The Realism Debate thread

[The Batman]

Now...the first thread...degenerated into a ridiculous mess, went off topic, and all that other crap.

The second thread was stickied, but certain posters felt that select opinions being stickied up was unfair. Ok. Fair enough.

The topic of Nolans realism is something that should be discussed, because...well...IMO, i dont think most people actually understand what nolans going for. Some people think otherwise. People interperet Nolans work in different ways, and this thread is a place where you can discuss these interpretations, and whether or not you think this vision is right for the character of Batman. Keep in mind two very important things, however:

1. Those who do support Nolans vision are not simply those who want to see Batman as a documentary set in very real world standards, who dont care about the comics whatsoever.

2. By that same token, those who want to see the comics DO NOT...i repeat....DO NOT want to see Adam West return as batman or Batman and Robin, and quite frankly, its assinine to assume that.

The first two threads, I admit, did not consider the ideas of others. Hopefully, this thread changes that...unless people want to be immature again and start bashing others....

[creamyiraq]

I shall say this. Someone said on these boards once that "If you want realism, then don't watch movies about comic books."

Now, I realize that Chris Nolan is trying to bring a sense of believeability to the movies, which he successfully did in Begins. However, there is only so much you can get to as far as realism with characters like The Joker and Two-Face.

Now, I believe that using the direction that Begins steered the franchise towards that a sense of realism can be brought to these characters, but I don't expect to be lead to believe that (Example) I can jump into a vat of chemicals and come out with green hair and white skin, or come out alive at all for that matter. Or, in the same sense, that I can use acid to burn my face in half and wind up with split-personality disorder.

What I'm saying here is that I like what Nolan is doing, that what he is trying to do with the series is great, and that people who want either complete realism or complete true-to-the-comic adaptations are going to be disappointed. This is just like writing comics. Every writer has a different vision of Batman, The Joker, etc. They take the general idea of what the character is and expand on them in their own way. There is no way to say that "Batman does things like this" or "The Joker acts this way" because every writer portrays them differently. It is no different with film, and this movie is Nolan's idea of what these characters are like.

[Steelsheen]

.... trying to bring a sense of believeability to the movies
this pretty much sums the Realism debate for me. and its is applicable to all Comic Book Movies, whether its Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.

[batman11]

I'm not sure why people HATE the realism idea. I say watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is. For me, Batman's my hero, and I'll enjoy watching him in just about anything, even Batman and Robin. :wow:

[JStorm]

This vision is right for Nolan.

We, or atleast I do, read comics on a regular basis. As far back as I can remember, said comic changed teams(writer, artist, inker, etc) every few issues. And sometimes, I, and I am sure us, did not like some of the art and/or writing.

My point, any adaptation is that writers, directors, producers vision of said material.

I will not damn a character or said material because it doesn't match to my vision, etc.

[Nepenthes]

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

"I liked Nolans World but I think he can push the comic aspects a little further in TDK. I think Nolans World was crucial to the success of BB but not every other Batman movie forthcoming. To say this vision is not right for Batman is missing the point; it's right for these movies and this director."

[batman11]

This vision is right for Nolan.

We, or atleast I do, read comics on a regular basis. As far back as I can remember, said comic changed teams(writer, artist, inker, etc) every few issues. And sometimes, I, and I am sure us, did not like some of the art and/or writing.

My point, any adaptation is that writers, directors, producers vision of said material.

I will not damn a character or said material because it doesn't match to my vision, etc.

Well said. Just because its not exactly what you want, doesn't mean you have to condemn it to hell for all eternity. :yay:

[KOLLUS]

BB: real enough.

[Carnotaur3]

Nolan's world is as realistc as any movie can be. Movies aren't realistic anyway. If they were, there wouldn't be any story structure, or rising action for the characters to go through.

Having said that, Nolan does understand that the comics have a role in his films, but like any director, the comics (or an source material) are not going to get in the way of his vision for this movie. Director's don't copy pre-existing work, they make their own work, which is what makes movies refreshing, exciting, and surprising.

[The Kid]

Payaso summed it up for me. All Nolan needs to do is make his epic comic-book worthy shots last longer than 2 frames and it's all good.

[dude love]

I think Begins was a little too grounded for me. Only a little. I'd like to see TDK be a touch more fantastical.

[Road Warrior]

Someone said on these boards once that "If you want realism, then don't watch movies about comic books."

I think that's all that needs to be said. I understand that Nolan wants believability but he doesn't need Gotham to look like Chicago in order to achieve it. I think Tom Mankiewicz (writer of Superman I & II) said it best, "don't be smarter than the material." Is Clark Kent's glasses thing idiotic? Yes. BUT, just accept it and don't look down at it.

[Solidus]

I think Nolan has it just right.

You know I find it so funny that so many people think that if it is a comic, or comic based, it has to be as fantasy based as possible. Just because something is drawn to help tell the story such as a comic book, does not mean it needs to be campy and fantasy based. Who the hell decides this? Batman was one of the few super heros that had no super powers what so ever, he was a man flesh and blood, so Nolan created a real world for a technicaly real person.

With all the other comics you usually have some sort of person that is geneticaly different or altered, and with that you can have a more campy/fantasy based movie.

But with Batman I think thats why in my opinion Burton and Joel really screwed up with Batman, even a lot of the comic writers did, brining Batman into a realm of reality just fit properly, and worked for many people. If you want more fantasy based elements, go watch Spider-Man, Superman, X-Men. It is nice to have one super hero based more in the 'real world' but with great adventures.

I think too many people think comics, they think automaticaly it cannot mimic the real world. I think Nolan's translation is a powerful one, that still keeps the core of Batman but brining it to a way different/better enviornment.

And I think Nolan is one of the few that will not listen to comic book fans, I think he sees what happens to movies such as Spidey 3 when comic fans complain about certian things. I think Nolan is a genius film maker, and he will do what he feel is necessary. And what I mean by that he won't listen to little small complaints that us comic book fans make big deals out of.

[Catman]

I find it so funny that so many people think that if it is a comic, or comic based, it has to be as fantasy based as possible.

No one is saying that, Solidus. What many people are saying is that this is the story of a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights villains like Clay-Face. And, is also a member of the Justice League!

[Doc Holliday]

How many times are we going to discuss it? I think the other one went off topic because everyone had pretty much stated their opinion, so is it really necessary again?

Anyway, what we have in BB and TDK is a fantasy movie with relatively realistic aspects. Not the other way around. If this movie was as realistic as some say it is, then it would suck, because things such as a billionaire vigilante dressing up like a bat to fight crime or a secret ninja gang that sacked Rome and Constantinople aren't very realistic. However, Nolan gives (relatively) plausible explanations for all of the fantasy elements, such as the Batsuit is a nomex-survival suit developed by Wayne Enterprises, the Tumbler is an army prototype, etc.

[the_scream]

I personally think Batman can work in both realistic and more comic book styles. For instance, the animated series has Batman doing things that just wouldn't be possible in the real world. He's more like Spiderman in TNA with all the swinging across rooftops etc.

However, I also like both the more realistic interpretations by Burton and Nolan. In Burton's world, Batman was still an ordinary guy in a suit. He just lived in a world that was more pulpy and silly.

In Nolan's world, Batman is more realistic but he still does things that are totally unbelievable (disappearing and taking out a small army of ninjas). But Nolan tries to offer some explanation for these things, making them more believable.

I guess the main issue is whether characters like the Joker and Two-Face would work in a realistic world. First, I think Scarecrow was the best interpretation of a Batman villain we have ever had. I would have hated it if Cillian pranced about in a full scarecrow suit. It just would have looked silly in the context of the film. If a similar thing can be pulled off with the Joker and Two-Face, I'll be happy.

I have no doubt that we will be getting a more real-world Joker and I just hope he comes across as well as the Scarecrow. The only thing that really needs to be changed is his scarring and makeup. If that is toned down, the actual psychotic nature of the Joker is totally believable.

As for Two-Face, who knows what direction they will take. I personally thought making Harvey deal with his own multiple personality disorder (like in TNA) was a good idea. It made his transition very believable. I'm not a big fan of normal guys going up the wall crazy after accidents as per the last 4 Batman films. That would be unrealistic and dumb.

[Shoemeister]

Two words:
Verisimilitude.






Hoo-rah.

[Maniacal]

In my opinion Nolan's vision of his Batman trilogy was to build and show the audience the evolution of how Batman becomes the way he does, the World's Greatest Detective, The Dark Knight etc. and how Gotham City became over run with "freaks" etc. He is building a world and a character over 3 movies, he isn't just throwing it out there like Gotham has always been this weird ass place, the city is evolving and by the end of the 3rd film we will see a city over run by freaks and looked over by the Batman. Nolan is just trying to rationalise things not water it down.

[Batman jr.]

It will never a realistic film, but it has more realistic APPROACH. Much of his apparel in BB comes from actual military technology I believe. And the tumbler REALLY can do kickass things!!!

But I want to see more of Gotham, some different parts of the city!

It could be possible: this movie wil be filmed 90% in Chicago, I don't even know if they actually use Leavsden Studios!

[raybia]

Now...the first thread...degenerated into a ridiculous mess, went off topic, and all that other crap.

The second thread was stickied, but certain posters felt that select opinions being stickied up was unfair. Ok. Fair enough.

The topic of Nolans realism is something that should be discussed, because...well...IMO, i dont think most people actually understand what nolans going for. Some people think otherwise. People interperet Nolans work in different ways, and this thread is a place where you can discuss these interpretations, and whether or not you think this vision is right for the character of Batman. Keep in mind two very important things, however:

1. Those who do support Nolans vision are not simply those who want to see Batman as a documentary set in very real world standards, who dont care about the comics whatsoever.

2. By that same token, those who want to see the comics DO NOT...i repeat....DO NOT want to see Adam West return as batman or Batman and Robin, and quite frankly, its assinine to assume that.

The first two threads, I admit, did not consider the ideas of others. Hopefully, this thread changes that...unless people want to be immature again and start bashing others....

Like I said before, what Nolan is doing is "Heighten realism."

He wants to make it easier for the audience to "suspend their disbelief" by giving plausable (or seemingly plausable) explainations for the fantastical elements of "world of Batman".


Raybia

[Cristo]

BB was a drama...plain and simple. It was a superhero movie but it was also a drama about the violent life of Bruce Wayne. And that's what worked. Some people try to say that makes BB realistic. Make no mistake, by movie's end, a billionaire dressed as a bat was fighting his old ninja teacher with a false identity trying to stop him from using a microvave emitter to put "fear gas" taken from a blue flower into the water main so that an entire city would tear itself apart while a police officer blew apart train tracks in an army tank and a man dressed like a scarecrow came in on a horse (who knows where he got it?) before getting tasered in the face in the midst of a whole city of drugged-up people...

Now, that's not realistic AT ALL. But it was cool and it was intense. And we liked it. It was far more grounded than most superhero films so we liked it. Plus, it was about the drama of "The Man who Falls" Bruce Wayne, from his parents' tragic death to his legendary rise as a costumed vigilante. It felt epic, as if ANYTHING could happen in this Batman universe that Nolan had created. At least, that's how it felt to some people. The Joker is a guy who fell into acid and got green hair and white skin. Is it realistic? Hell no. But is it something that would fit into Nolan's films? Hell yes.

[Rezzo]

Some people still don´t get the ¨realism¨ and explain it wrong, the story of Batman being a billionaire playboy and dressing like a bat to fight crime is not real we get that, BB simply told the story of Batman in a realistic fashion

[Mysterio]

Now...the first thread...degenerated into a ridiculous mess, went off topic, and all that other crap.

The second thread was stickied, but certain posters felt that select opinions being stickied up was unfair. Ok. Fair enough.

The topic of Nolans realism is something that should be discussed, because...well...IMO, i dont think most people actually understand what nolans going for. Some people think otherwise. People interperet Nolans work in different ways, and this thread is a place where you can discuss these interpretations, and whether or not you think this vision is right for the character of Batman. Keep in mind two very important things, however:

1. Those who do support Nolans vision are not simply those who want to see Batman as a documentary set in very real world standards, who dont care about the comics whatsoever.

2. By that same token, those who want to see the comics DO NOT...i repeat....DO NOT want to see Adam West return as batman or Batman and Robin, and quite frankly, its assinine to assume that.

