worry about juggling the right amount of time to develop the characters.

Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!
Downgrade no matter how you look at it. :ninja:

[thegameq]

If this movie sucks, it wont be because the Joker didnt look right or the pod or the suit. I dont get why people **** there pants over trivial stuff like that. Its about the script subplots and the pacing of the movie that matters. Everything else wont matter. I wish people would get over the costumes and looks. Its over-stated complacency.

The movie won't suck, Nolan is to talented for that....he'd have to make a huge misstep. It's Nolan's aproach in general is what has stirred the pot so to speak.

Again, I think the evolution into the Batman we know angle is what most are hoping for. But as Gianakin said, we really don't know...I personally doubt it.

[Fenrir]

Well let's take a look...


A lot of people cherish the "fantastical" aspect of the mythos, and considering how Nolan does seem to meddle these down to more "realistic" interpretations, it's a fair concern.


Regardless of their performance, they do look like pieces of ****.


Well compared to the casting of BB, which was all-star after all-star announcement, this time around might seem like a downgrade.


Hardly. That lasted a week at most.


I personally like it, but I can see why people don't like the hi-tech look. Some were lead to believe this franchise would stray away from that type of style.


It's understandable. That's one of the biggest critiques of the first film.


I don't really need to go over this one.


These go hand in hand. You always have to worry about juggling the right amount of time to develop the characters.


Downgrade no matter how you look at it.

Thanks for proving my point, bubby. :o:up:

[Super_Ludacris]

When did I mention Nolan? I was referring to the individual ideas of organic webshooters and leather suits. None of those 2 alter the story in any way, hence why I said including them does nothing to the story.[/SPOILER]

I'm talking about how changes help a film though. You can use Nolan's approach as an example to justify changes. And hell, even with Spiderman the organic webshooting even though it was never canon or in the comics, it made sense to most people. If your gonna get bitten by a spider might as well develop certain DNA abilites. Where at a point now in the history of Superheroes where the adaptations provide as much about the character's history as the comics themselves. So why not?


Once again, making Joker putting on make-up doesn't achieve any of this.


You mean the chemical bath? So he's already putting on make-up and ****, and THEN gets into an accident that makes his skin a permanent image of what he was dressing himself up as?

That's beyond retarded.


I dont see how the Joker falling into a chemical bath and he only then suddenly becomes the Joker we know overnight is a better storyline though. I think if you establish a character beforehand it gives a better coherency to the story. Like he's a pretty twisted individual beforehand and now really goes off the rails and embraces his alter ego with all the derrangement is a good origin story within itself. Just because it was never written like that, doesnt make it any less of a legitamite origin story. This is a guy who has multiple origin storys in comics and in adaptions anyway.


That's not remotely same thing. A comparative example would be the arguing of Joker wearing a black tuxedo instead of his traditional purple outfit. The make-up debate goes much deeper than a superficial cosmetic issue.


Like I said if his characterisation is like the Joker, I couldnt give a **** how he becomes the Joker. Whether its a fail comedian turned psycho and eccentric gang leader or a lackey who's forced to don a red hood and falls in a vat of chemicals. People way too gaurded by this idea that he has to fall into chemicals to be who he is.

[Super_Ludacris]

And I get it, believe me, I'm just not 100% sure that in Batman 3 we'll get a full-blown fantasy-induced universe. But I can definately see it happening the way you explain it and expect it to be like that, too.

Trust me it will be fine as long as the story is good. People are really starting to over-abuse the term fantasy in relation to this story. As long as it all makes sense and ties up in a trilogy (something the last franchise didnt) it will be fine. Any reinvention should be welcomed especially with a character like Batman who has had his share of it.

[Super_Ludacris]

The movie won't suck, Nolan is to talented for that....he'd have to make a huge misstep. It's Nolan's aproach in general is what has stirred the pot so to speak.

Again, I think the evolution into the Batman we know angle is what most are hoping for. But as Gianakin said, we really don't know...I personally doubt it.

But then I have ask what there definition of "Fantasy" is and to what extent they feel it needs to go to get the Batman world they want?

And on top of that, what is there idealistic Batman world and narritive? Is it like the Dini/Timm one, the Burton one, the orignal Kane one, the Frank Miller one, The Scwartz/Adams/O'Neil one, the Grant Morrison one?

[Crook]

Thanks for proving my point, bubby. :o:up:
I originally just typed out a one-sentence response, but thought, what the hell, I could drag this out. :o

I'm talking about how changes help a film though. You can use Nolan's approach as an example to justify changes.
That's fine. But that's now what I was talking about, or have an issue with. It's when the changes DON'T add anything to the film that I'll speak out about it.

And hell, even with Spiderman the organic webshooting even though it was never canon or in the comics, it made sense to most people. If your gonna get bitten by a spider might as well develop certain DNA abilites. Where at a point now in the history of Superheroes where the adaptations provide as much about the character's history as the comics themselves. So why not?
I didn't have that much of a problem with it. But at the same time, had Raimi gone with a science-whiz Peter who developed his own webshooters, not too many people (if any) would have complained either. Both work. It's just that one has been established in the comics.


I dont see how the Joker falling into a chemical bath and he only then suddenly becomes the Joker we know overnight is a better storyline though.
I never suggested that. :huh:

That's the one part of Joker's origin that is left unknown. I personally like to think that pre-Joker was already f---ked up in the head, and the chemical bath served as the breaking point of his psyche.

I think if you establish a character beforehand it gives a better coherency to the story. Like he's a pretty twisted individual beforehand and now really goes off the rails and embraces his alter ego with all the derrangement is a good origin story within itself. Just because it was never written like that, doesnt make it any less of a legitamite origin story. This is a guy who has multiple origin storys in comics and in adaptions anyway.
My point was if you're going to go with the chemical bath anyway, why not just do it at the right time, which is BEFORE he becomes the Joker we all know.

You don't think **** is stretching things waaaayyy too much if this dude gets in an accident that makes him look exactly the way he's already dressing up to be? Was this not a "realistic" franchise? If this is what happens in the film (but I doubt it) and people start praising it, I swear I'll go on a rant about the blind idiots here. I've seen way too much backpedalling this year alone.

Like I said if his characterisation is like the Joker, I couldnt give a **** how he becomes the Joker. Whether its a fail comedian turned psycho and eccentric gang leader or a lackey who's forced to don a red hood and falls in a vat of chemicals. People way too gaurded by this idea that he has to fall into chemicals to be who he is.
That's the opposite of what the whole discussion has been about on Joker. Most people have acknowledged it's not the chemical bath that turns him completely into Joker. Nor do they care if it even appears in the film.

[Super_Ludacris]

I dont think making him a twisted individual and then throwing him into tub is streching it. It goes with the idea of taking realism and escalating into a contemporary Bat-world. Your giving fans the infamous Joker accident but still giving the depth to the character like you wanted. It works like that.

[Crook]

I dont think making him a twisted individual and then throwing him into tub is streching it. It goes with the idea of taking realism and escalating into a contemporary Bat-world. Your giving fans the infamous Joker accident but still giving the depth to the character like you wanted. It works like that.
What you're describing is the current story arc in Batman: Confidential. That of which for the most part, I'm liking.

That is not my issue though. There is a difference between turning a psychotic baddie into a permawhite freak via chemical accident, and turning a psychotic baddie who puts on white makeup....into a permawhite freak via chemical accident. That is beyond redundant and contrived.

[Super_Ludacris]

I think it works, again if the story shapes it up right, it works

[thegameq]

In a way, you're actually right. Everything in art is a controversy. No matter how someone will do art, there will be people will always disagree on it. That's the way it is and should be.

Absolutely! Therein lies the predicament I believe WB was in with resurrecting this franchise into a positive light.

A. Go with another stylized (artistic) interpretation of the character and risk possible failure due to the comparison and stigma to/of the overly stylized and campy Schumacher films as well as simply having audiences not "get it" or.....

B. Play it safe and take a much more conservative approach that may, hopefully, bring the character back into good standings with audiences.

Parallels to Fox's approach to the X-films could be drawn. When in doubt go conservative and play it safe.

[thegameq]

But then I have ask what there definition of "Fantasy" is and to what extent they feel it needs to go to get the Batman world they want?

And on top of that, what is there idealistic Batman world and narritive? Is it like the Dini/Timm one, the Burton one, the orignal Kane one, the Frank Miller one, The Scwartz/Adams/O'Neil one, the Grant Morrison one?

I could see Nolan's world metamorphosizing into a Neal Adams type of world...though I'm told Grant Morrison's vision may lend itself moreso to Nolan's take. However like all takes on the character, each borrows a bit from the previous to some extent.

