Anyone else think that nolans movies arent really "Batman movies"?

[Bat-Mite]

Originally Posted by BATS N' HORNETS

The Nolan films definitely leave something to be desired. I say that the execution of the physical sets and overall look is good. The characters appearances need to be changed and the story in TDK certainly need to be better.

Batman 89 was a perfect film.

[Spoonman]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

One thing that I definitely miss in Nolan movies is great Batman shots. Begins had barely one or two that lasted less than 2 seconds. I mean visually the first Batman shot in B89 - with Batman spreading his wings over the two thugs - was better than anything Nolan.

Agreed, I was rewatching some scenes from Batman 89 some days ago and thats exactly what came to my mind! I surely miss the iconic imagery of the Batman and I think Nolan doesn't include much of that, I know this should be for another thread but...I also discoevered a new found love for that particular batsuit.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by ShivNasty

Batman doesn't kill he hasn't since 1939. and he is in no way shape or form comparable to The Punisher.

And Joker hasnt been a physical match for Batman since 1940 (and btw, Batman has been occasionally killing ever since the late 60s and still does today). I see no problem with that, and its the original way the character was. Besides, the moral Batman didnt appear until 1970s. Batman turned into smiling family friendly Robin buddy almost instantly after he got his own comic book, so would that version be somewhat more important because it was used for 3 decades about a year after the character's inception? The 70s rebooting was "going back to roots" to the dark, serious Batman. Same with Nolan. Where they wrong doing so just because the dark serious Batman existed for only a year? Besides, Kane said he likes his first Batman the most.And no, it wasn't Bat-Man anymore, thats incorrect and I have panels to prove so. Batman stopped killing after 1943 and started again in 69. Again, I dont understand why the same people who cheer going back to roots with Nolan condemn it for Burton. FEW of the examples from the early days and different decades that I just added - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/201...er-batman.html. Either way, this was the Batman as he was created and this was the Batman even after he got origins and even after he teamed up with Robin, so I fail to see how it in any way can be called 'wrong' especially for those who are happy that Nolan's Joker's inspiration was the first 2 issues of his appearance from 1940 and not the 70s/modern ONeil version

As for being comparable to Punisher - they both had their families killed by criminals and because of that became vigilantes, fighting crime with crime basically (theyre both outside the law). Theyre both angry and not normal individuals, so I really wouldnt say they "uncomparable in any way, form or shape". THE Batman, the original Batman was like Punisher in that he didnt care about other criminals life. After he became family friendly character, he killed less and eventually stopped killing alltogether, and in the 70s he was given the moral code explaining his way, and even then he killed from time to time in a pretty ruthless way sometimes

Originally Posted by bullets

I basically like different interpretations of the character. Burton and Nolan both made compelling films , there's Batman the animated series , and even the 60s show can be fun.
Batman is one of the rare characters that can be tinkered with but the basic premise has to be the same. The only time I felt he was really bastardized was in Batman and Robin but the real problem was that it was a supposed sequel to Batman(89)

My thoughts exactly

[Arta]

Originally Posted by theman

sure nolan has the same things the older ones had, a cool car, a rubber suit, villians with makeup, but they really lack something, especially TDK. the atmosphere and the execution and look of the characters and world just doesnt strike me as batman. its too common/average looking. besides the narrows in BB, gotham city looks like any old city. sure, in the comics they tend to look i guess somewhat modernized but even then the city always looks darker, grimmer, lots of statues and gargoyles, somewhat, well, gothic looking. the tumbler is, well...not a batmobile, or a sorry excuse for one. the villians were rather plain and boring looking, especiallt scarecrow, and they are almost never given enough screentime, save for the joker in TDK but thats because hes the joker. but scarecrow and ras al guhl were almost non existant through most of BB. the realism for me just killed the series, and i just wanted to know if anyone felt like this as well.

i guess im just not a fan of nolan. hes all big now cuz of TDK but really he hasnt done anything that i would watch. tim burton on the other hand....is more my style. and no im not a goth kid, the complete opposite actually. but his batman films were just more batman, from gotham, to the batmobile/batsuit, to the music, the atmosphere, the character representations. hell i even liked batman forever better. the new films also lost the fun of the original films. what happened exactly? now they have to make everything realistic. i dont get it. i hate batman and robin because it prompted the studio to go in not a 180, but a total 360 from what the films used to be. just saddens me.

You're all alone on this one buddy.

[tnr105]

Wow, really? Are we gonna make another thread that will end in an argument?

Okay, look; Burton himself acknowledges his films (and the Batman films are no exception) are known for style over substance. While Burton's films may have a dark feel, Nolan's have superior storytelling. Nolan's films are set in the real world setting. So yeah, both may be different from the source material, we may all have contrasting opinions on which is superior, but they are both valid interpretations of the character.

I love Nolan, but I always say that his two films aren't "super hero" movies, they are crime dramas that feature the Batman character.

On the topic of the style, my views on the Burton series....

A lot of people (rightfully) rag on Joel Schumacher for the digression of the Batman character to the sixties version akin to Adam West. But looking back, a lot of the camp people attribute to the latter films, Burton set up. A little known fact is that Burton still produced "Forever" and was the one who came up with the "nipple concept" but people blame it on Schumacher. After how dark Batman Returns was, Schumacher was bound by Warner Bros. to make the film more "kid friendly". He did not, however, start the camp. Lest we forget Burton's films had:

-The concept of time apparently does not exist
-Joker as a whole was hammy. Vandalizing a museum while to Prince music?
-The Penguin's master plan wasn't revealed until the last 20 minutes, and barley hangs on to logic. Penguins with rocket launchers on their backs?!?!?