The first two threads, I admit, did not consider the ideas of others. Hopefully, this thread changes that...unless people want to be immature again and start bashing others....
this thread is just as pointless as the other one, and your arrogance and delusions of self importance have once again demanded to be heard :whatever:

[JStorm]

this thread is just as pointless as the other one, and your arrogance and delusions of self importance have once again demanded to be heard :whatever:

Put your claws away, kitten.

All are entitled to his or her own opinion.

[Tempest19]

I think Nolan has it just right.

You know I find it so funny that so many people think that if it is a comic, or comic based, it has to be as fantasy based as possible. Just because something is drawn to help tell the story such as a comic book, does not mean it needs to be campy and fantasy based. Who the hell decides this? Batman was one of the few super heros that had no super powers what so ever, he was a man flesh and blood, so Nolan created a real world for a technicaly real person.

With all the other comics you usually have some sort of person that is geneticaly different or altered, and with that you can have a more campy/fantasy based movie.

But with Batman I think thats why in my opinion Burton and Joel really screwed up with Batman, even a lot of the comic writers did, brining Batman into a realm of reality just fit properly, and worked for many people. If you want more fantasy based elements, go watch Spider-Man, Superman, X-Men. It is nice to have one super hero based more in the 'real world' but with great adventures.

I think too many people think comics, they think automaticaly it cannot mimic the real world. I think Nolan's translation is a powerful one, that still keeps the core of Batman but brining it to a way different/better enviornment.

And I think Nolan is one of the few that will not listen to comic book fans, I think he sees what happens to movies such as Spidey 3 when comic fans complain about certian things. I think Nolan is a genius film maker, and he will do what he feel is necessary. And what I mean by that he won't listen to little small complaints that us comic book fans make big deals out of.

Excellant post dude. Excellant post. :up:

Might I add to that, Nolan's world REALLY reminds me alot of the Jeph Loeb Batman comics that I like alot.

[DieSmiling]

I think the realism aspect is something that is important to Batman to a certain degree, and I love the way Nolan has grounded the series. I mean, when you have a superhero without super powers, isn't an explanation needed for how he does what he does? His methods, his training? With Superman it doesn't matter -- you have an alien life form and alien technology. It can be whatever you want it to be. Batman isn't like that.

Look at it this way -- after seeing Begins in theaters with friends, they all commented how cool the ninja/escape artist/deception stuff was, and how it made it seem like Batman could theoretically happen. Compare that to Batman '89 where Michael Keaton is just this short, physically unimposing crazy weirdo who fights crime. Now I'm not saying everything about Begins trumps the original Batman, but when the guy isn't an alien, or bitten by a crazy spider, or whatever, there needs to be an explanation.

That said, you'll never make a great comic book movie if you stray too far from the source material, and I think Nolan has found a good balance. I don't think Nolan's Batman can ever be viewed as the definitive Batman (if such a thing could ever exist) because of the heightened realism aspect, but it makes for a fascinating take on the Dark Knight regardless.

[Matchbox]

Yeah, I agree with you, DieSmiling. When Batman Begins first came to theaters and people discovered the way Nolan crafted the movie, it was refreshing. In my opinion, it was very different from all interpretations of the character while still upholding the spirit of Batman.

Nolan's Batman is a far cry from Burton's gothic noir version and Shumacher's flashy, light, comic book feel...and yet it still felt like Batman. What I'm trying to say is, there are positives and negatives to every interpretation of the character. I loved how Burton's Batman had a mysterious, creepy and dark feel to it, (as many of his movies do. Even Charlie & the Chocolate Factory) Now, Nolan may not be bringing that vibe to this series, however what he is bringing with his "realism" is an ability to easily relate to the characters. I think that with this series, one can easily believe that Batman could exist in our world; and I think that's fascinating. I think that like Burton's Batman, the vibe draws you in. Only, Nolan's Batman draws you in with a different approach.

People often talk of a "definitive" Batman film or series, and I think that's a tricky subject. Definitive in this case is really a relative term since we have umpteen versions and takes on the character, I doubt any superhero movie will be truly "definitive". I'm one of many who really wants to point to a certain Batman film and say, "Hey, now THAT'S Batman!". However, as many posters have said before, as long as the spirit of the Batman and the world surrounding him are accurate, there are MANY interpretations that can be crafted into a great Batman film.

-Matchbox

[FCEEVIPER]

Not this again.

[Batman FREAK]

^ Ditto...

[Matchbox]

Hmm I see. My apologies?

-Matchbox

[raybia]

this thread is just as pointless as the other one, and your arrogance and delusions of self importance have once again demanded to be heard :whatever:

I think you are very off based with your assessment

[The Batman]

this thread is just as pointless as the other one, and your arrogance and delusions of self importance have once again demanded to be heard :whatever:

*Sigh*...

instead of, i dunno, constantly whining, how about you actually talk about the topic at hand? I've barely participated in this thread, save for starting it. You should be asking yourself if its YOU whos demanding attention at this point, because its YOU whos disrupting the topic. Settle this in PM or just stop whining...

[raybia]

Put your claws away, kitten.

All are entitled to his or her own opinion.

There is a forum I would like you to become a member of! :cwink:

[Mysterio]

I think you are very off based with your assessment
i think it's spot on.

[raybia]

i think it's spot on.

You would have to in order to make it in the first place.

[JStorm]

There is a forum I would like you to become a member of! :cwink:

Here's my email address. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKG3yfW8Dew)

[raybia]

Here's my email address. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKG3yfW8Dew)

What in the hell is wrong with "Maid in Manhattan"?:huh:

[JStorm]

What in the hell is wrong with "Maid in Manhattan"?:huh:

First, your grammar scares me. I can take it from the newbs; but us oldbies have a certain education to uphold.

Second, there are three things wrong with "Maid in Manhatan:""Maid.In.Manhattan."

[raybia]

First, your grammar scares me. I can take it from the newbs; but us oldbies have a certain education to uphold.


Working and playing on the message board isn't easy.

Second, there are three things wrong with "Maid in Manhatan:""Maid.In.Manhattan."

True but baby blue track pants? Blue is a universally masculine color regardless of the shade.

[Drunken Savior]

So how will Nolan's Two-Face look? Because the common depiction of him, with the scarring running right down the center of his face is kinda unrealistic for an injury where acid is thrown at you. (Y'know, assuming that that is how it will go down in TDK...and it looks like it will)

I can see the same uproar over the Joker's appearance happening with Two-Face...

[Nepenthes]

He'll have a face blasted by shrapnel and then he puts blue paint over the scars

[JStorm]

True but baby blue track pants? Blue is a universally masculine color regardless of the shade.

You suck at this game.

[strikezone89]

okay, sorry but i think this thread is kinda pointless.
THIS IS A MOVIE
no an autobiography.

[the_scream]

BB was a drama...plain and simple. It was a superhero movie but it was also a drama about the violent life of Bruce Wayne. And that's what worked. Some people try to say that makes BB realistic. Make no mistake, by movie's end, a billionaire dressed as a bat was fighting his old ninja teacher with a false identity trying to stop him from using a microvave emitter to put "fear gas" taken from a blue flower into the water main so that an entire city would tear itself apart while a police officer blew apart train tracks in an army tank and a man dressed like a scarecrow came in on a horse (who knows where he got it?) before getting tasered in the face in the midst of a whole city of drugged-up people...

Now, that's not realistic AT ALL. But it was cool and it was intense. And we liked it. It was far more grounded than most superhero films so we liked it. Plus, it was about the drama of "The Man who Falls" Bruce Wayne, from his parents' tragic death to his legendary rise as a costumed vigilante. It felt epic, as if ANYTHING could happen in this Batman universe that Nolan had created. At least, that's how it felt to some people. The Joker is a guy who fell into acid and got green hair and white skin. Is it realistic? Hell no. But is it something that would fit into Nolan's films? Hell yes.

He got the horse from one of the riot control police who were probably on horseback.

[dark_b]

this is an example.
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8377/46pk7.gif

i am 100% that they will not explain or show us why he can absorb rockets.

someone will now say this is a fantasy movie. ok but this i the difference between this director and nolan.

[bunk]

God that is hot.^^

[raybia]

this is an example.
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8377/46pk7.gif

i am 100% that they will not explain or show us why he can absorb rockets.

someone will now say this is a fantasy movie. ok but this i the difference between this director and nolan.

I think you got Nolan all wrong. If Nolan was directing this, I don't think he would try to explain all of the powers of the Surfer nor would he need to.

Suspension of disbelief is easier with this character than with Batman.

[dark_b]

I think you got Nolan all wrong. If Nolan was directing this, I don't think he would try to explain all of the powers of the Surfer nor would he need to.

Suspension of disbelief is easier with this character than with Batman.i dont think that nolan will explain everything.

but there is a lot of logic in SR and BB. ieverything just makes sense. there is no confusion.

[Eros]

this is an example.
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8377/46pk7.gif

i am 100% that they will not explain or show us why he can absorb rockets.

someone will now say this is a fantasy movie. ok but this i the difference between this director and nolan.


the silver surfer is alien Being.

[raybia]

Ok people, here is a theory.


Nolan said that BB was being "grounded in reality." Is it possible that was only for BB, and using BB as a foundation, he will raise the reality aspect in TDK and then push it to its limits by the 3rd movie so that by the end it is closer to its comic counterparts than it was at the beginning?

[dark_b]

the silver surfer is alien Being.yeah i know that. but wouldnt you look strange if you saw SS eating a car?

[Eros]

yeah i know that. but wouldnt you look strange if you saw SS eating a car?


Hes an alien being.

[fabman]

Ok people, here is a theory.


Nolan said that BB was being "grounded in reality." Is it possible that was only for BB, and using BB as a foundation, he will raise the reality aspect in TDK and then push it to its limits by the 3rd movie so that by the end it is closer to its comic counterparts than it was at the beginning?

Yep, I think it'll be like this. You can already notice the difference between the beginning (no pun intended) of Batman Begins and the end. The freakshow is beginning, ladies and gentlemen. And that's why it makes so much sense:

when Bruce returns to Gotham City there's Falcone, corruption and lot of other problems. But with Batman's arrival, freaks such as Scarecrow and the Joker arrive, the freakshow has begun! I think it'll be a lot more "comic booky" than Batman Begins, which is nor a bad or a good thing, but just something that appears as "natural" evolutio, you know?

But what Chris Nolan did was to set the story in an "exaggerated real world," which you can clearly see (Gotham City).

[raybia]

Yep, I think it'll be like this. You can already notice the difference between the beginning (no pun intended) of Batman Begins and the end. The freakshow is beginning, ladies and gentlemen. And that's why it makes so much sense:

when Bruce returns to Gotham City there's Falcone, corruption and lot of other problems. But with Batman's arrival, freaks such as Scarecrow and the Joker arrive, the freakshow has begun! I think it'll be a lot more "comic booky" than Batman Begins, which is nor a bad or a good thing, but just something that appears as "natural" evolutio, you know?

But what Chris Nolan did was to set the story in an "exaggerated real world," which you can clearly see (Gotham City).

Then when Gotham is portrayed in the 3rd movie, it would have a much more greater impact on the viewers than if it was portrayed that same way in BB, and we will realize how much Batman's presence in Gotham has actually made things worse than making them better.

[fabman]

Yeah, you know an example could be, even if in another (more serious), way, Back to the Future Part II. Gotham City in Batman Begins is Hill Valley in the actual 1985, the alternative Hill Valley may be Gotham City in the 3rd movie. Know what I mean?

[raybia]

Yeah, you know an example could be, even if in another (more serious), way, Back to the Future Part II. Gotham City in Batman Begins is Hill Valley in the actual 1985, the alternative Hill Valley may be Gotham City in the 3rd movie. Know what I mean?

Yeah, exactly. Good example!

[itsthebatman]

Then when Gotham is portrayed in the 3rd movie, it would have a much more greater impact on the viewers than if it was portrayed that same way in BB, and we will realize how much Batman's presence in Gotham has actually made things worse than making them better.
Woah, woah, time out! That is just a theory, espoused by some writers (Jeph Loeb) and characters (Jim Gordon). Two stories that give a counterpoint to this:
'Masks' - Legends 48 - 49, something like that. Batman is kidnapped and psychologically tortured by the son of a petty criminal he put away. In it he has a dream wher Gotham has become much worse, due to his NOT being there.
OK, so that's Batmans wish fulfillment.
Then, there's 24/7, in 'tec or Batman, towards the end of the Fugitive saga. An off-duty cop and his wife go for a walk in what was formerly one of the worst areas of Gotham - at 3 in the morning! Now crime-free because the Batman is known to patrol the area at that time.
I take the view that the freaks use Batman as an excuse for their behaviour - after all, he didn't throw the acid in Harvey's face, didn't conduct genetic experiments on Pamela isley, didn't cause Victor Fries' accident. Ras' al Ghul is a prime example of someone who would be prospering, indeed would have wiped out Gotham and much of the world in 'Contagion' and 'Legacy' were it not for Batman.
Let's hear it for the Batman!