Indeed, to what extent do they need to go for a fantasy Batman film and yet stay within the....set structure?....of Nolan's world, while still offering up more of the fantasy we have come to expect from Batman's universe.

.....I think it can be done....how far, how, etc.....and will it be done....?

[Mr. Socko]

The films aren't canon nor are they substitutes but I still dislike changes that are unnecessary.

What you're describing is the current story arc in Batman: Confidential. That of which for the most part, I'm liking.

That is not my issue though. There is a difference between turning a psychotic baddie into a permawhite freak via chemical accident, and turning a psychotic baddie who puts on white makeup....into a permawhite freak via chemical accident. That is beyond redundant and contrived.

The voice of reason speaks again.

I agree. Nolan would be foolish to add in such a contrived element of first having "Joker," a mass murdering maniac who wears makeup, then have him bleached. There's absolutely no point to it. The chemical bath is suppose to serve as a turning point and has been that way in every version. Even in the versions where he is a killer before the chemical bath, it is what makes him the insane lunatic with a penchant for flamboyancy. If he's already THE JOKER before the chemicals, what in blue hell would a chemical bath later serve a purpose of? Absolutely nothing.

It just becomes lame and contrived. A man who wants to look like a clown and wears white makeup is conveniently bleached white...yeah...He's either perma-white or he's not. I would be fine with either, but throwing them both in would be a terrible mistake.

[BubbaGump]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!


:dry: :confused::up:

Is it weird that I have little or no problem with the issues you brought up? In fact, I like Joker's look, I like Nolan's "realism", I like the new batsuit. To me, these are trivial things and I don't dwell on them (though I will discuss them if the topic interests me).

What you have to understand is that we're bored, and we tend to over-analyze things to death here. The batboards haven't gotten any news recently, so we're all jumpy and eager for something...ANYTHING!

And what is there to discuss? We only know bits and pieces about the story of TDK so we have only a couple of those threads. One or two for the psychology of the movie, etc. So for now, everyone's just nit-picking what we DO HAVE--which is the new batsuit, the look of the Joker, the Bat-pod, etc. etc. We're that bored. Nothing anyone--any movie--can give us will make everyone happy.

This the Hype. No one is content with anything. Fact.

[Super_Ludacris]

The films aren't canon nor are they substitutes but I still dislike changes that are unnecessary.



The voice of reason speaks again.

I agree. Nolan would be foolish to add in such a contrived element of first having "Joker," a mass murdering maniac who wears makeup, then have him bleached. There's absolutely no point to it. The chemical bath is suppose to serve as a turning point and has been that way in every version. Even in the versions where he is a killer before the chemical bath, it is what makes him the insane lunatic with a penchant for flamboyancy. If he's already THE JOKER before the chemicals, what in blue hell would a chemical bath later serve a purpose of? Absolutely nothing.

It just becomes lame and contrived. A man who wants to look like a clown and wears white makeup is conveniently bleached white...yeah...He's either perma-white or he's not. I would be fine with either, but throwing them both in would be a terrible mistake.


He's a twisted criminal before the bath, the chemical accident leads to him snapping and also gaining a greater obsession for Batman, for scarring him. I explained how I think it can work and it plays.

[Luchastyle]

Heck, this is the ****ing HYPE for crying out loud. What bloody thing ISN'T a controversy here?

Nolan's realism? CONTROVERSY!
Tumbler/Batpod? CONTROVERSY!
Casting? CONTROVERSY!
Aaron Eckhart's Hair color? CONTROVERSY!
Batsuit? CONTROVERSY!
Fight scenes/styles? CONTROVERSY!
Joker's look? CONTROVERSY!
Characters' screentime? CONTROVERSY!
No. of Villains? CONTROVERSY!
Bale's Height/Build/Asscrack? CONTROVERSY!


:dry: :confused::up:
who has a problem with bale's asscrack!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Gianakin_]

Like Joker said in Batman Beyond- Return of the Joker: Batfart!!!

[Arkard]

Realism shmism. Begins was far away from realistic.

[Super_Ludacris]

Still a classic though

[terry78]

What it boils down to is, most of the supervillains we've grown up with all became evil because of some weird ass accident. Granted, they were probably already ****ed up from the get go, but the creators made them out to be totally normal, which they kind of used as a scare tactic like "this could happen to anyone."

[Mr. Socko]

He's a twisted criminal before the bath, the chemical accident leads to him snapping and also gaining a greater obsession for Batman, for scarring him. I explained how I think it can work and it plays.


So we wouldn't see the real full-on JOKER until that happens?

Yeah...If that's the case, we wouldn't really get JOKER until the chemical bath happens. But hell, this is all speculation with no clue as to what will really happen.

[Super_Ludacris]

But we get the chracterstic of his criminal mind. Which is more than enough. I dont get why people cant put two and two together on this. And again, we know a fair bit from the spoilers and on set reports....

[fcrowelle06]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SSdvXAXbQ

tell me what you think of the different laugh at the end, Im interested in opinions

[Gianakin_]

Like I said when I first saw it: Great Hamill impersonation, proves why Hamill wouldn't work for the films.

[CaptainClown]

ya, it doesn't seem to work. I think its a wonderful voice. but if i saw someone doing that in person. I dunno

[TheLongestDay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SSdvXAXbQ

tell me what you think of the different laugh at the end, Im interested in opinions

Very well done! Excellent impression-tho i prefer heaths Joker voice for the movie (and Bales Bats) - i would love to see an animated "nolanverse" movie using conroy and Hamill

[Gotham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SSdvXAXbQ

tell me what you think of the different laugh at the end, Im interested in opinions

Heath has a much more distinct, recognizable voice about him. That trailer really didn't awaken any interest.

[Mr. Socko]

Very well done! Excellent impression-tho i prefer heaths Joker voice for the movie (and Bales Bats) - i would love to see an animated "nolanverse" movie using conroy and Hamill


That wouldn't be the Nolanverse, it would be the Timm/Dini-verse, who Conroy and Hamill was synonymous with. Just like you couldn't have the Timm/Dini-verse with Bale and Heath.

[TheLongestDay]

That wouldn't be the Nolanverse, it would be the Timm/Dini-verse, who Conroy and Hamill was synonymous with. Just like you couldn't have the Timm/Dini-verse with Bale and Heath.

I didnt mean with the animation style of the Timm/Dini-verse,just a new type of animation styled after the world of Batman Nolan has created-with Conroy and Hamill.

Imagine an "animatrix" style project,that fits into continuity with the Nolanverse,but with different talent taking on seperate stories.

[CaptainClown]

thats what they are doing, but as far as we know not with Conroy or Hamil

[TheLongestDay]

thats what they are doing, but as far as we know not with Conroy or Hamil

I didnt know it was going to be a series of stories done with different talent,i just thought it was one animated move to maybe bridge the gap between begins and dark knight.

either way i love that idea,and i would love different voice actors just to make it more fun-not cuz i think anyone could out-do the other.I liked how just for the one episode of BTAS they had Michael Ironside voice bats

[CaptainClown]

Oh, I guess I am getting mixed up. For a while I was thinking it was series of films by different artists. I am probably wrong though.

[TheLongestDay]

nope looks like you were right-a little digging and heres what i found on AICN:

"Set in the period between BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT, this brand new adventure follows BATMAN as he unravels a mystery over six original stories done in the style of Japanese Anime. Each of the six original stories has been written by a highly respected screenwriter or comic book creator. The talent includes Academy Award nominee Josh Olsen (The History of Violence), screenwriter of the BLADE films and BATMAN BEGINS David Goyer, and famed comic book writer Brian Azzarello, among others. The Batman Anime DVD is viewed as a perfect companion piece to BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT. The original stories introduce a number of classic characters from the DC Comics BATMAN universe as well as following up on characters and storylines that were introduced in BATMAN BEGINS."



does this mean different anime styles and voice actors too? who knows?

[Agentsands77]

So essentially, this is a Batman version of THE ANIMATRIX. Cool.

[thegameq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SSdvXAXbQ

tell me what you think of the different laugh at the end, Im interested in opinions

That was fricken great!! The real Joker. It sounded both funny and yet disturbing.

[SuperDaniel]

My views on this whole realism debate is...

Well..i dont think Nolan`s Batman is the end all, be all of Batman. Batman Begins had a great story but i thought they exagerated this realism aspect too much.

Gotham City is not supposed to look like a normal city. It is supposed to look scary, just like the character.

Burton`s city was scary and imagine what they could do with today`s special effects. C`mon. No gargoyles, no gothic theme in Gotham? WTf...

DC characters arent supposed to be realistic.

Yes, you have to believe the story is real but put everything into a reality thing just takes away the fun of the characters to me.

Superman and all the characters are more..lets say...fanstastical... than Batman but taking away the fantastic elements of Batman like the look of Gotham and the Batmobile, the white skin of Joker,etc just takes away a little bit of the fun, IMO.

The story had to take itself seriously and that is the most important thing.You have to believe whats happening is real but not base everything in reality and get an explanation for everything. It makes the audience look dumb.

[Gianakin_]

The story had to take itself seriously. You have to believe whats happening is real but not base everything in reality and get an explanation for everything. It makes the audience look dumb.

Dumb? In what way?

[thegameq]

My views on this whole realism debate is...

Well..i dont think Nolan`s Batman is the end all, be all of Batman. Batman Begins had a great story but i thought they exagerated this realism aspect too much.

Gotham City is not supposed to look like a normal city. It is supposed to look scary, just like the character.

Burton`s city was scary and imagine what they could do with today`s special effects. C`mon. No gargoyles, no gothic theme in Gotham? WTf...

DC characters arent supposed to be realistic.

Yes, you have to believe the story is real but put everything into a reality thing just takes away the fun of the characters to me.

Superman and all the characters are more..lets say...fanstastical... than Batman but taking away the fantastic elements of Batman like the look of Gotham and the Batmobile, the white skin of Joker,etc just takes away a little bit of the fun, IMO.

The story had to take itself seriously and that is the most important thing.You have to believe whats happening is real but not base everything in reality and get an explanation for everything. It makes the audience look dumb.

I was with you until the last sentence. :woot:

But yes it really takes alot of the fun out of the material when you take away so many of the things that made it great in the first place.....frankly, I don't think Nolan's films are really for the fans anyway. They're clearly aimed moreso at pleasing the average audience--but the mistake, as usual, is assuming they know what kind of film audiences want.

Honestly, it does make one wonder if this latest franchise would have done better with audiences with a more stylized fantasy approach ala 300/Sin City--but backed with a serious tone.

[terry78]

There are two types of directions writers take with Batman. Whether it's for cartoons, video games, movies, or whatever media they choose. They either go the gritty, realistic route or they take the more goth, stylized route. Depends on what they choose to do. Those are the two types of ways Bats is portrayed, and neither is wrong.

[Gianakin_]

I was with you until the last sentence. :woot:

But yes it really takes alot of the fun out of the material when you take away so many of the things that made it great in the first place.....frankly, I don't think Nolan's films are really for the fans anyway. They're clearly aimed moreso at pleasing the average audience--but the mistake, as usual, is assuming they know what kind of film audiences want.

Honestly, it does make one wonder if this latest franchise would have done better with audiences with a more stylized fantasy approach ala 300/Sin City--but backed with a serious tone.

First I'd like to say that I don't think he made a mistake with the audiences. Regular viewers seem to like the film just fine.

Second, your suggestion about a 300 style is an interesting one, but I think 300 or Sin City did so well because it was about comic book characters, who however didn't wear masks or costumes. Batman, as a superhero might be considered as childish by many.
It is my opinion that a 300-level of stylization (a very high level if you ask me) would bring the opposite result for Batman, while keeping the character real (and I don't mean it the Nolan way, I also mean what Burton did, with an appropriate level of seriousness and stylization) is what makes people interested in Batman.
A direct Frank Miler-style Batfilm would be an interesting but VERY dangerous experiment, which imo would not work well on screen AND it would fail financially. I have my reasons for believing this (and 1-2 examples of what it looks like), I don't claim to know the exact result, but I've seen things that come very close and I honestly didn't like what I saw.

[thegameq]

There are two types of directions writers take with Batman. Whether it's for cartoons, video games, movies, or whatever media they choose. They either go the gritty, realistic route or they take the more goth, stylized route. Depends on what they choose to do. Those are the two types of ways Bats is portrayed, and neither is wrong.

mmmmmm.......I don't know if I've ever seen a realistic take on Batman other than Begins,....Burton's films doesn't count IMO. Please elaborate.

[terry78]

If they did it as a faux 1930's film noir like Sin City, it could be interesting, but it wouldn't have the depth that Nolan was trying to incorporate.

[MAKIEVELLI]

The story had to take itself seriously and that is the most important thing.You have to believe whats happening is real but not base everything in reality and get an explanation for everything. It makes the audience look dumb.

:whatever: This part of your post really makes you look dumb. The whole point of explaining everything is not to make the audience look dumb. And never once did I believe one of Burton's movies was real. With BB, honestly, sometimes I'm forget I'm watching a super hero movie. For me it's good, but I can understand how for others that would be a bad thing.

[terry78]

Honestly, I don't understand how any fan could want their comic movies that real. When I hear about this, i want to feel that same wonder a kid gets when he sees his favorite character on the screen finally realized. Yes, I'm going on 30, but I still want to see classic stuff from the comics. Not just in dialogue and angst, but in action.

[SuperDaniel]

:whatever: This part of your post really makes you look dumb. The whole point of explaining everything is not to make the audience look dumb. And never once did I believe one of Burton's movies was real. With BB, honestly, sometimes I'm forget I'm watching a super hero movie. For me it's good, but I can understand how for others that would be a bad thing.


So if they explain everything to me it doesnt make me look dumb? That doesnt make any sense. I dont need to know where every wire and piece of cloth of the Batman costume comes from to get the point it is a military thing and it protects Batman in his fight on crime....

I meant that theres is a degree of realism u have to reach for. When u start removing the fantastical elements THAT are an integral part of the characters just to make things look more real, it just takes away a little bit of the fun for me.

Making Gotham not have the GOTHIC look, the gargoyles, The Batmobile without a Bat-motif, Joker not fall in a tank of acid and have permanent white skin and green hair,etc. These are IMPORTANT part of the characters to me.

Things WENT overboard with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin but that doesnt mean that the oscar nominated production design of Batman 89 was bad.

I want the comics to be FUN, fantastic and realistic. There has to be a middle term.

Batman TAS are to me the best interpretation of Batman. It has fantastical elements but with serious stories.

[Gianakin_]

Making Gotham not have the GOTHIC look, the gargoyles, The Batmobile without a Bat-motif, Joker not fall in a tank of acid and have permanent white skin and green hair,etc. These are IMPORTANT part of the characters to me.


But did/ will they make you feel like dumb?

[SuperDaniel]

I was talking about them explaining where every pieace of fabric of the Batman costume and his weapons.

OK, I get the point. It is a military thing and it protects Batman. Lets move on with it.

Now...oh..the ears are only there to put microphones, etc etc etc...bla bla...

Who cares? Batman is fantastical character and uses gadgets to help him in his fight on crime. I just thought they went overboard with this realistic thing...

[SuperDaniel]

But did/ will they make you feel like dumb?


But sure took away the fun of watching a Batman movie...The Batman i love stands on gargoyles, his city is GRITTY and scary....

[Gianakin_]

Well most people I know loved the explanations, they thought it was something they hadn't seen before and were satisfied with them. And, I should add other people around the world from varius forums who feel the same way (of course you'll know people who feel the same as you do). When a movie demands less suspension of diselief doesn't make you look dumb, IMO, it makes you more a part of the movie itself.

[Gianakin_]

But sure took away the fun of watching a Batman movie...The Batman i love stands on gargoyles, his city is GRITTY and scary....

Fun is one thing (and I really understand you), but insulting your intelligence is another.

[SuperDaniel]

Wait...i love the explanations too. It made sense. But they stil exagerated, IMO.

But because of this realistic approach, do they have to sacrifice every fanstastical element that actually works like the look of Gotham, for example??? I even thought the movie didnt have a lot of shadows or wasnt dark enough...

[Hole Shot]

So essentially, this is a Batman version of THE ANIMATRIX. Cool.


They're sorta doing that. It's coming out before the release of TDK.

[Gianakin_]

I disagree, but I can accept that worry of yours.
As for the explanations, the only part that went too far was Al Ghul's plan. That part was overexplained, and in the middle of the battle, too. But the way he assembles the costume? That's one of the things that stayed in people's heads from BB. Exaggeration of that part would have been if they had told us how they got the paint for the Nomex suit.

[MAKIEVELLI]

I disagree, but I can accept that worry of yours.
As for the explanations, the only part that went too far was Al Ghul's plan. That part was overexplained, and in the middle of the battle, too. But the way he assembles the costume? That's one of the things that stayed in people's heads from BB. Exaggeration of that part would have been if they had told us how they got the paint for the Nome suit.

For real, the explanation was fantastic. As much as I love the realism aspect, I can say I'll be really pissed off if The Joker isn't perma-white. And I also wouldn't mind seeing a few gargoyles here and there, but not to go overboard, as IMO, Burton did.