[raybia]

Woah, woah, time out! That is just a theory, espoused by some writers (Jeph Loeb) and characters (Jim Gordon). Two stories that give a counterpoint to this:
'Masks' - Legends 48 - 49, something like that. Batman is kidnapped and psychologically tortured by the son of a petty criminal he put away. In it he has a dream wher Gotham has become much worse, due to his NOT being there.
OK, so that's Batmans wish fulfillment.
Then, there's 24/7, in 'tec or Batman, towards the end of the Fugitive saga. An off-duty cop and his wife go for a walk in what was formerly one of the worst areas of Gotham - at 3 in the morning! Now crime-free because the Batman is known to patrol the area at that time.
I take the view that the freaks use Batman as an excuse for their behaviour - after all, he didn't throw the acid in Harvey's face, didn't conduct genetic experiments on Pamela isley, didn't cause Victor Fries' accident. Ras' al Ghul is a prime example of someone who would be prospering, indeed would have wiped out Gotham and much of the world in 'Contagion' and 'Legacy' were it not for Batman.
Let's hear it for the Batman!

Good counterpoints.

I guess it just depends on which direction the director would want to go in. I personally like it that Batman is questioned on whether he has made things worse and instead of answering that question, have the writers continue to go back and forth on that to show points on both sides.

[itsthebatman]

Good counterpoints.

I guess it just depends on which direction the director would want to go in. I personally like it that Batman is questioned on whether he has made things worse and instead of answering that question, have the writers continue to go back and forth on that to show points on both sides.
I thank you, kind sir. Definitely, Batman should question his crusade, bith whether it is helping Gotham, and the effect it is having on him - is it a fitting legacy to his parents, for instance. But, at the end of the day, he is a HERO. And heroes should win.

[Phaser]

The whole concept of Batman's presence attracting the 'freaks' towards Gotham was also a key plot point in DKR, as it was in Knightfall regarding Bane's obsession with him. t's an idea that is pretty consistent with the source material.

[JStorm]

The whole concept of Batman's presence attracting the 'freaks' towards Gotham was also a key plot point in DKR, as it was in Knightfall regarding Bane's obsession with him. t's an idea that is pretty consistent with the source material.

Highly agree, highly! :up:

[keith_v]

This fugitive should just dye his hair green and paint his face white.

http://fullfilth.blogspot.com/2007/04/hijacked-helicopter-used-to-break.html


I guess Joker isn't all that unrealistic.

[itsthebatman]

The whole concept of Batman's presence attracting the 'freaks' towards Gotham was also a key plot point in DKR, as it was in Knightfall regarding Bane's obsession with him. t's an idea that is pretty consistent with the source material.
Where in DKR? With Joker waking up because Bats was back? They had prior history (to put it mildly).
Agreed about Bane, but, since Knightfall, he has been a poorly used villain.
I'm just wary of 'Every villain has a connection to Batman' stories. It smacks of SM3, IMO.

[Phaser]

Where in DKR? With Joker waking up because Bats was back? They had prior history (to put it mildly).

That's exactly what I was talking about. Batman's presence somehow attracts the 'freaks' towards Gotham directly or indirectly, one way or another. That's why Gordon's whole 'escalation' theory is so on point. The whole concept can also be interpreted as the good and evil in Gotham trying to balance themselves out or that any measure taken against the criminal element in Gotham always only ends with an equal or greater response from the latter.

Agreed about Bane, but, since Knightfall, he has been a poorly used villain.

Uh, so? How does that invalidate my point?

I'm just wary of 'Every villain has a connection to Batman' stories. It smacks of SM3, IMO.

Um, Scarecrow didn't. But the likes of The Joker, Two-Face, The Riddler, Bane, Ra's Al Ghul, Hush, Catwoman...all of them being major villains from Batman's rogue's gallery, have a more personal enmity/obsession with Batman/Bruce Wayne. Spider-Man 3 has got nothing to do with it. I mean, it's just like the comics. :confused:

[itsthebatman]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Batman's presence somehow attracts the 'freaks' towards Gotham directly or indirectly, one way or another. That's why Gordon's whole 'escalation' theory is so on point. The whole concept can also be interpreted as the good and evil in Gotham trying to balance themselves out or that any measure taken against the criminal element in Gotham always only ends with an equal or greater response from the latter.

But Batman re-emerged in response to a new threat (Mutants), not the other way around, and Two-Face went back to crime beforehand also. Batman did not attract any new threats to the city (Joker waking up excepted).

Uh, so? How does that invalidate my point?

It doesn't. I was conceding the point. I just feel Bane has not had his potential fulfilled since he first emerged. They have found it difficult to give him motivation other than trying to get one over on Batman (which I fear will happen to Hush).


Um, Scarecrow didn't. But the likes of The Joker, Two-Face, The Riddler, Bane, Ra's Al Ghul, Hush, Catwoman...all of them being major villains from Batman's rogue's gallery, have a more personal enmity/obsession with Batman/Bruce Wayne. Spider-Man 3 has got nothing to do with it. I mean, it's just like the comics. :confused:

What is Riddler's established comics origin?
Just wondering, does anyone ever blame Superman for the crap that happens to Metropolis?

[itsthebatman]

I just like villains to have a motivation other than trying to get one over on Batman, as I feel this runs dry very quickly and leads to potentially good characters falling short in subsequent appearances (Bane, Hush).

EDIT: Jaysus, that above post came out all wrong. How do you do the multi-quote thing from one post?

DOUBLE EDIT: Never mind.

[Crook]

What is Riddler's established comics origin.
I don't think there is any. At least not in the sense that there's an explanation of how he came to be a criminal, and his motivational reason for becoming one.

Just wondering, does anyone ever blame Superman for the crap that happens to Metropolis?
To some extent. But then again, asides from like 1 or 2 people, his villains don't have a personal link towards him, as it is with Batman and his rogues gallery.

[bosef982]

You know, re-reading Year One, I really wish Nolan would've remained mostly true to the Year One storyline, especially the tonal, personal ending between Gordon and Batman.

I don't know, something about that story just...sticks for me.

[Phaser]

But Batman re-emerged in response to a new threat (Mutants), not the other way around, and Two-Face went back to crime beforehand also. Batman did not attract any new threats to the city (Joker waking up excepted).

Actually Batman re-emerged when a flood of old memories came rushing back when he watched Zorro on TV, and his impulsive response to it by changing the channel, only too see even more instances of crime and corruption plaguing the city. Batman 'awakens' not in response to a specific threat, but rather a general one.

Secondly, Harvey's return can also be subconsciously linked to Batman's as well. Because Two-Face isn't as surprised to see Batman again like the Joker was, which could also imply that Harvey was expecting him to be there. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm not advocating every single villain have a significant personal connection with Bats, but rather elaborating on the fact that a good chunk of his main rogue's gallery does have one with him already. Also, the entire concept of Batman's presence attracting the freaks towards Gotham city is more of a prevalent underlying theme in the comics, not an explicit point of his villains' origins.

It doesn't. I was conceding the point. I just feel Bane has not had his potential fulfilled since he first emerged. They have found it difficult to give him motivation other than trying to get one over on Batman (which I fear will happen to Hush).

I don't see why that is the problem, considering his 'competition' with Batman is at the crux of his character. The Knightfall novel and the TAS Bane episodes presented Bane's arc pretty well.

What is Riddler's established comics origin?

Check wikipedia, on any DC/Batman fansite.

Just wondering, does anyone ever blame Superman for the crap that happens to Metropolis?

I think it has something to do with the inherently anti-heroic persona of the Batman character and the sometimes questionable manner of fighting crime which often intimidates both the innocents and the criminals alike (especially in stories with the 'urban legend' angle) while Superman is seen as an idol who always tries to enshrine all that is noble and good in human beings. And obviously that difference between the two characters will also show in the kind of effects each one has on his particular city.

[itsthebatman]

I just don't want it overdone, to have most villains having a personal connection with Batman or Bruce. Their motivations should be broader than that, and the world is a bigger place than to have a lot of bad guys connected to him. I know what you're saying, I'm just not a fan of this approach. The point about Bane IS my point - what has he done in the comics since Knightfall?

[Phaser]

I just like villains to have a motivation other than trying to get one over on Batman, as I feel this runs dry very quickly and leads to potentially good characters falling short in subsequent appearances (Bane, Hush). DOUBLE EDIT: Never mind.

What's so wrong about it?

The Joker's fixation with Batman obviously has been presented from a number of different angles to require an explanation.

Two-Face's connection with Batman is the classical idea of friend-turned-foe-by-circumstance.

The Riddler sees Batman as a mental adversary, the only one worthy of a challenge. The best example of this is the TAS episode Riddler's Reform.

Bane's obsession is similar, but he seeks to overcome Batman both physically and intellectually.

Ra's al Ghul wants Bruce Wayne as his heir, his successor. There is a kind of mentor-apprentice relationship between the two that often keeps them at odds with each other ideals.

As for Hush, well, just read Loeb's book.

Catwoman and Talia? Romantic interests in the guise of villains.

So you see, although many of Batman's most well-known foes have some kind of personal connection with him, substantially speaking they are still radically different from each other in their motivations.

[bosef982]

What's so wrong about it?

The Joker's fixation with Batman obviously has been presented from a number of different angles to require an explanation.

Two-Face's connection with Batman is the classical idea of friend-turned-foe-by-circumstance.

The Riddler sees Batman as a mental adversary, the only one worthy of a challenge. The best example of this is the TAS episode Riddler's Reform.

Bane's obsession is similar, but he seeks to overcome Batman both physically and intellectually.

Ra's al Ghul wants Bruce Wayne as his heir, his successor. There is a kind of mentor-apprentice relationship between the two that often keeps them at odds with each other ideals.

As for Hush, well, just read Loeb's book.

Catwoman and Talia? Romantic interests in the guise of villains.

So you see, although many of Batman's most well-known foes have some kind of personal connection with him, substantially speaking they are still radically different from each other in their motivations.

Exactly.

People forget that the very nature of a nemsis/archenemy type relationship is a personal connection. You have a conflicting relationship with someone and then something ignites it and makes it personal...thus, you then have an enemy or a nemesis. Think of your own life:

YOu have people you dislike, that you wouldn't go out of your way for and probably even make snide remarks about around friends, co-workers, etc. It's only when that person does something personal to you -- consitently picks on you, sabotages your job, damages your reputation -- that the dislike is elevated and channeled through a more specific dynamic, basically one of an enemy. You now have an arch-enemy, someone who is juxtaposed against your own ideals, beliefs, goals, etc.

Now, if that person is a very personal friend, someone who's betrayed you or with whom you use to be close friends, then that person would be your nemesis, since nemeses tend to have close relationships that existed prior to their falling out. They have genuine good feelings for one another but circumstances have placed them in opposition. The nemesis is typically the pan-ultimate enemy of the hero. Again, we all have nemeses in your lives (tyipcally jilted lovers).

Anyway, let's look at how this paradigm applies to Batman and the movieverse:

Batman's arch-enemy is "The Joker." He is the one who has done a great evil wrong to Batman and is his complete and utter opposition. However, there is no personal emotions between these two outside of hate and disgust, thus the nemesis title (as people often attribute to the Joker) does not go to him.

Ra's al Ghul is quite the arch-enemy of Batman in the comics, with a firm motivation and desire to see Batman his heir creating it. In the movies, Ra's is more of a nemesis, someone with a personal relatoinship with Batman that is eventually revealed as false. This then prevents Ra's from being a true nemesis to Batman since the cordial feelings were never really sincere.

Scracrow and Falcone are more arch-enemies, with Falcone being more so due to his personal connections to Wayne's father's killer. Scarecrow actually functions more like a "foe," the waterdown arch-enemy. And, as such, he's dealt with in like fashion. You can't have a movie run on a "foe."