[SuperDaniel]

You`re right. It didnt bother me as much as seeing Batmobile without the Bat-motif and Gotham without the gothic elements...

Its just that to me the perfect Gotham and the perfect Batmobile are the Burton ones so I just felt that something was missing.

BB would`ve been the perfect Batman movie if they had the story and cast of BB with the production design of B89...Thats how i feel.

[Gianakin_]

For real, the explanation was fantastic. As much as I love the realism aspect, I can say I'll be really pissed off if The Joker isn't perma-white. And I also wouldn't mind seeing a few gargoyles here and there, but not to go overboard, as IMO, Burton did.

IMO, if Burton overdid it somewhere, it was in BR. But that's a big IF.

[Gianakin_]

You`re right. It didnt bother me as much as seeing Batmobile without the Bat-motif and Gotham without the gothic elements...

Its just that to me the perfect Gotham and the perfect Batmobile are the Burton ones so I just felt that something was missing.

BB would`ve been the perfect Batman movie if they had the story and cast of BB with the production design of B89...Thats how i feel.

I certainly know where you come from. I don't agree, but I respect that.

[Rory gets laid]

Yay realism!

[Rorschach II]

Nolan's brand of realism is beginning to become ridiculous, simply because the whole idea of Batman is almost as unrealistic as Spider-man or Superman (though it may not appear so on the surface). Surrealism is the way to go (like Batman, but maybe not as much as Returns).

[Gianakin_]

Nolan's brand of realism is beginning to become ridiculous, simply because the whole idea of Batman is almost as unrealistic as Spider-man or Superman (though it may not appear so on the surface). Surrealism is the way to go (like Batman, but maybe not as much as Returns).

Are you talking about Nolan himself or some fans who don't really know make him look bad by misinterpreting his vision?

[thegameq]

First I'd like to say that I don't think he made a mistake with the audiences. Regular viewers seem to like the film just fine.

Second, your suggestion about a 300 style is an interesting one, but I think 300 or Sin City did so well because it was about comic book characters, who however didn't wear masks or costumes. Batman, as a superhero might be considered as childish by many.
It is my opinion that a 300-level of stylization (a very high level if you ask me) would bring the opposite result for Batman, while keeping the character real (and I don't mean it the Nolan way, I also mean what Burton did, with an appropriate level of seriousness and stylization) is what makes people interested in Batman.
A direct Frank Miler-style Batfilm would be an interesting but VERY dangerous experiment, which imo would not work well on screen AND it would fail financially. I have my reasons for believing this (and 1-2 examples of what it looks like), I don't claim to know the exact result, but I've seen things that come very close and I honestly didn't like what I saw.

I think the key to a true Batman on film is maintaing the fantasy within limits. I think that's one of the reason's Burton's films worked so well and Schumachers didn't. The other thing is the level of stylization. Again, Schumacher went to far.

Now I believe it could be done 300/Sin city style, but the key would be to have a strong script and presentation, so that the visuals and the story become a whole, rather than the visual style jar the viewer out of the film or be a distraction as someone earlier put it. Even still, you could only take the fantasy so far, without resorting to the overuse of CGI or having Batman do things that go far beyond mortal men; i.e., Batman I would imagine is perhaps a level or two above an olympic level athlete, he isn't Spider-man, so he shouldn't be jumping ridiculous distances, etc., etc.

Following along the lines of the story being key, Batman the detective--not five seconds of spying on someone, etc., etc. A real Batman detective story--yet this is where the question, "Who are we targeting with such a film will", have to be answered. Because as I've read a few times on this board and others, not everyone will be thrilled with a "detective story" Batman. Will such a movie make alot of money?

while I do think it can be done, there would have to be limitations to prevent the film from crossing into the absurd. The presentation is the key.

[thegameq]

If they did it as a faux 1930's film noir like Sin City, it could be interesting, but it wouldn't have the depth that Nolan was trying to incorporate.

Even if given a better story and the tone was serious?

[Gianakin_]

I think the key to a true Batman on film is maintaing the fantasy within limits. I think that's one of the reason's Burton's films worked so well and Schumachers didn't. The other thing is the level of stylization. Again, Schumacher went to far.

Now I believe it could be done 300/Sin city style, but the key would be to have a strong script and presentation, so that the visuals and the story become a whole, rather than the visual style jar the viewer out of the film or be a distraction as someone earlier put it. Even still, you could only take the fantasy so far, without resorting to the overuse of CGI or having Batman do things that go far beyond mortal men; i.e., Batman I would imagine is perhaps a level or two above an olympic level athlete, he isn't Spider-man, so he shouldn't be jumping ridiculous distances, etc., etc.

Following along the lines of the story being key, Batman the detective--not five seconds of spying on someone, etc., etc. A real Batman detective story--yet this is where the question, "Who are we targeting with such a film will", have to be answered. Because as I've read a few times on this board and others, not everyone will be thrilled with a "detective story" Batman. Will such a movie make alot of money?

while I do think it can be done, there would have to be limitations to prevent the film from crossing into the absurd. The presentation is the key.

I disagree with this suggestion of this being the key to a true Batman film. Like I said before, the suggestion, especially now that you expresed it better, is very dangerous. One has to find the line where fantasy ends and the Millerisms begin.

[Rory gets laid]

Nolan's brand of realism is beginning to become ridiculous, simply because the whole idea of Batman is almost as unrealistic as Spider-man or Superman (though it may not appear so on the surface). Surrealism is the way to go (like Batman, but maybe not as much as Returns).


So, being an intelligent millionaire with a penchant for costumes & justice is as realistic as an alien superhero who flies around in his underwear or a man who gets bit by a spider and can suddenly climb walls and swing around town with webs??

[Rorschach II]

No, it's the little things, such as surviving decades as a superhero simply because he's a well trained, intelligent millionaire with a "penchant for costumes & justice". Spider-Man is not as unbelievable because, hey, he's got powers. Once you get over the whole thing about the Spider abilities, he rarely does anything that's utterly unbelievable. Batman does.

[Rory gets laid]

No, it's the little things, such as surviving decades as a superhero simply because he's a well trained, intelligent millionaire with a "penchant for costumes & justice". Spider-Man is not as unbelievable because, hey, he's got powers. Once you get over the whole thing about the Spider abilities, he rarely does anything that's utterly unbelievable. Batman does.


Do you want the chance to read what you wrote there again, before I decide to comment on it??

[Gianakin_]

Once you get over the whole thing about the Spider abilities, he rarely does anything that's utterly unbelievable. Batman does.

Genuinely curious: What exactly?

[TheLongestDay]

basically,if you love the fantastical and gothic side of batman-you already got your movie with Batman 89,i along with many others absolutely LOVED Nolans take and found it much more precise relatable because of its more realistic setting.

Plus it was done with a clear respect to the source material

[Mr. Socko]

Burton's world was in the visual realm of Arkham Asylum. Nolan's world is in the visual realm of The Long Halloween.

There are several interpretations of Batman, this is just one of them. Enjoy it for what it is, stop hoping it becomes a complete fantasy film. That may happen one day, but for now, that's not how Batman on film is. Nolan's placed him in a gritty realistic version of Gotham and this is his vision. I think it's going great, just sitting back and enjoying the ride. Once Nolan's trilogy is over, we will get a different take, and after that, another.

[BubbaGump]

Burton's world was in the visual realm of Arkham Asylum. Nolan's world is in the visual realm of The Long Halloween.


I thought the world of The Long Halloween was more Tim Burton-Gothic Art-deco than anything. Nolan's world is Year One.

[Rorschach II]

Genuinely curious: What exactly?

Surviving.

[TheLongestDay]

ah but unfortunately with the JLA film looming,we will get a look at yet another take on Batman a bit TOO soon lol

[TheLongestDay]

I thought the world of The Long Halloween was more Tim Burton-Gothic Art-deco than anything. Nolan's world is Year One.


I think comparisons can be drawn with visual styles but each artist and director creates there own.I wouldnt say Burtons Batman was in the Arkham Asylum realm-it was in the Burton realm...in which Gotham is a suburb of Halloween town :cwink:

[AgentGraves!]

I like the way Nolan put it...now im paraphrasing here..."Always wanted to see such a fictional character in the real world...a hightend reality...." i get it man...

and i felt the same...what would it be like to have something that fictional function in the real world...what we see in BB is that.

[TheLongestDay]

too true! and thats the approach im in love with,and cant wait to see how the Joker character fits into that world

[Mr. Socko]

I thought the world of The Long Halloween was more Tim Burton-Gothic Art-deco than anything. Nolan's world is Year One.


Very true. I stand corrected.