So then, who is Batman's nemesis? Well, Magneto is most obviously The X-Men's nemesis due to his personal relationship and established relationship to the Charles Xavier. General Zod would actually be the nemesis of Superman, not Lex Luthor (they have no prior relationship and Luthor is more like JOker to Superman's Batman). So who....

TWO-FACE is actually Batman's ultimate nemesis. It is the character who shares a warm and caring relationship with Batman/Bruce Wayne and who, through circumstances, becomes situated on an opposing idealogical course against the hero, forcing both into hard and sturggling moral dillemas. It's odd, because Two-Face doesn't get half the credit he deserves, but if you look at it, Two-Face is the exact polar opposite or alternative to Batman and arises as such from the very same idealogy that Batman holds dear -- the idea of justice and holding accountable, the very same idealogy that gets Dent scared in the first place.

So, really, you can see these Batman films as building up to the inevitable arrival of Batman's ultimate nemesis:

Two Face.

[itsthebatman]

It just doesn't work for all of them. Joker, Catwoman, Two-Face, Ra's, Riddler, yes, but they have more strings to their bow than just fighting the Batman. Band and Hush dont, so, despite promising beginnings, they haven't done well since their good starts in comics.
I don't argue that having a personal connection doesn't make for a richer villain (it does, Two-Face being the best example of this). It just stretches cresulity for most of the super-villains to have a direct connection with him BEFORE they become enemies.

[Nepenthes]

Smoke and Mirrors (Or, why a guy who dresses up like a Bat, needs REALSIM!)
Author: Alex Winck
Monday, July 2, 2007

One argument that shows up from time to time regarding the treatment of Batman in movies is that of “realism.” Apparently, a group of fans advocate a more fantastic treatment of Batman, while others advocate for the character to be grittier and more realistic. Apparently, as I have seen, both statements sometimes carry a bit of misconception of what realism and fantasy mean in this context.

Of course, when all’s said and done, there’s a strong element of fantasy in the Batman mythos. I haven’t heard of any billionaires who dress up like bats to fight crime and corruption -- even though that would be a much better contribution to society than, say, cause global warming or raise Paris Hilton, but I digress.

And I don’t think I’ll live to see a real, superhero billionaire either. The very concept of the superhero has in inherent fantastic element. But within the realms of fiction there are different degrees of realism and fantasy. Batman, since his inception by Bill Finger and Bob Kane, has been intended to be a more grounded superhero than Superman or Shazam – AKA “Captain Marvel,” as he was originally baptized. That’s why The Batman doesn’t have superpowers, that’s why his enemies are mostly deformed psychos instead of supervillains – with a couple exceptions like, say, Man-Bat, but I myself never quite liked those.

For their period and the genre in particular, Finger and Kane did an exceptional job at giving a sense of logic to the different elements of Batman. If any man would have the motivation, the means and opportunity to dress up like a bat and fight crime in the real world, that’d be Bruce Wayne, and that’s part of why the character has endured for so long while other similar characters disappeared or lost relevance. Batman was meant to fit into a gritty urban crime/vigilantism world, and the more believable the character is, the more he fits into that world. He can also be considered the most inspirational superhero, for his sense of discipline, preparation and dedication for his mission are a much more accessible goal – even if exaggerated in his own particular case – then getting superpowers. You won’t literally become Batman, but you can be the best you can at what you do.

The mistake some make, I believe, is to confuse “realism” with necessarily being “mundane” or “unspectacular”, which is far from the truth. Even in his most “real world” incarnations, Batman still dresses up like a bat. Still has Batarangs and a Batmobile. Still fights ninjas. It’s not realism in the documentary fashion, or even, say, the “slice of life” fiction, even though it may include gritty realism elements. Realism here is simply a heightened suspension of disbelief, to create enough of a real world feel that you allow yourself to forget the more far-fetched elements and immerse yourself into it.

In fact, that tool is used even in more outlandish fantasy worlds. When a dragon is created for something like the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, still a great deal of attention is paid to giving it a sense of anatomy and physiology that allows you to buy the illusion that the creature is actually there, living and breathing. Even as Richard Donner was giving Superman the apparent skill to take flight without any propelling system, it was important to give it a sense of credibility, which is why Chris Reeve had to spend painstaking hours and days hanging by wires doing various flying poses and turns, just so that you’d have the illusion that a man can actually do what he was pretending to do.

So, as much as Batman still is an outlandish character in many ways, notions of logic and practicality are important to get into his world, even more so than characters where the fantastic is meant to be more obvious.

null

In other instances, fantasy seems to get a bit confused with stylization. A lot of fans, and I actually include myself there, love the visuals of Tim Burton’s Batman movies – in my case, much more the first one -- but that’s another story. Anyway, some seem to throw that into the whole fantasy/realism argument as if Burton’s Gotham was some sort of outlandish surreal world. Granted, the architecture of Gotham tends to call attention to itself more than it would in most real cities, but that’s more of a stylistic aesthetic decision than something that removes from the city being “real” or not. It works in the sense of borrowing from the expressionistic influence of Batman, the big shadows and eerie urban landscapes of German expressionism movies like METROPOLIS, which were a huge influence on the noir films from the 30s and 40s.

But the look of Gotham as a contemporary, “real” city is also a strong influence on comics such as YEAR ONE or the Denny O´Neal/Neal Adams stuff, and it helps to establish the gritty urban violence element of the mythos. Gritty and realistic urban dramas like SERPICO, GODFATHER, THE FRENCH CONNECTION and other more recent ones were strong influences in comics like YEAR ONE, WAR ON CRIME or even THE LONG HALLOWEEN (in spite of Tim Sale´s highly stylized art). Even in this kind of scenario, it’s possible to create a sense of mood and darkness, and I think BATMAN BEGINS did that very well.

And yet there are those who seem to go for the extreme opposite of it, for a Batman who’s almost TAXI DRIVER’s Trevis Bickle with a cape and is all darkness and R-rated violence and gore. While I can enjoy the more nihilistic and ultraviolent elements in many Batman graphic novels for their artistic edge and outrageousness, I still also like the sense of heroism and inspiration that the character possesses and I understand why the studio still wants a Batman who’s accessible enough to younger viewers – okay, maybe not little kids – and a franchise that still has enough of a summer popcorn feel, with adventure, humor, romance, etc. The character manages to speak to both the adult and the kid in me, which is an incredibly rare achievement in pop culture. Which is why I believe in a balance between the more realistic and the more fantastic elements.

The more I can immerse myself in Batman’s reality, the more I can be my inner twelve-year old and feel like I’m up there on the rooftops with him, doing wild acrobatics, throwing Batarangs and fighting The Joker into the night.

Could you imagine a bigger turn-off than Bat-mite or an alien showing up in Gotham?

Alex Winck, AKA "Ultimatefan," hails from Florianópolis, Brazil. He's a journalist and advertiser and I writes the scripts and articles for Sesinho, the most popular educational comic book in Brazil. It has one million copies distributed for free in schools and with an estimated readership of four million.

^ :up: :up: :up: :batty:

[ultimatefan]

^ :up: :up: :up: :batty:

Thanks a lot for posting it for me!:up:

[Masteroms33]

With all the new pictures about The Joker applying makeup and not having his skin bleached at all is raising a lot of speculation. Personally I WANT the Joker comic look where he is completely bleached but I think Nolan will go with the realistic look of him just applying make up. Your thoughts?

[CaptainClown]

I think he could be bleached just not a full chemical bath.

[NoirMan82]

I hardly ever say this: This thread is completely uneeded. This all started from a couple of people jumping to conclusions. We just have to pratice some patience with this topic; now's not the time.

[1981]

make-up. Sorry. I don't want the make-up, but I'm leaning towards this.

[undyingsoul]

if the movie is as or more amazing than BB and ledger makes an amazing joker, will it even matter THAT much to you when you exit that theater?

[Masteroms33]

if the movie is as or more amazing than BB and ledger makes an amazing joker, will it even matter THAT much to you when you exit that theater?



Having the joker put on make up is like having Optimus Prime transform into a lame mini van.

[Masteroms33]

btw, what does Newbie First Class mean and what does it mean to have a "Check" next to the topic of this post?

[1981]

wow. that is true. or optimus prime not have a trailer in the movie. oh.. wait.

[TheBatman072]

This will not end well.

[CaptainClown]

Optimus the transforming Astrovan. I can see it
Ras Al Ghul wasn't an irishman either.

[dark_b]

With all the new pictures about The Joker applying makeup and not having his skin bleached at all is raising a lot of speculation. Personally I WANT the Joker comic look where he is completely bleached but I think Nolan will go with the realistic look of him just applying make up. Your thoughts?i didnt read everry news yesterday.
where are the pics where you can see him applying make up?

thanks

[Conebone69]

With all the new pictures about The Joker applying makeup and not having his skin bleached at all is raising a lot of speculation. Personally I WANT the Joker comic look where he is completely bleached but I think Nolan will go with the realistic look of him just applying make up. Your thoughts?
There inst a picture showing joker applying his makeup. Thats just what some dude said the trailer might be

[Masteroms33]

Yeah,I know its just what some dude said but its been rumored for a while that the joker won't be bleached.

[dark_b]

Yeah,I know its just what some dude said but its been rumored for a while that the joker won't be bleached.
my dear friend :dry:
''With all the new pictures about The Joker applying makeup and not having his skin bleached at all''

[Anjow1060]

Yay..........n00bes.



:/

[donk70]

Even though these are the best spy pics that we've seen so far, they still aren't a very good source to go from. The lighting is a bit dark and they are just profile shots.

We'll see what we get at SDCC and CC, then go from there.

[Dr. Fate]

I just want Batman films with well told stories. Gotham can look like Chicago, or it can look like an expressionist nightmare, I just want the films to have good stories and good performances.

[Mr.Clay]

Oh for f***'s sake, whenever Nolan talks about a realistic approach what he's really saying is that his film will NOT BE THIS:
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/images/BatmanAndRobin.jpg


THE END. If Nolan was really into a hyper-realistic movie, there wouldn't have been a Microwave Emitter in the last movie that magically vaporized water in metal pipes and not human beings along with it.

[CaptainClown]

I forgot how bad those uniforms look. Thanks for reminding me.

[blind_fury]

Urban legend, iconic imagery and contemporary myth are more important than plausibility and ultra-realism.

I don't care how Bruce builds the Batmobile or the Batcave. The mystery enhances the character. All we need to know is this guy has an unmatched drive that is borderline insane, life-long training since he was a boy, and has extremely high/sharp IQ. All this combines to make him a legendary superhero without superpowers. The specifics for the sake of plausibility do not matter. Who cares? The appeal comes from the mythical and legendary qualities mixed with iconic imagery, not how believable Batman is compared to James Bond or Indiana Jones.

[CaptainClown]

A lot of people care about plausibility because when it isn't there it just makes watching the film stupid.

[KOLLUS]

http://mr.troligt.com/leet/dawson-crying.jpg
why, 'the batman'...
why did you start this thread again?

[blind_fury]

A lot of people care about plausibility because when it isn't there it just makes watching the film stupid.
So being spoon-fed every detail like a child without anything being left to the imagination makes you feel smart? :dry:

[FCEEVIPER]

Oh for f***'s sake, whenever Nolan talks about a realistic approach what he's really saying is that his film will NOT BE THIS:
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/images/BatmanAndRobin.jpg


THE END. If Nolan was really into a hyper-realistic movie, there wouldn't have been a Microwave Emitter in the last movie that magically vaporized water in metal pipes and not human beings along with it.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9655/ownedig7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[KOLLUS]

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/images/BatmanAndRobin.jpg


cloony has the 2012 olimp-d1cks logo on arm.
:hyper:

[blind_fury]

Why do people always use Schumacher's Batman as the only alternative to Nolans' approach? :huh:

Frank Miller's Year One is realistic and far superior to Batman Begins in making Batman relatable to contemporary society without losing the mythical elements. Let David Fincher do a page for page translation of Year One and it would be 10 times better than Begins.

[CaptainClown]

So being spoon-fed every detail like a child without anything being left to the imagination makes you feel smart? :dry:
You don't have to spoon feed details to make it realistic. Rather then realistic it is more plausible. Would you rather be spoon-fed stuff like oh its just there don't ask questions like in Spider-man 3? Why are they testing partical equipment in the middle of a Marsh? Nod your head and say you agree cause if you don't you will be disagreeing with iconic comic book lore!

[Comic Book Boy]

What's the debate? Nolan has already clearly pronounced his stance on this stuff....