[BubbaGump]

I think comparisons can be drawn with visual styles but each artist and director creates there own.I wouldnt say Burtons Batman was in the Arkham Asylum realm-it was in the Burton realm...in which Gotham is a suburb of Halloween town :cwink:

Burton may have had his own realm, but there indeed similarities between Tim Sale's and B89's Gotham (architecture-wise and mood).

[TheLongestDay]

true,although the most common visual representation of Gotham in the books is closer to the one that Nolan used.

One of the many things i love about the Batman character is that he can be put into more surreal and gothic settings-and then into the very real,and still be interesting and relevant

[Gianakin_]

Burton's world was in the visual realm of Arkham Asylum. Nolan's world is in the visual realm of The Long Halloween.

There are several interpretations of Batman, this is just one of them. Enjoy it for what it is, stop hoping it becomes a complete fantasy film. That may happen one day, but for now, that's not how Batman on film is. Nolan's placed him in a gritty realistic version of Gotham and this is his vision. I think it's going great, just sitting back and enjoying the ride. Once Nolan's trilogy is over, we will get a different take, and after that, another.

Amen.

[Gianakin_]

Surviving.

If you compare Batman's Rogues Gallery and Spiderman's, analogically they have the same level of danger to face. So, I disagree, Batman hasn't had more unbelievable stuff to do, especially when Peter has died a couple of times and has been brought back to life.

[Fenrir]

Burton may have had his own realm, but there indeed similarities between Tim Sale's and B89's Gotham (architecture-wise and mood).

I think Nolan's vision of Batman has greater visual resemblance with Frank Miller's Year One and DKR - both the comics have very little (if any) gothic undertones and Gotham's portrayal in it is very much like an urban wasteland.

[The Dark Guybrush]

I think Nolan's vision of Batman has greater visual resemblance with Frank Miller's Year One and DKR - both the comics have very little (if any) gothic undertones and Gotham's portrayal in it is very much like an urban wasteland.

I have to agree with you on this one.

Burton's Gotham was heavily, heavily stylized..

[TheLongestDay]

I have to agree with you on this one.

Burton's Gotham was heavily, heavily stylized..

thus making it less believable and relatable in my opinion

[The Dark Guybrush]

thus making it less believable and relatable in my opinion

Yes, it's difficult to believe in a city that looks like a real city, because it is a real city (Chicago).

and it's hard to relate because superheroes only work under ultra-stylized conditions.

:whatever:

[TheLongestDay]

Yes, it's difficult to believe in a city that looks like a real city, because it is a real city (Chicago).

and it's hard to relate because superheroes only work under ultra-stylized conditions.

:whatever:

eh?:huh:

[The Dark Guybrush]

eh?:huh:

i take it you must have been talking about Burton's cityscapes, and not Nolan's?

my apologies. too little descriptors and too much coffee.. :ninja: :heart:

[TheLongestDay]

i take it you must have been talking about Burton's cityscapes, and not Nolan's?

my apologies. too little descriptors and too much coffee.. :ninja: :heart:

lol no worries

[GoogleMe94]

i have just recently bought the batman anthology and watched the Schumacher movies in all there campy glory. ya know what? i liked them. i mean yes, i love all the batman movies, but i actually think i enjoyed schumachers fantasy gotham then i did nolans normal gotham. it was REALLY out there, but somehow i found it to be very fun escapism from the constantly dark stuff im so used to. granted, the films portray a very light batman, but i enjoyed that a bit more then the realistic stuff. i hope that there will be more fantasy in TDK then there was in BB. it was grounded, but TOO grounded for a superhero movie. they need to up the ante with the next film, for sure. the thing i like about the batman films is that each one is SO different from the last one. Returns and B89 may have many similiarities, but there are also many things that are different between them. same with the schumacher films. with the nolan films, it doesnt look like nolan wants to change it up too much, like hes making basically a BB2 rather then a different story or different feel. i dont want to see the same stuff we saw in BB, i want to see something different. perhaps a new part of gotham we never saw, or a new villians hideout we never saw, things like that. i dont want just a carbon copy of what we saw 2 years ago. the thing i dont like about many of the sequels, especially marvel ones, is that its just doin the same thing we saw last time. same city, same hero, no changes in enviroment, just a different villian and seeing how the hero deals with problems in their life. meh, been there done that, thats not very exciting to me. i like change, and the batman films have a track record of being different from the one that came before, so i hope this happens with TDK and a possible 3rd from nolan. i am getting a bit tired of the realism stuff though, batman isnt that realistic. more then superman and spiderman, yes, but hes still a supehero and it should be remembered that he is, or else you lose the fun. in BB, i didnt know whether i was watching a batman film or a crime drama. it had a serious identity crisis. i hope TDK does better at being what its supposed to be, a comic book film, not a Bio pic. still keeping with the darkness and depth, but a comic book movie nonetheless. burton did that, why not nolan?

[TheLongestDay]

i have just recently bought the batman anthology and watched the Schumacher movies in all there campy glory. ya know what? i liked them. i mean yes, i love all the batman movies, but i actually think i enjoyed schumachers fantasy gotham then i did nolans normal gotham. it was REALLY out there, but somehow i found it to be very fun escapism from the contantly dark stuff im so used to. granted the films portray a very light batman, but i enjoyed that a bit more then the realistic stuff. i hope that there will be more fantasy in TDK then there was in BB. it was grounded, but TOO grounded for a super hero movie. they need to up the ante with the next film, for sure. the thing i like about the batman films is that each one is SO different from the last one. Returns and B89 may have many similiarities, but there are also many things that are different between then. same with the schumacher films. with the nolan films, it doesnt look like nolan wants to change it up too much, like hes making basically a BB2 rather then a different story or different feel. i dont want to see the same stuff we saw in BB, i want to see something different. perhaps a new part of gotham we never saw, or a new villians hideout we never saw, things like that. i dont want just a carbon copy of what we saw 2 years ago. the thing i dont like about many of the sequels, especially marvel ones, is that its just doin the same thing we saw last time. same city, same hero, no changes in enviroment, jusy a different villian. meh, thats not very exciting to me. i like change, and the batman films have a track record of being different from the one that came before, so i hope this happens with TDK and a possible 3rd from nolan. i am getting a bit tired of the realism stuff though, batman isnt that realistic. more then superman and spiderman, yes, but hes still a supehero and should it should be remembered that he is, or else you lose the fun. in BB, i didnt know whether i was watching a batman film or a crime drama. it had a serious identity crisis. i hope TDK does better at being what its supposed to be, a comic book film, not a Bio pic.

i respect your opinion,but the fact is its not supposed to be a comic book movie,its a Batman movie-and Batman Begins is closer to the source material than any of the other movies which is what has drawn me to the character (and will continue to do so) my whole life.

Batman was never meant to be a fantasy character-what works so well with him is that hes human,and he does it all with focusing his willpower and human potential.

I never considerd the idea of a boy watching his parents die and choosing to dedicate his life prowling the streets putting his life in danger as a vigilante to be a fantasy story-more psychological and dramatic

[Mr. Socko]

I've also brought up the increased visual style before.

In Burton's second film, he took the visual flare, his Gotham, to the extreme. Huge slender but tall buildings, very dark and stylized. Schumacher also raised Gotham even higher in his second Bat-film. There was like double the neon, statues 10x as big, etc.

I think Nolan may also take a step up in Gotham(hopefully for the best unlike what Schumacher did). However, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Marvel part. The reason why the style for the Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic 4 films all have the same production design for landscape throughout all the films is because it takes place in a real city. They can't exaggerate the cityscape of the Marvel films because they live in real places, mostly New York. Batman has the luxury of not living in a real city, so his production design and city-scale/scape look can be drastically different every time if they want it to be.

[Samurai Pasta]

What the HELL is so great about Burton's Gotham? I liked certain parts of Returns, but Batman 89 was a bore to look at. Batman Begins' Gotham isn't great (it's Chicago basically) but I keep hearing how fantasy-like and surreal the Gotham is in Burton's. I'm not seeing it.

Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker have the best Gotham City, hands down.

[GoogleMe94]

i respect your opinion,but the fact is its not supposed to be a comic book movie,its a Batman movie-and Batman Begins is closer to the source material than any of the other movies which is what has drawn me to the character (and will continue to do so) my whole life.

well, that is your opinion. i do not believe that BB was the most faithful or most enjoyable batman movie ever, but if you think so, thats fine. it IS a fanboy film after all, but im not one those ppl. batman begins got me back into batman, yes, but it actually made my respect go up for the burton films alot more, because i was kinda dissapoined with the new one. wasnt bad, but wasnt very good for me. but thats just my opinion.