[blind_fury]

You don't have to spoon feed details to make it realistic. Rather then realistic it is more plausible. Would you rather be spoon-fed stuff like oh its just there don't ask questions like in Spider-man 3? Why are they testing partical equipment in the middle of a Marsh? Nod your head and say you agree cause if you don't you will be disagreeing with iconic comic book lore!
wtf are you talking about?

A lack of realism isn't why SM3 sucked. Bad storytelling is why it sucked.

[Mr.Clay]

Why do people always use Schumacher's Batman as the only alternative to Nolans' approach? :huh:


Because for 8 years following Batman and Robin, there was no intermediary example of Batman being done in a respectful manner. For 8 years the terrible memories of B&R festered and whoever was going to take the helm of a Batman project would have to deal with the repercussions of the last film. Nolan talking about "realism" is not so much a literal statement, but a PR way of quelling fears about the future of Batman. Take note at how nowadays when he talks about TDK, he doesn't bring up the realism issue as much. People know where he's going with his films, and thus he doesn't have to back it up as much. It's not that Schumacher is the polar opposite of Nolan, it's just that Schumacher was an obstacle Nolan had to surmount.

[Crook]

You don't have to spoon feed details to make it realistic. Rather then realistic it is more plausible. Would you rather be spoon-fed stuff like oh its just there don't ask questions like in Spider-man 3?
The difference is that leaving out certain details works in favor of keeping the mystique of the character. Similar to how a few years back, we knew barely anything about Wolverine. But that's what made him so bad-ass. They've since explained a lot about his past, and while a lot of them were well-written, you can't help but feel how anti-climactic it is.

I'm in favor of explaining some aspects of Bruce's origins, such as his parents' murders, and his training. These are important events that shape up the man he will become. But actually showing him building the suit, borrowing the car, all this...it's not necessary. Honestly, most probably don't even care.

Show the motivations, but leave out the useless details.

[Mel4Prez]

I shall say this. Someone said on these boards once that "If you want realism, then don't watch movies about comic books."

Now, I realize that Chris Nolan is trying to bring a sense of believeability to the movies, which he successfully did in Begins. However, there is only so much you can get to as far as realism with characters like The Joker and Two-Face.

Now, I believe that using the direction that Begins steered the franchise towards that a sense of realism can be brought to these characters, but I don't expect to be lead to believe that (Example) I can jump into a vat of chemicals and come out with green hair and white skin, or come out alive at all for that matter. Or, in the same sense, that I can use acid to burn my face in half and wind up with split-personality disorder.

What I'm saying here is that I like what Nolan is doing, that what he is trying to do with the series is great, and that people who want either complete realism or complete true-to-the-comic adaptations are going to be disappointed. This is just like writing comics. Every writer has a different vision of Batman, The Joker, etc. They take the general idea of what the character is and expand on them in their own way. There is no way to say that "Batman does things like this" or "The Joker acts this way" because every writer portrays them differently. It is no different with film, and this movie is Nolan's idea of what these characters are like.

I totally with this.

[CaptainClown]

wtf are you talking about?

A lack of realism isn't why SM3 sucked. Bad storytelling is why it sucked.


I am not talking about realism in that case I am talking about it being plausible. Certain things work in comics and not in a live action movie. You can have mystery. Also you can have an element of mystery but you have to ground some details at some point. I have no idea what I am arguing anymore I am just typing away oh well

[blind_fury]

Because for 8 years following Batman and Robin, there was no intermediary example of Batman being done in a respectful manner. For 8 years the terrible memories of B&R festered and whoever was going to take the helm of a Batman project would have to deal with the repercussions of the last film. Nolan talking about "realism" is not so much a literal statement, but a PR way of quelling fears about the future of Batman. Take note at how nowadays when he talks about TDK, he doesn't bring up the realism issue as much. People know where he's going with his films, and thus he doesn't have to back it up as much. It's not that Schumacher is the polar opposite of Nolan, it's just that Schumacher was an obstacle Nolan had to surmount.
You don't have to stress realism that much to distance yourself from Batman and Robin. Just call the movie Batman Year One with a dark noir trailer and people will realize it's a completely different approach.

[DeaDheaD]

Maybe realism to Nolan means that he takes it as serious as he can. Instead of neon lights, bat suit nipples, and joker being reduced to a fat guy jumping and dancing around, he treats a comic book character with the lore and following that batman has with the respect and seriousness it deserves. Lets face it someone could go through the training batman did and if had the money could buy all the equipment he needed to actually go there and fight crime. Maybe to Nolan realism means respect and taking his job and work serious.

[Comicfan]

Maybe realism to Nolan means that he takes it as serious as he can. Instead of neon lights, bat suit nipples, and joker being reduced to a fat guy jumping and dancing around, he treats a comic book character with the lore and following that batman has with the respect and seriousness it deserves. Lets face it someone could go through the training batman did and if had the money could buy all the equipment he needed to actually go there and fight crime. Maybe to Nolan realism means respect and taking his job and work serious.

Well, I think Nolans batman is not about realism, but rather Verisimilitude, giving explanations about certain things to make them more pausible...

[Comic Book Boy]

What's the debate? Nolan has already clearly pronounced his stance on this stuff....
Again /\

Watch the deluxe BEGINS DVD.

[Comicfan]

Again /\

Watch the deluxe BEGINS DVD.

I don´t have it... what does it say?

[DeaDheaD]

Well, I think Nolans batman is not about realism, but rather Verisimilitude, giving explanations about certain things to make them more pausible...

I read somewhere in some news article(i know..real specific) that for about two or three million you could have all the accessories that batman has, but still Verisimilitude works too. Im just glad someone(Nolan) is giving batman the respect he deserves. And taking it serious enough to where it doesnt get laughed out of the theatre and almost ruining the character(Schumacher). If Nolan wants to call realism or not thats fine, but so far I call it a good idea.

[DeaDheaD]

I don´t have it... what does it say?


It basically says that he wanted to treat with as much respect as he can.

[Comicfan]

I read somewhere in some news article(i know..real specific) that for about two or three million you could have all the accessories that batman has, but still Verisimilitude works too. Im just glad someone(Nolan) is giving batman the respect he deserves. And taking it serious enough to where it doesnt get laughed out of the theatre and almost ruining the character(Schumacher). If Nolan wants to call realism or not thats fine, but so far I call it a good idea.

Well, i like that Nolan is threating Batman with respect, that is excelent... In the other hand i think burton did the same... shumaker, not so much...

And while it might be true that the gadgets on BB exist... still the idea of a man dress a a bat fighting crime is... well, silly

[CaptainClown]

I heard Burton really didn't care that much.

[DeaDheaD]

Well, i like that Nolan is threating Batman with respect, that is excelent... In the other hand i think burton did the same... shumaker, not so much...

And while it might be true that the gadgets on BB exist... still the idea of a man dress a a bat fighting crime is... well, silly


True it is silly, but if he were in a big city like New York it would probably be more accepted seeing how there is a lot more weirdos there than anywhere else.

I did like what burton did, but BR was a step in my opinion and he was still a producer on BF and that was an even bigger step down despite the box office success

[kytrigger]

Probably already been said before but whatever:

I like Nolan's approach to batman because it is personally somethign I agree with. To me, Batman is 1%. What I mean by that is that both he and the vast majority of the supporting characters and villains of Batman are almost real, but just out there enough where it's not physically possible. 99 times out of 100 a man couldn't do what batman does, he would be killed, beaten, arrested etc. but there is a very slim chance that it could somehow happen, and that is Batman. Just like there is an extremly slim chance of a man looking like a clown and actually getting away with the things he does, but there is still that 1% of chance of it being feasible. Most characters are based on a "normal" component of humanity but just highly exaggerated. Batman doesn't have bat powers, he has skills any of us could actually have, but perfected them to a degree nobody could. Riddler doesn't do anything we have never seen before, he just does it to a degree nobody has ever seen before. The same goes for most of the characters.

The reason this works IMO is because of Gotham itself. Gotham is for the most part realistic. It seems like a pretty normal city with high crime but a place that you could see actually existing. Now, you have these characters in a realistic city, with realistic talents highlighted to an unrealistic degree and you have captured a sense of this skewed realism that for me is Batman. As stupid as the term "unrealistic realism" might be, it kinda fits.

[DeaDheaD]

^^^^amen!

[dark_b]

Well, i like that Nolan is threating Batman with respect, that is excelent... In the other hand i think burton did the same... shumaker, not so much...

And while it might be true that the gadgets on BB exist... still the idea of a man dress a a bat fighting crime is... well, sillyburton respected more the villains then batman since the movies were about them.

but as a kid i was still one of hes biggest fans.

nolan is just on a higher level IMO :o

[DeaDheaD]

Burton was good for the time, but it seems like after awhile he developes a massive case of ADD. Where its good in some parts but forgettable in others.

[CristoTheSecond]

burton respected more the villains then batman since the movies were about them.

but as a kid i was still one of hes biggest fans.

nolan is just on a higher level IMO :o


I agree. Too much focus on the villains in "Batman Returns" as well as "Batman"...

[terry78]

On that note, don't expect to see Clayface, Killer Croc and the like in the Nolan world.

[TheBatman072]

On that note, don't expect to see Clayface, Killer Croc and the like in the Nolan world.


Killer Croc is easy to do realisticly.

[CaptainClown]

killer croc you can do just depends if people like the character enough to be excited

[TheBatman072]

killer croc you can do just depends if people like the character enough to be excited


I was thinking more along the lines of a Scarecrow type role.


Ex-Circus Freak turned to crime, and then hired Mob muscle with a bad skin disease and broken teeth.

And there ARE skin diseases that can make your skin look scaly.

[CaptainClown]

Oh i know I mean I could see it but ya I see how you would have him muscle right? not a main villain?

[TheBatman072]

Oh i know I mean I could see it but ya I see how you would have him muscle right? not a main villain?


Yeah. Croc has never been a main villain.

[CaptainClown]

ok then (thumbs up)

[Mr. Socko]

I'm enjoying Nolan's heightened realism and his take on Batman. I wouldn't say he makes everything in his Batman films realistic, but he does give them the illusion of realism. Instead of mystery, he goes for explanation, and with plausible explanation, the audience can believe it's real and can believe it's there because they're given a reason to.

As for Nolan's realistic visual approach, I think it's ok. I prefer the art deco look of a Gotham that is a City of it's own instead of "ah, this place looks very familiar, kind of like Chicago." However, I was a really big fan of many of his decisions such as the very large skyscrapers, the beautiful views at night, the futuristic trolleys, etc. To me, Nolan has a fantastic story that is only sub-par visually. Burton what the exact opposite, a sub-par story that was fantastic visually. A mix of the two would be a dream come true for me.

[CaptainClown]

I've always liked gotham like in TAS where it looked like it was still in the 40s

[gwynplaine]

I agree with the killer croc comments, too bad I like him, but I was thinking of how the puppet Scarface could fit in Nolan universe. I think they probably shouldn't make it a little tiny mobster with a speech impedement cause that's a bit ridiculous, but probably just a creepy doll with a creepy ventriloquist, I like creepy ventriloquist (are there any other kind ?) like Anthony Hopkins in Magic, a great film.

[CaptainClown]

Ventriloquist I can actually see but I can't see him taken seriously. If anything it would be like psycho where Scarface is actually in a room and the ventriloquist comes out of the room like a butler and talks to the goons. When he enters the room you hear a lot of screaming since he plays out both personalities.

[gwynplaine]

Ventriloquist I can actually see but I can't see him taken seriously. If anything it would be like psycho where Scarface is actually in a room and the ventriloquist comes out of the room like a butler and talks to the goons. When he enters the room you hear a lot of screaming since he plays out both personalities.
Interesting, but I would probably want to see the doll at some point, but you're right it might not work.

[Mr. Socko]

I've always liked gotham like in TAS where it looked like it was still in the 40s

TAS did it to a degree but because it was a cartoon, there wasn't much detail. But that's exactly why I loved the look of Burton's Gotham. It was 30s/40s combined with the then current and contemporary look. People wore trench coats and fedoras, the art deco was brilliant and even partly industrialized, yet there were also things like cars, telephones, cameras, etc of the 80s.

[Closerframe]

Ventriloquist is one of the freaks I can mostly see because I the fact that Scarface and his ventriloquist came from a mafia family which fits perfectly into Nolans world. Scarface would have to get the same amount of screentime Scarecrow got in Batman Begins.

[TheBatman072]

Split-personalties, or disassociative identities in the case of Scarface, are very creepy and very realistic.

What would be ridiculous would be that speech impediment. That's stupid and would SOUND stupid. They did it perfect in BTAS.

[CaptainClown]

Ya I mean for an animated series its easier to see done but in live action who would take orders from a guy with a puppet?
And with my idea you could have it be that his father was scarface but the ventriloquist smothered him and he keeps the body in the room and imitates him. When he is captured he can't leave his father so he gets a doll resembling him.

[CaptainClown]

TAS did it to a degree but because it was a cartoon, there wasn't much detail. But that's exactly why I loved the look of Burton's Gotham. It was 30s/40s combined with the then current and contemporary look. People wore trench coats and fedoras, the art deco was brilliant and even partly industrialized, yet there were also things like cars, telephones, cameras, etc of the 80s.

Ya I agree but I didn't like the look of the 80s thats probably why I didn't like 89 gotham as much.

[gwynplaine]

Some ventriloquists dolls are really creepy, it's the little mobster persona and the speech impedement that probably wouldn't work, too ridiculous, and if the ventriloquist kills a few people he might be taken more seriously even if he wears a doll on his hand. I like the "Psycho" analogy too.

[Closerframe]

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z183/DCAnimatedUltimecia/The%20New%20Batman%20Adventures/Villains/Scarface.gif

[<borkis>]

I want to add my two cents here because I see that the two sides aren't that far off.

The question is, can't we have our comic book fun without throwing away real world sensibilities. I think the answer is yes, it worked in the first movie and I think it can continue to work as long as Nolan keeps his vision clear (which I don't doubt for a second).

The issue at hand is NOT realism, it is however, suspension of disbelief.

Can you have a "realistic" movie that also requires suspension of disbelief? I believe the answer is yes.

So that leaves us with two important factors: The number of times suspension of disbelief is called upon and the types of disblief the audience is expected to accept.

The more times the audience is expected to suspend their disbelief, the less "realistic" the film will be considered to be. How high is this number? hard to quantify, but it can be argued that once or twice every 30 minutes is probably reasonable for a movie. This number will vary from movie to movie and will change depending on which type of suspension of disbelief it is (this is mentioned later in the post).

The touchier aspect is the types of disbelief we are asked to suspend. This is definitely where directors make the most frequent mistakes and where arguments boil down. Without this distinction, the term suspension of disbelief (SODB) is too subjective to accurately base a discussion on. Let's list some examples of situations that can show how SODB is used:
1) Someone falls from a very high height (100 ft+) and survives, not in critical condition.
2) Someone is in a building that explodes and walks out.
3) A man can fly.
4) A character changes their voice and wears a mask and is not recognized at all.
5) Someone gets shot in the arm and continues to use that arm at full capacity.
6) Characters exhibit extreme behaviour not found in everyday life.
7) A character shows up just in time to save his friend/girlfriend from death.
8) A bomb is disarmed with 2 seconds to go.
9) A normal woman falls 30 feet and catches a metal bar with her bare hands and holds on.

That's enough examples. Some of these will be completely accepted by the audience and others will anger the audience to no end. Both are suspensions of disbelief, what's the difference?

The difference is that they are different types of SODB. I will define them as "premise based", "physics based" and "situation based".

Premise based SODB requires the audience to accept that certain facts exist within the movie. This is usually a known idea before the movie starts, so it is accepted as part of the fantasy element of the movie. Good examples of this are War of the Worlds, where we are expected believe that aliens exist and have visited earth or TRON where we are expected to believe that the technology exists to break a person down into atoms and recreated within a computer. If you don't accept the premise, then you probably aren't going to go see the movie, so most audience members are in agreement. You can also look at it as a hypothetical. The movie is then considered an experiment in which you change different variables of reality. Superman would be a hypothetical example of taking the real world and then adding in a single superhuman character from Krypton who is made nearly invincible by our sun. It's interesting because we get to see how the hypothetical plays out.
This type of SODB can exist in a movie while still being considered "realistic" if the other two types of SODB are minimized or not used at all.

Physics based SODB is pretty self descriptive. We are asked to believe that a stunt or feat performed in the movie is actually possible whereas in the real world it would either be impossible or so improbable that it would never happen. The bus jump in Speed is a good example of this. Another common example is a person flying 20 feet (or so) when being shot with a gun. In real life getting shot results in dying where you were standing, usually not 20 feet from there. This type of SODB will most likely make a movie seem "not realistic" since it can be readily proven that regular people can't perform these physics-defying feats. Since there is no premise to tell the audience to assume that the characters are super-human, the realism is lost.

Situation based SODB is also relatively simple. It is where the story or plot happens to move in a certain manner regardless of the probability that it will do so. An example of this is a character turning on the news at the exact moment that an important story relating to their situation is being broadcast. Another example is the hero showing up at the exact moment to prevent the murder of an ally. This type of SODB can make a movie seem unrealistic depending on how it is used. A well written scene can involve this type of SODB while keeping the scene dramatic rather than unrealistic. Using it to get around bad writing or to keep popular characters alive in spite of their circumstances can anger an audience and deem the movie unrealistic.



I hope that this can bring some calm to this debate. If you look at the list I've written above, you should be able to determine which types of SODB apply to each and understand why they are acceptable or unacceptable to a given movie.


I hope I speak for most Batman fans here when I say that this movie should have a certain amount of Premise driven SODB while having as little Physics and Situation based SODB as possible.

[CaptainClown]

Some ventriloquists dolls are really creepy, it's the little mobster persona and the speech impedement that probably wouldn't work, too ridiculous, and if the ventriloquist kills a few people he might be taken more seriously even if he wears a doll on his hand. I like the "Psycho" analogy too.

Ya I mean in my Bat world I think I would have his doll be basically his father who never approved of him. He kills his father in order to prove to his father which is his dominate personality basically that he can run the family business. I mean he wouldn't actually be the ventriloquist until he is caught when he has a doll of his father. When he is captured he could be just as deadly because his father in his head is still barking orders and he wants to get his fathers approval.

An example senario would be is he is at Arkham playing with a chess set and then some guard makes fun of him his father (scarface) would say something like

You worthless mutt can't stand up for yourself

then the Ventriloquist out of anger tries to kill the guard

oh well just a thought

[Mr. Socko]

Ya I mean for an animated series its easier to see done but in live action who would take orders from a guy with a puppet?
And with my idea you could have it be that his father was scarface but the ventriloquist smothered him and he keeps the body in the room and imitates him. When he is captured he can't leave his father so he gets a doll resembling him.


LOL

[gwynplaine]

Ya I mean in my Bat world I think I would have his doll be basically his father who never approved of him. He kills his father in order to prove to his father which is his dominate personality basically that he can run the family business. I mean he wouldn't actually be the ventriloquist until he is caught when he has a doll of his father. When he is captured he could be just as deadly because his father in his head is still barking orders and he wants to get his fathers approval.

An example senario would be is he is at Arkham playing with a chess set and then some guard makes fun of him his father (scarface) would say something like

You worthless mutt can't stand up for yourself

then the Ventriloquist out of anger tries to kill the guard

oh well just a thought
You should be a screenwriter dude, you got some good ideas.

[CaptainClown]

Oh I am a screenwriter tee hee... but I keep some of the aces of my ideas so they aren't completely stolen. But I like to test em on here to see how people like you react to it. I am glad you like it thank you very much. It is fun making backstories and new angles on already done characters

[Mr. Socko]

Oh I am a screenwriter tee hee... but I keep some of the aces of my ideas so they aren't completely stolen. But I like to test em on here to see how people like you react to it. I am glad you like it thank you very much. It is fun making backstories and new angles on already done characters


Have you ever written for Batman?

[CaptainClown]

I'm writing something about Batman. But never for its all lame fun and practice. One I was trying to get into a fan graphic novel but my artists get too distracted by drinking. And I have little patience to draw a comic...

but no I have never written anything for anybody

[Bright Knight]

I



Now, I believe that using the direction that Begins steered the franchise towards that a sense of realism can be brought to these characters, but I don't expect to be lead to believe that (Example) I can jump into a vat of chemicals and come out with green hair and white skin, or come out alive at all for that matter. Or, in the same sense, that I can use acid to burn my face in half and wind up with split-personality disorder.

.

Sorry dude but I respectively disagree...

If Dent had underlying issues (which he does), getting half his face scarred amongst other "events" happening around the same time, is EXACTLY something which would lead to the onset of a split personality disorder. Your brain creates a different personality to deal with all the paina and hurt and anguish etc, so your true personality doesn't have to face it.

Regarding white skin and green hair... If you had died hair, and went swimming in highly chlorinated water in a pool, it would go green.... And that level of chlorine wouldn't even be unsafe.... There are plenty of substances that can whiten your skin but not KILL you....

Hydroquinone, ellagic acid, ferulic acid, Arbutin, Tretinoin and Alpha hydroxy acids. the list goes on and on....

Not unrealistic.... At all.


The most unreal part of Batman is the bit where you have the man dressed up as a giant bat.

[CaptainClown]

The thing about Batman you need to know the backstory in order to really understand why some of these characters are realistic. Like Dent who is trying to make a difference but everything he is doing is being thwarted. He slowly believes two wrongs make a right and the ends justifies the means. But he is caught between true justice and vengeance.

[Boom]

Somebody over at BOF raised a very interesting point.

In order to get the toxin into the air, they used the microwave emitter to vaporize the water in the mains, correct? We also know that they've been dumping the toxin into the water supply for weeks. The entire system was laced with it.

So what happens to the people who, say, boil water at home, or take a shower?

[CaptainClown]

They are going to be freaking out =) much like your kermit Avvy

[TheBatman072]

Somebody over at BOF raised a very interesting point.

In order to get the toxin into the air, they used the microwave emitter to vaporize the water in the mains, correct? We also know that they've been dumping the toxin into the water supply for weeks. The entire system was laced with it.

So what happens to the people who, say, boil water at home, or take a shower?


Same thing that happened to the people on the streets.

[Boom]

Same thing that happened to the people on the streets.
Well...everybody (I hope) showers. And if this contamination has been going on for weeks, then Gotham should've been in chaos long before Ra's arrived in Gotham. They wouldn't have even needed the microwave emitter.

[TheBatman072]

Well...everybody (I hope) showers. And if this contamination has been going on for weeks, then Gotham should've been in chaos long before Ra's arrived in Gotham. They wouldn't have even needed the microwave emitter.


"Why haven't we felt the effects?"


"Must be a compound that has to be absorbed through the lungs."

[CaptainClown]

It might have been overlooked or just evaporating it through heat nullifys the toxin where as the microwave emitter is just right to keep the compound stable.

[Boom]

"Why haven't we felt the effects?"


"Must be a compound that has to be absorbed through the lungs."
When water is heated, it turns to steam. Don't you inhale steam in the shower?

[Bright Knight]

"Why haven't we felt the effects?"


"Must be a compound that has to be absorbed through the lungs."

But when you shower you inhale the water vapour into your lungs as the steam etc... I think that's what he's getting at.

[sasquatchs]

Yea, it's definitely a sweep it under the carpet problem

[Jager X]

It might have been overlooked or just evaporating it through heat nullifys the toxin where as the microwave emitter is just right to keep the compound stable.

I'll just go with it being overlooked. Sounds more plausible :o :up:

[TheBatman072]

When water is heated, it turns to steam. Don't you inhale steam in the shower?

But when you shower you inhale the water vapour into your lungs as the steam etc... I think that's what he's getting at.


Ah, I see now.


I wouldn't know. I don't take hot showers. But I'd imagine that you do.

Maybe it wasn't enough. Maybe water had to be completely evaporated. I'm not sure.

[Anguissette1979]

Oooooh... good call! I didn't even think of that little inconsistency!

[Bright Knight]

What gets me is that the Batmobile/Tumbler is never ever ever followed back to the bat cave.

[Jager X]

Nolan didn't pay the cops enough to drive that far.

[TheBatman072]

What gets me is that the Batmobile/Tumbler is never ever ever followed back to the bat cave.


Nor was it in Burton's movies. Nor in A LOT of the comic books. What's your point?

[sasquatchs]

What gets me is that the Batmobile/Tumbler is never ever ever followed back to the bat cave.