Batman was never meant to be a fantasy character-what works so well with him is that hes human,and he does it all with focusing his willpower and human potential.

again, thats your opinion. for me, every superhero is a fantasy character, be it superpowered or not, its fantasy, for me at least. i am not an avid comic book reader, i just like to watch and enjoy the movies and be entertained by my favorite superhero. without the fantasy, i just dont really enjoy them all that much. this was the case with BB, it was too realistic and not enough fantasy stuff going on. closest it got was batman gliding, but ive seen that before i liked it better the first time around actually. again, its just my opinion.


I never considerd the idea of a boy watching his parents die and choosing to dedicate his life prowling the streets putting his life in danger as a vigilante to be a fantasy story-more psychological and dramatic

yes, i agree, those parts are not fantasy at all, its very traumatic real life event. but all that batman superhero stuff for the most part is pretty out there and "fantasy".

[GoogleMe94]

What the HELL is so great about Burton's Gotham? I liked certain parts of Returns, but Batman 89 was a bore to look at. Batman Begins' Gotham isn't great (it's Chicago basically) but I keep hearing how fantasy-like and surreal the Gotham is in Burton's. I'm not seeing it.

Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker have the best Gotham City, hands down.

OK, i dont know whether to take this as personal opinion or flat out trolling, but i will say that burtons gotham ROCKED and the BTAS gotham was exactly the same as burtons gotham, only in a cartoon rather in reallife. thats where they gotr the influence, but thats pretty much a known fact.

[Mr. Socko]

What the HELL is so great about Burton's Gotham? I liked certain parts of Returns, but Batman 89 was a bore to look at. Batman Begins' Gotham isn't great (it's Chicago basically) but I keep hearing how fantasy-like and surreal the Gotham is in Burton's. I'm not seeing it.

Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker have the best Gotham City, hands down.

Returns was more surreal. But what I loved about Batman 89/Anton Furst's designs was the art deco, Gotham had very crowded streets, very slander buildings, old school cars, gargoyles on the rooftops, and it even had a very industrial feel to it. It had a very 40s style as everyone wore trench coats and fedoras. Furst's designs did not look like any city in real life. They mixed several different styles and tones. I thought Anton's designs were the best.

I do agree about TAS having some really good designs, most of it was taken from '89.

[GoogleMe94]

I've also brought up the increased visual style before.

In Burton's second film, he took the visual flare, his Gotham, to the extreme. Huge slender but tall buildings, very dark and stylized. Schumacher also raised Gotham even higher in his second Bat-film. There was like double the neon, statues 10x as big, etc.

I think Nolan may also take a step up in Gotham(hopefully for the best unlike what Schumacher did). However, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Marvel part. The reason why the style for the Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic 4 films all have the same production design for landscape throughout all the films is because it takes place in a real city. They can't exaggerate the cityscape of the Marvel films because they live in real places, mostly New York. Batman has the luxury of not living in a real city, so his production design and city-scale/scape look can be drastically different every time if they want it to be.

TOTALLY agree, thank you for stating that. gotham is not a real city, but the marvel characters are always living in real city's, mainly in NYC.

[Mr. Socko]

TOTALLY agree, thank you for stating that. gotham is not a real city, but the marvel characters are always living in real city's, mainly in NYC.


Yes. The Marvel films can't drastically change style as they're in real cities. Batman's city of Gotham can be drastically different in every series because it's a fictional place. It doesn't exist so there's no state that it must be like. Thus each film director and each comic book artist will all have a different style. Nolan's is gritty, realistic, and dark. Not dark like "Gothic Burton dark" but brooding dark.

So Nolan's Gotham is no more correct or incorrect than Burton's, or dare I say it, even Schumacher's. Yes, everyone will have a different opinion on who's is best and who did better. We all have our preferences but saying "Nolan's Gotham is too realistic looking so it's bad" isn't a real argument as there isn't much of a standard for comparison. If anything it would be the restrictions that come with it.

I've enjoyed all of the Gotham designs we've had, even Schumacher's to a degree.

[TheLongestDay]

dont get me wrong-as ive stated before i do like the Burton films and about 3 seconds of the shumacher ones,but we've had those,and personally i prefer Nolans take on Batman.

There are some great set peices and design in the Burton films,but for me its all about the tone-and the tone for Batman that i personally prefer is a more serious one,but i understand that alot of people dont.

Either way i agree with Mr.Socko in that in TDK Nolan will take his visual style a step further

[AgentGraves!]

watch past Nolan films...we have seen the Nolan batman film in begins..just as we have seen the burton batman film in BR...i don't really see this getting any more "nolan-ized" than it has been.
Maybe the only change to come is the fighting...this film being on a bigger scale than BB we could no longer be subjected to the fights in the crooks POV...this is a larger battle for our bat so thus i would exspect that the fighting be taken in WS format...to get the whole action of it rather than subjecting us to how it would be like to fight batman...after bb we know what its like...thus in closing Nolan's eye could not possibly get anymore "artistic" than it is at present. Im tellin' you go way way back to "THE FOLLOWING" then go watch "THE PRESTIGE" and you can see that it's slight changes...and nothing more...and thats over the drive of about 10years or more!!!! come on folks we have nothing to fear about "NOLAN's NEXT BATMAN FILM = TIM BURTON's BATMAN RETURNS"
there is NO need for fear!

in the words of a dieing Thomas Wayne "Don't be afraid" .....


and you can take that to the bank....


only to get the very bank that you are in knocked over by a slue of crooks in clown masks....

[Gianakin_]

Don't be too sure about that, there is nothing to take to the bank yet.

[TheLongestDay]

the fight scenes were the only thing i was a tad dissapointed with,but on multiple viewings they hold up for me and you notice more.

Like how Bruce breaks one of the prisoners legs at the beginning-totally missed that at the cinema,but they got that into a pg film by shooting it the way they did

[AgentGraves!]

how so?

I truly can not see nolan getting all "gothic" on us..with this next one..if anything it's going to look like BB's only maybe a different hue in stead of the orange-brown hue...look i've been a sole fan of Nolan's since the FOLLOWING came out i've been following him for years and it was always a thought in the back of my mind that he should do a batman film because he would do him some justice..and he's had...he gets batman more so than any other person to get...this is something that only happens once in a while out in hollywood...nolan is to batman as donner is to superman...and going on how nolan's eye had "matured" since THE FOLLOWING i can say with much convidence that things will not get as out of hand as they have with burton's second go-a-round with the bat...deposit it!

[AgentGraves!]

the fight scenes were the only thing i was a tad dissapointed with,but on multiple viewings they hold up for me and you notice more.

Like how Bruce breaks one of the prisoners legs at the beginning-totally missed that at the cinema,but they got that into a pg film by shooting it the way they did


indeed TLD...thats what i dug about this film..or one of the many things...and it only gets better when you slow-mo-it...:ninja:

[TheLongestDay]

its one of the few films that i can watch over and over again and keep noticing new things-thats attention to detail and great craftsmanship on Nolans part

[AgentGraves!]

yeah like how there are more comicbook reffs than one had though before!!!!
trust me do some research...i wanna say that there is something like 87% of the film has Comic reffs!!! maybe more!

[Gianakin_]

how so?

I didn't say he might get gothic, but to say there will be no changes in some sectors... even Bale says that he loves what they're doing because it's very much different from BB. Nolan said the same thing, and stated it as the reason he came back.
All I'm saying is, you shouldn't start "taking things to the bank" yet.

[AgentGraves!]

I didn't say he might get gothic, but to say there will be no changes in some sectors... even Bale says that he loves what they're doing because it's very much different from BB. Nolan said the same thing, and stated it as the reason he came back.
All I'm saying is, you shouldn't start "taking things to the bank" yet.

but i must..because...prehaps what they mean by different is that this film is going to feel less of a comic book film...and more like a "real" film only with a comic character in it...due to there take on it...due to how they are tackling it this time around with something that did as well as BB one should suspect much change with it. one would even say that the take on the joker is something that is far from what others had expected thus this is much different from BB...Im just saying that people are upset and and afraid that this film is going to be such a departure from the batman cannon /mythos. I wanna say that the reason that the two are excited about this film is because its the relized film. begins was just the outlines...just the blueprints and this film is the finalized building...a building that is a bank that i shall more than willing open up a bank account!

[Gianakin_]

But that doesn't necessarily mean that TDK will be more realistci. It can easily go the exact opposite way. I mean, the main thing in TDK is probably that by its end the freaks will have been unleashed in Gotham.