The editing and direction during the chase was bad. He went into "stealth mode" (switching off his lights), they lost him, then he drove in front again and switched them back on. Then smashed through a wall in what looked like seconds later, then 10 seconds until the Batcave. I know they had to keep the tension up with Rachel about to die, but its irksome

[TheBatman072]

The editing and direction during the chase was bad. He went into "stealth mode" (switching off his lights), they lost him, then he drove in front again and switched them back on. Then smashed through a wall in what looked like seconds later, then 10 seconds until the Batcave. I know they had to keep the tension up with Rachel about to die, but its irksome


Didn't just turn his lights off, he switched to an electric engine, which slowed him down and made him VERY quiet.

[Bright Knight]

Nor was it in Burton's movies. Nor in A LOT of the comic books. What's your point?


Well, um, THAT'S my point!

[sasquatchs]

Didn't just turn his lights off, he switched to an electric engine, which slowed him down and made him VERY quiet.

That's what it said in the script, wasn't obvious in the film

[TheBatman072]

That's what it said in the script, wasn't obvious in the film


I didn't read the script.

[sasquatchs]

Then how did you know? We only heard the car from the inside as far as I can remember

[Baba Ghanoush]

Somebody over at BOF raised a very interesting point.

In order to get the toxin into the air, they used the microwave emitter to vaporize the water in the mains, correct? We also know that they've been dumping the toxin into the water supply for weeks. The entire system was laced with it.

So what happens to the people who, say, boil water at home, or take a shower?

Given the parameters of the film, the only logical reason that fits is that the water must vaporize instantly in order for the toxin to be dispersed properly.

Since all the factors you mentioned bring water temperature up at a slower rate it probably doesn't provide the right environment for a chemical change in the toxin to make it lethal. Therefore, b/c it never reaches that threshold it simply remains benign.

[TheBatman072]

Then how did you know? We only heard the car from the inside as far as I can remember


Becuase I know that electric engines are quieter and slower than regular engines.


And we DID hear it from the outside.

[TheBatman072]

Given the parameters of the film, the only logical reason that fits is that the water must vaporize instantly in order for the toxin to be dispersed properly.

Since all the factors you mentioned bring water temperature up at a slower rate it probably doesn't provide the right environment for a chemical change in the toxin to make it lethal. Therefore, b/c it never reaches that threshold it simply remains benign.


Well said.

[Boom]

Honestly, I think the "poisoned water supply" plot would have been much more effective if the ME was removed altogether.

Ra's and the League could have hijacked the water main control room in Wayne Tower. From there, they could have begun dumping the toxin into the central hub, while Crane and his goons did so underneath of the Asylum. Instead of dumping the toxin for weeks, it could have been done in a day or so.

As the poison began lacing its way through the water mains, people would begin feeling the effects from doing common day things, like boiling water, showering. Anything involving heating water.

Instead of some moving a ME by means of a monorail into the central hub, they could have just sabotaged equipment in the control room, causing the water mains to heat and the pressure to spike.

I dunno. It's a crude outline, and I know its not as "actiony" as the monorail sequence. But I'm sure with proper planning and scripting, that scenario would be a much more sophisticated eco-terrorist plot.

[sasquatchs]

You could say the water was superheated far beyond boiling temperature or something. But the whiole of act 3 was just poor, too conventional after all that effort

[wikum]

as i said in another post:

there is a scene in the film where the l.o.s turn the emitter on WHILST ON A SHIP. surely that would start to vaporize the sea itself? and they would all die.

[TheBatman072]

as i said in another post:

there is a scene in the film where the l.o.s turn the emitter on WHILST ON A SHIP. surely that would start to vaporize the sea itself? and they would all die.


Doesn't sea water have different chemical properties than regular water? I think so.

[Anguissette1979]

Doesn't sea water have different chemical properties than regular water? I think so.

The addition of salt to water causes boiling point elevation...

[Bright Knight]

as i said in another post:

there is a scene in the film where the l.o.s turn the emitter on WHILST ON A SHIP. surely that would start to vaporize the sea itself? and they would all die.


That and the fact that if it managed to vaporize water through stell piping and metres of earth, then surely any humans near it would be instantly vaporised also, because as we all know, the human body is largely consisted of water.

[sasquatchs]

Why would they even need to switch it on? Just shoot people instead of turning them into fear zombies

[Bright Knight]

The addition of salt to water causes boiling point elevation...


But not by THAT much... We are talking vaporising after all.

[CaptainClown]

its vaporizing not evaporating right?

[Bright Knight]

Why would they even need to switch it on? Just shoot people instead of turning them into fear zombies


If they wanted to terrify and frighten a whole city they could have flown a plane into Wayne Towers. That's not intended to be flippant or insensitive by the way, just stating an observation.

[Boom]

And one thing that's always irked me.

That one douche bag that throws the mask at Crane and says, "Time to play." Every time I see that scene, I cringe.

[Bright Knight]

its vaporizing not evaporating right?


Vaporizing is at a much higher temperature.

[CaptainClown]

They wanted to have Gotham tear itself apart rather then it look like they did it.

[Bright Knight]

And one thing that's always irked me.

That one douche bag that throws the mask at Crane and says, "Time to play." Every time I see that scene, I cringe.


I know!!!!


It's the same douchbag that does the same gesture as evil monkey from family guy when he pushes the narrows kid and points at Rachel.

[Mr. Socko]

And one thing that's always irked me.

That one douche bag that throws the mask at Crane and says, "Time to play." Every time I see that scene, I cringe.


I love the "would you like to see my mask" line.

[sasquatchs]

If they wanted to terrify and frighten a whole city they could have flown a plane into Wayne Towers. That's not intended to be flippant or insensitive by the way, just stating an observation.

I mean switch it on, on the boat

[Boom]

I know!!!!


It's the same douchbag that does the same gesture as evil monkey from family guy when he pushes the narrows kid and points at Rachel.
It's like, dude, you're a ninja. Stop spitting out cheesy-ass one-liners and grow a pair. Christ.


I am getting really pissed about this :huh:.

[Baba Ghanoush]

Becuase I know that electric engines are quieter and slower than regular engines.


And we DID hear it from the outside.

Exactly. Internal combustion engines make noise b/c the explosion in the cylinders is forcing pistons up and down which in turn moves the crankshaft which turn the gears and shafts which turn the wheels (obviously, its more detailed than this but that's a quick sentence of what happens when you hit the gas). There a lot of moving parts here and this is what you are hearing when you hear a normal car's engine.

An electric car simply uses stationary battery cells which transmits power to the gears and shafts, etc. So the amount of noise is reduced considerably which is why you can hear the Tumbler "power down" when he goes stealth mode.

[Bright Knight]

I love the "would you like to see my mask" line.

Batman's line,
"it's not who I am inside, but what I doooooo that defines me"

That came out of the blue, didn't it!?

[sasquatchs]

Exactly. Internal combustion engines make noise b/c the explosion in the cylinders is forcing pistons up and down which in turn moves the crankshaft which turn the gears and shafts which turn the wheels (obviously, its more detailed than this). There a lot of moving parts here and this is what you are hearing when you hear a normal car's engine.

An electric car simply uses fuel cells which powers the gears and shafts, etc. So the amount of noise is reduced considerably which is why you can hear the Tumbler "power down" when he goes stealth mode.

Fine, everyone knows electric engines are quieter. I'm just saying the use of an electric engine wasn't terribly obvious to me. The other thing they didn't show very well is the way the weapons position remains perpendicular to the ground. Anyway, neither of those are realism related

[Bright Knight]

It's like, dude, you're a ninja. Stop spitting out cheesy-ass one-liners and grow a pair. Christ.


I am getting really pissed about this :huh:.

Ninja's NEVER talk!

Except this guy.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/0a/200px-American_ninja.jpg

[Bright Knight]

Fine, everyone knows electric engines are quieter. I'm just saying the use of an electric engine wasn't terribly obvious to me. The other thing they didn't show very well is the way the weapons position remains perpendicular to the ground. Anyway, neither of those are realism related


I think it's a little ridiculous to design a car where you have to drive on your stomach to fire missiles.... The only rational reason i can think of or that driving position is so that the driver's vertebrae aren't damaged from jumps.

[sasquatchs]

If the Batpod comes out of that position it'd be vindicated, difficult to see it happening like that though. It was so he remained flat when the car was at an angle on the roof, but it didnt come across well

[Bright Knight]

If the Batpod comes out of that position it'd be vindicated, difficult to see it happening like that though. It was so he remained flat when the car was at an angle on the roof, but it didnt come across well


There was a new pic of the batmobile released recently of it coming onto a sidewalk, in daylight? Anyway it was at an ideal angle... It certainly looks like the pod would come out of that position, although the 3rd wheel would be concealed underneat and there doesn't seem to be much room for that. Also... There are suspension struts on each side of the "Weapon launch position" in the middle of the tumbler, which isn't connected to the front wheels... Why would these struts be there if they aren't connected to the front wheels?

[sasquatchs]

I dunno, were they there on the BB Tumbler? I suppose the weapons position could open up like a mouth, then shift over in line with the front left wheel. Pretty Transformerish though

[TheBatman072]

I think it's a little ridiculous to design a car where you have to drive on your stomach to fire missiles.... The only rational reason i can think of or that driving position is so that the driver's vertebrae aren't damaged from jumps.


It's for better aiming and driving.

[Baba Ghanoush]

I think it's a little ridiculous to design a car where you have to drive on your stomach to fire missiles.... The only rational reason i can think of or that driving position is so that the driver's vertebrae aren't damaged from jumps.

That's the one aspect of the Tumbler that looked totally unnecessary. I agree with you, its silly to have him go to the floorboard everytime he wants to fire a missle.

[CaptainClown]

why else do you think they didn't mass produce the tumbler.. you had to get on the floor to shoot missiles.

[Bright Knight]

It's for better aiming and driving.

Why do you think that?

[Bright Knight]

I dunno, were they there on the BB Tumbler? I suppose the weapons position could open up like a mouth, then shift over in line with the front left wheel. Pretty Transformerish though


I only saw them in the pic i was describing, the pic which is now lost in the spam of the chicago thread.

Just a wild guess though.

[TheBatman072]

Why do you think that?


He was driving on rooftops and such. If you're in the middle of the car, it's better to navigate. But on one side, it's much easier to misjudge and then fall right the hell off the roof.

[Dvhyzs]

Why do you think that?
He's closer to the ground...giving him precision.
EDIT: what he said^

[sasquatchs]

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/1901/cap78637tureea4.jpg

Here you go. I have no idea what they're for, haven't got any decent Begins pictures to compare

[Boom]

I hated the prone position in The Tumbler, because it resulted in making the front of the vehicle look like utter ****. I remember when the first pictures of The Tumbler came online, people thought they weren't done building it.

[sasquatchs]

He was driving on rooftops and such. If you're in the middle of the car, it's better to navigate. But on one side, it's much easier to misjudge and then fall right the hell off the roof.

So Fox designed it for driving on rooftops? :oldrazz:

[TheBatman072]

So Fox designed it for driving on rooftops? :oldrazz:


No, it was designed for jumping. Of which it did. Onto a rooftop.


When you're jumping over a huge river or small canyon, you want to have the best perspective. Of which you can't have on one side of a vehicle. But right in the middle? Much better perspective.

[Mr. Socko]

I hate when Batman has to go on his stomach to fire missiles, I just HATE that!!! Ugh.

[CaptainClown]

what do you think he does all those pushups for

[TheBatman072]

what do you think he does all those pushups for


Lifting bloody logs.

[Bright Knight]

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/1901/cap78637tureea4.jpg

Here you go. I have no idea what they're for, haven't got any decent Begins pictures to compare


Brill thanks man... Now if you look at the left tire (as we se it), it seems to have the ability to hinge 90 degrees.... THis is evident by looking at the notch. Presumably the other tire would have this ability too. Now... WHy are there struts on the side of the Weapon launching position? They look like pneumaticor hydrolic pumps? Yet they aren't connect to the wheels... What if all of this popper out and the tires turned 90 degrees and so did the weapon's system?

The Pod's tires are the same size as the tumbler's tyres, and i don't think they could be concealed underneath the tumbler...


This is the only conceivable way i can see of the Pod being part of the tumbler...

[CaptainClown]

Lifting bloody logs.

hehe

[sasquatchs]

No, it was designed for jumping. Of which it did. Onto a rooftop.


When you're jumping over a huge river or small canyon, you want to have the best perspective. Of which you can't have on one side of a vehicle. But right in the middle? Much better perspective.

The position is stationary in the wrong axis which was a bit stupid of them. It's more like a fancy motorbike feature. Unless it really can motion up and down, those suspension things kind of suggest it even though it wasn't shown

[Bright Knight]

No, it was designed for jumping. Of which it did. Onto a rooftop.


When you're jumping over a huge river or small canyon, you want to have the best perspective. Of which you can't have on one side of a vehicle. But right in the middle? Much better perspective.


Well why not build the seat in the middle then? Why would he have to go on his stomach with a smaller range of arm movement for steering?

The only reason I can think of for this, as I said, was to protect the driver's vertebrae from damage if the tumbler has a bad landing. If he's flat his spine is less likely to get injured.

[Figs]

So Fox designed it for driving on rooftops? :oldrazz:


For the last time!!!!!! Fox does not design **** at Wayne enterprises. I hate how everyone was *****ing that Fox made Batman all his gadgets.

People it's a corporation, they have employees/engineers that design and come up with all that ****. Mr. Earl sent Fox down there to keep from causing the board anymore trouble remember!??? He is basically just keeping everything in order and whatnot, yeah he has smarts to create the antidote but they never said he created the Tumbler as well as anything else like the grapple gun.

[Dvhyzs]

For the last time!!!!!! Fox does not design **** at Wayne enterprises. I hate how everyone was *****ing that Fox made Batman all his gadgets.

People it's a corporation, they have employees/engineers that design and come up with all that ****. Mr. Earl sent Fox down there to keep from causing the board anymore trouble remember!??? He is basically just keeping everything in order and whatnot, yeah he has smarts to create the antidote but they never said he created the Tumbler as well as anything else like the grapple gun.
He just kinda sits there.....vegetating.

[sasquatchs]

Brill thanks man... Now if you look at the left tire (as we se it), it seems to have the ability to hinge 90 degrees.... THis is evident by looking at the notch. Presumably the other tire would have this ability too. Now... WHy are there struts on the side of the Weapon launching position? They look like pneumaticor hydrolic pumps? Yet they aren't connect to the wheels... What if all of this popper out and the tires turned 90 degrees and so did the weapon's system?

The Pod's tires are the same size as the tumbler's tyres, and i don't think they could be concealed underneath the tumbler...


This is the only conceivable way i can see of the Pod being part of the tumbler...

Yea, seems like pretty complex stuff for Nolan, although a few have told me it really is part of it. If it used both of the tires it would be facing 90 degrees to the direction of motion though.

It'd have to go like this while moving :oldrazz: |==| /==/ __==__

[Bright Knight]

For the last time!!!!!! Fox does not design **** at Wayne enterprises. I hate how everyone was *****ing that Fox made Batman all his gadgets.

People it's a corporation, they have employees/engineers that design and come up with all that ****. Mr. Earl sent Fox down there to keep from causing the board anymore trouble remember!??? He is basically just keeping everything in order and whatnot, yeah he has smarts to create the antidote but they never said he created the Tumbler as well as anything else like the grapple gun.


Over react much?!

Yea and corporations have chief designers!

[sasquatchs]

For the last time!!!!!! Fox does not design **** at Wayne enterprises. I hate how everyone was *****ing that Fox made Batman all his gadgets.

People it's a corporation, they have employees/engineers that design and come up with all that ****. Mr. Earl sent Fox down there to keep from causing the board anymore trouble remember!??? He is basically just keeping everything in order and whatnot, yeah he has smarts to create the antidote but they never said he created the Tumbler as well as anything else like the grapple gun.

Who cares, someone at Wayne tech designed it, it's not the point I was making. The whole thing was facetious anyway

[Dvhyzs]

Over react much?!

Yea and corporations have chief designers!
Not really...


It does get kinda annoying.

[Boom]

My question is this. All of the equipment Bruce "borrowed" from Wayne Enterprises: do you think they're still in the inventory files?

I mean, I'd assume Wayne Enterprises would do inventory of its stored products, to make sure nobody is stealing ****. How's Fox supposed to explain that an expensive military vehicle prototype is just missing, when it's still in the files?

It would have been cool to see Bruce go through the Wayne Enterprises computer files and delete the data on all of the equipment he took. Nobody would have proof that they existed in the first place if they're completely erased from the computer bank.

[Figs]

It didn't bother me in the slightest that he had to go into that position to fire missles, you all want to know why?!?!? If you paid attention to details, which im sure you did, it's A BRIDGING VEHICLE. Since it's to be used in war/combat areas it is smart to give it weapons but that is not it's primary function.

To me it was a seperate screen for precision aiming since it wasn't built as a top of the line weapon like a tank. I don't see how you can aim well in that thing when your in the driver seat. Imagine being in your car and it could fire missles from the front, I guarantee your aim and accuracy would suck trying to shoot a centered target from that perspective.

Not to mention it's a ****ing movie lol based on a comic. Give it a rest. On another note, it still has not been proven as fact that the damn "pod" will be coming out of the Tumbler.

[Bright Knight]

Yea, seems like pretty complex stuff for Nolan, although a few have told me it really is part of it. If it used both of the tires it would be facing 90 degrees to the direction of motion though.

It'd have to go like this while moving :oldrazz: |==| /==/ __==__


I know, I thought of that... Unless the weapon launcing section had a pilot wheel underneath it or something?

It bottles the mind.

[TwilightPro101]

My question is this. All of the equipment Bruce "borrowed" from Wayne Enterprises: do you think they're still in the inventory files?

I mean, I'd assume Wayne Enterprises would do inventory of its stored products, to make sure nobody is stealing ****. How's Fox supposed to explain that an expensive military vehicle prototype is just missing, when it's still in the files?

It would have been cool to see Bruce go through the Wayne Enterprises computer files and delete the data on all of the equipment he took. Nobody would ever have proof that they existed in the first place.

Bruce took it as of his own choice. There's two possibilities that come to mind:

1) Bruce wrote it off and brought into his private collection, which is believable.

or

2) They were completely removed from the system entirely since Bruce can have final say on what's on paper and what's not paper or in this case the onboard files.

[Dvhyzs]

My question is this. All of the equipment Bruce "borrowed" from Wayne Enterprises: do you think they're still in the inventory files?

I mean, I'd assume Wayne Enterprises would do inventory of its stored products, to make sure nobody is stealing ****. How's Fox supposed to explain that an expensive military vehicle prototype is just missing, when it's still in the files?

It would have been cool to see Bruce go through the Wayne Enterprises computer files and delete the data on all of the equipment he took. Nobody would ever have proof that they existed in the first place.
I think they were all lost causes and none were put into production. Therefore making there be no reason to take inventory.

Or,

Maybe its Fox's job to take inventory but he simply doesnt give a sh** and just says everythin is ship shape.

[Mr. Socko]

For the last time!!!!!! Fox does not design **** at Wayne enterprises. I hate how everyone was *****ing that Fox made Batman all his gadgets.

People it's a corporation, they have employees/engineers that design and come up with all that ****. Mr. Earl sent Fox down there to keep from causing the board anymore trouble remember!??? He is basically just keeping everything in order and whatnot, yeah he has smarts to create the antidote but they never said he created the Tumbler as well as anything else like the grapple gun.

So how does he know exactly how every single thing down there works lol...

[Bright Knight]

Not to mention it's a ****ing movie lol based on a comic. Give it a rest. On another note, it still has not been proven as fact that the damn "pod" will be coming out of the Tumbler.


Trouble with the wife?

This thread happens to be discussing that very fact... The fact that this is a movie based on a comic, and how to bring a comic to life in a live action film.

And we know that it has been proven for a fact that the pod comes out of the tumbler...

We're just discussing the engineering of it.

[sasquatchs]

So how does he know exactly how every single thing down there works lol...

He's got nothing else to do but look at that database lol. He probably frequents the hype

[Boom]

I think they were all lost causes and none were put into production. Therefore making there be no reason to take inventory.

Or,

Maybe its Fox's job to take inventory but he simply doesnt give a sh** and just says everythin is ship shape.
Well, the microwave emitter was a prototype, yet it was still in the files. "37-B 1-ME," if I remember it correctly.

Even though everything in Fox's department is an abandoned project, I'd assume that a corporation as large as Wayne Enterprises would still keep them logged as "discontinued projects" or "prototype phases."

[Figs]

So how does he know exactly how every single thing down there works lol...


To be head of a board room he's obviously got a good head on his shoulders. I'm also guessing the ****er can read manuals and info that is kept about those products. Some of you guys are asking questions that are common sense. You guys are looking into things just to find faults lol.

I guess your trying to say that before Fox got sent down there, none of that stuff was created yet.:whatever:

[Boom]

Not to mention it's a ****ing movie lol based on a comic. Give it a rest. On another note, it still has not been proven as fact that the damn "pod" will be coming out of the Tumbler.
You're right. So The Joker better damned well be permawhite. It is a comic-book movie after all, correct?

[Mr. Socko]

To be head of a board room he's obviously got a good head on his shoulders. I'm also guessing the ****er can read manuals and info that is kept about those products. Some of you guys are asking questions that are common sense. You guys are looking into things just to find faults lol.

I guess your trying to say that before Fox got sent down there, none of that stuff was created yet.:whatever:

He did create it all, and Rachel helped.

[Figs]

Trouble with the wife?

This thread happens to be discussing that very fact... The fact that this is a movie based on a comic, and how to bring a comic to life in a live action film.

And we know that it has been proven for a fact that the pod comes out of the tumbler...

We're just discussing the engineering of it.


No trouble, I just can't stand our society and the lack of common sense in it anymore. Gets under my skin with all the zombies and morons that don't have common sense anymore, too much ****ty tv and not enough reading.

Right now, give me the link that has the proof that someone from the movie, that's either from Warner Bros or Nolan himself not a lame grip or something that has said it does in fact come out of the Tumbler. I thought it was all guessing so far at this point.

[Boom]

It's highly unlikely that Fox developed those projects on his own. Doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the production of them.

[sasquatchs]

No trouble, I just can't stand our society and the lack of common sense in it anymore. Gets under my skin with all the zombies and morons that don't have common sense anymore, too much ****ty tv and not enough reading.

Right now, give me the link that has the proof that someone from the movie, that's either from Warner Bros or Nolan himself not a lame grip or something that has said it does in fact come out of the Tumbler. I thought it was all guessing so far at this point.

I don't need lectures on the obvious thanks. Fox is a shorthand way of saying random Wayne Tech engineer #5

[Mr. Socko]

No trouble, I just can't stand our society and the lack of common sense in it anymore. Gets under my skin with all the zombies and morons that don't have common sense anymore, too much ****ty tv and not enough reading.

Right now, give me the link that has the proof that someone from the movie, that's either from Warner Bros or Nolan himself not a lame grip or something that has said it does in fact come out of the Tumbler. I thought it was all guessing so far at this point.

Confirmed here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=23189

[Figs]

You're right. So The Joker better damned well be permawhite. It is a comic-book movie after all, correct?


Nice try trying to change my words and mock me. You damn well know I meant in terms of some things are going to require the suspension of disbelief, not because it's what happened in the comics.

[CaptainClown]

people are different and view things differently

[Dvhyzs]

people are different and view things differently
lol...so random.

[Figs]

I don't need lectures on the obvious thanks. Fox is a shorthand way of saying random Wayne Tech engineer #5


Sounds like a lot of you do since you totally missed my points and all started mocking me for saying what is common sense that you all didn't get.

[CaptainClown]

lol...so random.

You think random... but my quote goes deeper young grasshopper.

[Boom]

Nice try trying to change my words and mock me. You damn well know I meant in terms of some things are going to require the suspension of disbelief, not because it's what happened in the comics.
Still, no reason people can't suspend their belief so that The Joker can be white-skinned.

[Bright Knight]

I don't need lectures on the obvious thanks. Fox is a shorthand way of saying random Wayne Tech engineer #5


I hate the way people have to defend themselves like this on these boards!!! WHy are people always attacking pedantics in other people's posts?! It's counterproductive!

[Figs]

Confirmed here:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=23189


Whoa! Swayze is going to be in another movie! LOL!

[Mr. Socko]

lol wut

[sasquatchs]

Sounds like a lot of you do since you totally missed my points and all started mocking me for saying what is common sense that you all didn't get.

Is there a subtle bone in your body? I think everyone implicitly gets that it's a bridging vehicle and Fox didn't craft the Tumbler with his own hands, we're debating the mechanics and logic of it. If it pains you stay out of it