[Mr. Socko]

but i must..because...prehaps what they mean by different is that this film is going to feel less of a comic book film...and more like a "real" film only with a comic character in it...due to there take on it...due to how they are tackling it this time around with something that did as well as BB one should suspect much change with it. one would even say that the take on the joker is something that is far from what others had expected thus this is much different from BB...Im just saying that people are upset and and afraid that this film is going to be such a departure from the batman cannon /mythos. I wanna say that the reason that the two are excited about this film is because its the relized film. begins was just the outlines...just the blueprints and this film is the finalized building...a building that is a bank that i shall more than willing open up a bank account!


I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Begins did. IMO, the realism level in Begins was fine. No need to strain it any further. They should keep it on the same level or retreat back a bit. But go further with realism? Certainly not.

[AgentGraves!]

But that doesn't necessarily mean that TDK will be more realistci. It can easily go the exact opposite way. I mean, the main thing in TDK is probably that by its end the freaks will have been unleashed in Gotham.

so then you are in agreement with me that there is no need to fear for how this film comes out?

[Gianakin_]

I never disagreed that I have faith in TDK. I only say that we can't be sure of where Nolan will take things. HOW he takes them there, I have not much fear. But WHERE, I can't be sure, and I think neither can you.

[AgentGraves!]

sure no one can be sure where he takes it...but i can imagine that it wont be anything like what is suggested....

[The Dark Guybrush]

why would Nolan and Co. purposefully go out of there way to bring a sense of realism to Batman films, only to strip it back to camp in the sequel?

the answer- they wouldn't. read interviews from the Begins hype era.
Nolan said himself, along with Bale, that the only reason they became involved with this franchise was due to WB wanting something fresh & tangible, and Nolan had a vision for our favorite hero that suited him to a T.

the ante will be upped. that's about it.

[AgentGraves!]

why would Nolan and Co. purposefully go out of there way to bring a sense of realism to Batman films, only to strip it back to camp in the sequel?

the answer- they wouldn't. read interviews from the Begins hype era.
Nolan said himself, along with Bale, that the only reason they became involved with this franchise was due to WB wanting something fresh & tangible, and Nolan had a vision for our favorite hero that suited him to a T.

the ante will be upped. that's about it.

There you go! someone on the same page...rather than some one in the same book!

[Gianakin_]

why would Nolan and Co. purposefully go out of there way to bring a sense of realism to Batman films, only to strip it back to camp in the sequel?

But fantasy doesn't necessarily mean camp. It's not impossible to think that they grounded Gotham in "reality" in BB, so as to make a greater contrast when in TDk when the freaks take over.

[Doc Samson]

But that doesn't necessarily mean that TDK will be more realistci. It can easily go the exact opposite way. I mean, the main thing in TDK is probably that by its end the freaks will have been unleashed in Gotham.

Exactly. In terms of Goth, I think its all relative. When I mentioned before that I thought the later sequels in this series would start to emulate, at least in look, to Burton's Gotham I didn't mean in the literal sense as far as actual architecture. In relation to the atmosphere & fantasy level, I think it will though. I mean to a certain extent it has to, the Joker's a mass murdering homicidal clown, no matter how "real" you try to play it, the essence of the character is complete insanity. If they are following closely with the Long Halloween as they have mentioned it being a strong influence, then that is the whole basis of the story. Essentially, just the presence of Batman throws Gotham further down the depths of criminal mischief, more so than if he never existed, which creates the ultimate dichotomy of the character that I loved since I was a kid. "Can Batman ever truly rescue Gotham?" is the question he undeniably must answer to, and the truth has always been no, because he himself helped create the crime he so desperately wanted to stop. And the supervillains are just the visual representation of that idea, which means they have to be just as theatric and over-the-top as Nolan's universe will allow them to be...

[terry78]

Point blank, if by some odd occurence Nolan decided to bring Clayface into the films, would you have a problem with it? Honestly.

[AgentGraves!]

the whole point of this reboot is to explore what it would be like if a fantasy character lived in the real world

[AgentGraves!]

no i wouldn't because nolan could handle him hell he handled cloneing well

[Gianakin_]

Point blank, if by some odd occurence Nolan decided to bring Clayface into the films, would you have a problem with it? Honestly.

No I wouldn't. I'm of the philosophy "Do it anyway you want to, as long as the result is good".

[TheLongestDay]

Point blank, if by some odd occurence Nolan decided to bring Clayface into the films, would you have a problem with it? Honestly.

the only problem i have is getting the poo monster from dogma outta my head whenever the idea of clayface comes up

[GoogleMe94]

why is everyone saying that nolan shouldnt give us a "batman returns" batman? what was wrong with Returns?if anything, i dont want another "nolan-zied" batman. after seeing begins, it was just too long, too much talking and not enough action. Returns still had that cool batman look to it, and come on batman was badass in that one! are you sayin you dont want batman to be badass? i wouldnt imagine nolan haveing a gothic design because, well, nolan's visual style is not gothic at all. thats burtons look. nolans is more realistic, obviously. but that could either make or break his batman films. so far, i remain unimpressed with anything in nolans gotham. is it just me, or does his gotham look alot more like Metropolis? when i watched superman returns, i actually thought metropolis looked alot more dirty and old then nolans gotham. i always thought metropolis was the shiny, undustrial, modern city and that gotham was the old fashioned, art deco gothic gargoyle type city.

i also hope nolan has some, um, "out there" villians in the future, if he does do more batmans. i WOULD like to see clayface, or killer croc, or mad hatter.

[TheLongestDay]

didnt batman kill that big bald guy in Returns?

[The Dark Guybrush]

GoogleMe94- how old are you?

[Venom 1988]

didnt batman kill that big bald guy in Returns?
Yea he put a grenade in his pants i believe, its been awhile ive seen it.

[TheLongestDay]

doesnt that sorta poopoo on everything Batman stands for?

[Cyrusbales]

doesnt that sorta poopoo on everything Batman stands for?

Depends on which version of batman you like, personally I love the original batman who was more badass and knew that some criminals had given away their right to live.

[terry78]

The thing on the train with Al-Ghul is still debatable.

"I don't have to save you", still comes back to, technically I'm killing you. If I see a villain about to be killed and dont' do ****, that's still me letting him die.

[TheLongestDay]

The thing on the train with Al-Ghul is still debatable.

"I don't have to save you", still comes back to, technically I'm killing you. If I see a villain about to be killed and dont' do ****, that's still me letting him die.

Ah but you see,hed already saved him once and look what happend! lol

[The Dark Guybrush]

exactly. ra's put himself in the situation, and not only tried to kill bruce, but the population of gotham itself!

granted, ra's DID pull bruce out of the frozen lake, but this was when they were on good terms with each other.

though ra's kinda cut him a break when the ceiling collapsed on his head. he could've easily ended bruce's life at that point.

ra's also got him out of that stinky prison. and kinda gave him his reason to live. etc.

[TheLongestDay]

exactly. ra's put himself in the situation, and not only tried to kill bruce, but the population of gotham itself!

granted, ra's DID pull bruce out of the frozen lake, but this was when they were on good terms with each other.

though ra's kinda cut him a break when the ceiling collapsed on his head. he could've easily ended bruce's life at that point.

ra's also got him out of that stinky prison. and kinda gave him his reason to live. etc.

yeh only cuz he wanted to use him as a tool for his schemes,and he thought he was being a smartass when he left Bruce lying there with a flaming beam on him...but when he walked out he said to one of his men "make sure no one leaves"

[The Dark Guybrush]

but you'd think a guy who preaches the covering of all bases ("always mind your surroundings") would take zero chances, especially with an operation as planned out and intricate as the destruction of an entire city.

i'm not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out certain aspects of "realism" that were lacking from Begins, for those who complain about Nolan's vision being too "real".

[TheLongestDay]

totally,it still bends the laws of "film reality" and asks the viewer to suspend their disbelief-just as any movie about a man dressed up as a bat would

[Mr. Socko]

doesnt that sorta poopoo on everything Batman stands for?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/Ratso/batman_cossack.jpg

[El Payaso]

Ah but you see,hed already saved him once and look what happend! lol

Yeah. Finally Batman learnt Ras' lesson about compassion and let him die. But... doesn't that sorta poopoo on everything Batman stands for?

[Spider-Bat]

There Should Be No Realism In Any Comic Book Movie, It Has Been Proven That The Comic Movies That Are Not Faithful And The Realism Is Too Much That Those Movies Are Not Successful.

And It Does Not Matter That Batman Has No Powers He Still Lives In A Fantastic World And Does Things No Ordinary Man Can Do. That Is The Fun Of It.

Either Do It Right Or Don't Do It At All. Nolan's Vision Is Dull.
All He Wants To Do Is Try To Tack On His So Called Surprise Endings Focusing More On Those Than The Character.

I Can't Wait Till Someone Else Takes Over The Franchis And Fixes This Mess. The Joker Has Been Destroyed And I'm Sure Bob Kane Is Rolling Over In His Grave Same Goes For Bill Finger.

Just A Shame.

Batman Should Be Gothic, Dark, Stylistic, But Not Boring, Dull And Brown. There Should Be No Realism At All, It Robbed Ra's Of His Character And Now Joker Has Been Screwed Over. I Could Have Lived With Bb But After Seeing Stupid Heath 'bad Choice' Ledger As The Un-joker I Am Done, This Is Not Batman.

Burton Did Better. I'll Just Watch Tas, And Batman, Batman Returns, And Batman Forever.

[TheLongestDay]

not saving someone (who could quite possibly save themselves anyway) isnt the same as murdering someone

[Mr. Socko]

not saving someone (who could quite possibly save themselves anyway) isnt the same as murdering someone


http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f275/blackestofblueskies/batman-strangling.jpg

[TheLongestDay]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/Ratso/batman_cossack.jpg

lol,you have to take into consideration the day and age in which that was made-for instance,just because it was in the comics back in the 40s doesnt mean Superman should be killing Nazis and the Japanese.

Batman maybe killed in the comics for a couple of years but that pales in comparison to how long hes been strongly against it

like bruce said "thats why its (compassion) is so important...it seperates us from them"

[El Payaso]

not saving someone (who could quite possibly save themselves anyway) isnt the same as murdering someone

Then why he didn't let Ra's or Ducard to kill that guy in the monastery?

But at the very least, letting someone to die when he could have saved him means he learnt how to deny the compassion he once had.

Ra's won in the end and made Bruce a little more like him.

Batman maybe killed in the comics for a couple of years but that pales in comparison to how long hes been strongly against it

At the same time, those days without Robin were so much better. So much that Burton AND Nolan decided to keep a lonely Batman in spite of all the Robin decades that came later. :)

like bruce said "thats why its (compassion) is so important...it seperates us from them"

And Nolan did a great job backing up Batman's non killing stance. That doesn't mean the other way is automatically invalid. Or we should be claiming for a Robin right now based on all those years of robin in comics.

But again, if he thinks compasion separate "us" from "them," he quite lost his compasion in Ra's case.

[TheLongestDay]

Then why he didn't let Ra's or Ducard to kill that guy in the monastery?

But at the very least, letting someone to die when he could have saved him means he learnt how to deny the compassion he once had.

Ra's won in the end and made Bruce a little more like him.



At the same time, those days without Robin were so much better. So much that Burton AND Nolan decided to keep a lonely Batman in spite of all the Robin decades that came later. :)



And Nolan did a great job backing up Batman's non killing stance. That doesn't mean the other way is automatically invalid. Or we should be claiming for a Robin right now based on all those years of robin in comics.

But again, if he thinks compasion separate "us" from "them," he quite lost his compasion in Ra's case.

well firstly thats if you believe he actually did die which i dont-plus he had the training and means to save himself so its more a case of it wasnt Bats job to save his ass.

Secondly,Nolan decided to keep a lonely batman because its his first movie-hes just beginning,besides after the death of Jason Todd there was a long period with no Robin,and even since Tim there has been long spells on his own.That just seems to be better for the character in alot of peoples eyes-just like the no killing rule

[BubbaGump]

There Should Be No Realism In Any Comic Book Movie, It Has Been Proven That The Comic Movies That Are Not Faithful And The Realism Is Too Much That Those Movies Are Not Successful.

And It Does Not Matter That Batman Has No Powers He Still Lives In A Fantastic World And Does Things No Ordinary Man Can Do. That Is The Fun Of It.

Either Do It Right Or Don't Do It At All. Nolan's Vision Is Dull.
All He Wants To Do Is Try To Tack On His So Called Surprise Endings Focusing More On Those Than The Character.

I Can't Wait Till Someone Else Takes Over The Franchis And Fixes This Mess. The Joker Has Been Destroyed And I'm Sure Bob Kane Is Rolling Over In His Grave Same Goes For Bill Finger.

Just A Shame.

Batman Should Be Gothic, Dark, Stylistic, But Not Boring, Dull And Brown. There Should Be No Realism At All, It Robbed Ra's Of His Character And Now Joker Has Been Screwed Over. I Could Have Lived With Bb But After Seeing Stupid Heath 'bad Choice' Ledger As The Un-joker I Am Done, This Is Not Batman.

Burton Did Better. I'll Just Watch Tas, And Batman, Batman Returns, And Batman Forever.

Epic fail. :down:csad:

[Rory gets laid]

There Should Be No Realism In Any Comic Book Movie, It Has Been Proven That The Comic Movies That Are Not Faithful And The Realism Is Too Much That Those Movies Are Not Successful.

And It Does Not Matter That Batman Has No Powers He Still Lives In A Fantastic World And Does Things No Ordinary Man Can Do. That Is The Fun Of It.

Either Do It Right Or Don't Do It At All. Nolan's Vision Is Dull.
All He Wants To Do Is Try To Tack On His So Called Surprise Endings Focusing More On Those Than The Character.

I Can't Wait Till Someone Else Takes Over The Franchis And Fixes This Mess. The Joker Has Been Destroyed And I'm Sure Bob Kane Is Rolling Over In His Grave Same Goes For Bill Finger.

Just A Shame.

Batman Should Be Gothic, Dark, Stylistic, But Not Boring, Dull And Brown. There Should Be No Realism At All, It Robbed Ra's Of His Character And Now Joker Has Been Screwed Over. I Could Have Lived With Bb But After Seeing Stupid Heath 'bad Choice' Ledger As The Un-joker I Am Done, This Is Not Batman.

Burton Did Better. I'll Just Watch Tas, And Batman, Batman Returns, And Batman Forever.

What. The. Fuch.

[Fenrir]

Burton Did Better. I'll Just Watch Tas, And Batman, Batman Returns, And Batman Forever.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[MAKIEVELLI]

There Should Be No Realism In Any Comic Book Movie, It Has Been Proven That The Comic Movies That Are Not Faithful And The Realism Is Too Much That Those Movies Are Not Successful.

And It Does Not Matter That Batman Has No Powers He Still Lives In A Fantastic World And Does Things No Ordinary Man Can Do. That Is The Fun Of It.

Either Do It Right Or Don't Do It At All. Nolan's Vision Is Dull.
All He Wants To Do Is Try To Tack On His So Called Surprise Endings Focusing More On Those Than The Character.

I Can't Wait Till Someone Else Takes Over The Franchis And Fixes This Mess. The Joker Has Been Destroyed And I'm Sure Bob Kane Is Rolling Over In His Grave Same Goes For Bill Finger.

Just A Shame.

Batman Should Be Gothic, Dark, Stylistic, But Not Boring, Dull And Brown. There Should Be No Realism At All, It Robbed Ra's Of His Character And Now Joker Has Been Screwed Over. I Could Have Lived With Bb But After Seeing Stupid Heath 'bad Choice' Ledger As The Un-joker I Am Done, This Is Not Batman.

Burton Did Better. I'll Just Watch Tas, And Batman, Batman Returns, And Batman Forever.

:dry: Heath "Bad Choice" Ledger? That's the best you could come up with? Wow.....That's........Wow:huh:

[El Payaso]

well firstly thats if you believe he actually did die which i dont-

It's irrelevant whether Ra's died or lived. It's Batman's intentions what count. He decided to let him die showing no compasion he once said he had. It was Ra's lesson to not show compasion towards the enemy. In the end, Batman behaved like Ra's respect to compasion.

That said, if Batman really believed Ra's would survive, then all what he did was letting him go free. He better would have arrested him.

That said, what made you ever think Ra's survived???

-plus he had the training and means to save himself so its more a case of it wasnt Bats job to save his ass.

Is Batman job to let his enemies die?

Batman could have saved him as he did in the monastery fire. He chose not to. Apparently Ra's was being much of a trouble for Bats. That's admitting his compasion towards human life stance didn't work for him in extreme situations.

Secondly,Nolan decided to keep a lonely batman because its his first movie-hes just beginning,besides after the death of Jason Todd there was a long period with no Robin,and even since Tim there has been long spells on his own.

Nolan decided not to have Robin simply because he doesn't like the character. He stated that as long as he's involved in the movies Robin won't be there.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/alejansolo/Nolan-Robin.jpg

But what if after Jason Todd there was no Robin for a period? These movies are about Batman's first years.

That said, if we accept a period of time of certain characteristics in comics is valid, then we have to agree that if Batman killed in a period of time then it's valid too to depict him like that in a movie.

That just seems to be better for the character in alot of peoples eyes-just like the no killing rule

The same as in many other people's eyes it is better a Robin next to Batman or a vengeful angry Batman that kills now and then.