All in all, Burton's films are really a "geek hangover" we loved them back in the day, but do they really hold up?

Nolan's interpretation is the stark opposite, how Batman would operate if he were actually real. Some may be put off by this, but it proves why Batman deserves to be up there with aliens and amazons: He is only human, yet with his wits, body, and will, he will stop at nothing to accomplish his "mission".

It all comes down to personal preferences, and just which Batman suits your tastes.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by tnr105

Burton himself acknowledges his films (and the Batman films are no exception) are known for style over substance.

Im not challenging you or anything, but can I ask for a quote? If he said that thats a real headscratcher since his movies were expressionist stories but with a big heart, like Edward Scissorhands or Batman Returns or the more recent Sweeney Todd, and thats one of the things I like the most about them. If he really said that, than I think he truly lost it a long time ago

A little known fact is that Burton still produced "Forever" and was the one who came up with the "nipple concept" but people blame it on Schumacher.

Thats incorrect. Schumacher himself said that he came up with it being inspired by Greek statues

After how dark Batman Returns was, Schumacher was bound by Warner Bros. to make the film more "kid friendly". He did not, however, start the camp.

He did and he intended to - I wanted to create a living comic book, and I think the word comic is important. He was also the one who didnt treat Batman seriously and kept saying stuff like "Oh its just Batman" or "its just a comic book movie". Also, NO depth, pink city with lollipop lamps, giant blender island built in few days with watery graves and traps, etc etc. Sure, Burton's movies had some whacky imagery, but it all had at least some sort of explanation for it all. Joker had all this custom stuff because he had crap loads of money and owned factories. Penguin had those duck cars because he was living in an abandoned amusement park. Whats the explanation for Nigma's island? Why is the batmobile a neon car if its suppose to be a stealth car? Whats with that silly dialogue (youre trying to get under my cape? It must be the car, chicks dig the car. Im an open book, you read? Jesus...) which is mostly self parodying? He really went over the top and top it in the very wrong direction. Sure, he had to go lighter but didnt have to do what he did with it

-Joker as a whole was hammy. Vandalizing a museum while to Prince music?

Wasnt the first time he was committing crimes and vandalism while dancing with his henchmen to the music (see killing joke). Everything Joker did in that movie the O'Neil Joker did too

Penguins with rocket launchers on their backs?!?!?

Thats from the comic books and thats what Penguin used

All in all, Burton's films are really a "geek hangover" we loved them back in the day, but do they really hold up?

Absolutely, because theyre timeless. Perhaps 89 didnt age as well as Returns, but Returns definitely. Its a timeless winter tale with great music, great expressionist imagery and tragic stories - all wrapped in a bizzare wraper. Thats the thing with Burton's movies, theyre really one of a kind, peculiar fairy tales/fantasy stories, or as I sometimes say, Bizarro world

Nolan's interpretation is the stark opposite, how Batman would operate if he were actually real. Some may be put off by this, but it proves why Batman deserves to be up there with aliens and amazons: He is only human, yet with his wits, body, and will, he will stop at nothing to accomplish his "mission".

Sure but its not like any of the previous movies had ghosts or aliens. Besides, Batman was never realistic. The character was, but his stories always touched the supernatural and fantastic. Its not a knock on Nolan's movies at all - I wouldnt do that, just a deflecting of the criticism towards Batman movies that lean more towards fantasy

I also liked about Burton's/TAS world is that you couldnt place a date on them (you had 1940's industrial NYC but with modern technology) and the setting/city was also very unique. Thats why those movies are so timeless

[CrimsonDeath]

Originally Posted by Spoonman

Agreed, I was rewatching some scenes from Batman 89 some days ago and thats exactly what came to my mind! I surely miss the iconic imagery of the Batman and I think Nolan doesn't include much of that, I know this should be for another thread but...I also discoevered a new found love for that particular batsuit.

I agree that there is more iconic bat-imagery in the Burton films. Burton has a great visual style and makes his twisted movie worlds come alive and embrace you as you watch. I loved that.

Schumacher's movies were completely mindless entertainment.

I prefer the depth and thematic weight given in the Nolan bat-films. It's all treated seriously without a wink-wink to the audience, but if the fun is missing for some people, Nolan's is just one interpretation of the character, as there are many interpretations of the character in the comics. Because the versatility of Batman lends the characters to stories of drama, crime, action, noir, horror, sci-fi, superhero heroics, etc -all of which I enjoy and would not dare limit the character to just one of those types- Nolan's movies are not any less "Batman" than other films.

The fact that Nolan makes it about the characters and not the comic book theatrics earned him my trust based on how emotionally involved and invested I became- much more than in other films- in the story of the movie.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

Sure, Burton's movies had some whacky imagery, but it all had at least some sort of explanation for it all. Joker had all this custom stuff because he had crap loads of money and owned factories. Penguin had those duck cars because he was living in an abandoned amusement park.

really? those were the explanations for all those silly gadgets? I can see it with the Joker, but Batman Returns? kinda silly.

[GothamAlleys]

The umbrellas were made for him by his "family". Theres also an explanation for them because we see that some of the Circus gang people are very good engineers. The car and the cages was just stuff lying around from the amusement park

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

The umbrellas were made for him by his "family". Theres also an explanation for them because we see that some of the Circus gang people are very good engineers. The car and the cages was just stuff lying around from the amusement park

Correct. You can can see the duck vehicle was part of some amusement ride in the zoo:

[Paste Pot Pete]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

Wasnt the first time he was committing crimes and vandalism while dancing with his henchmen to the music (see killing joke)

There's no scene like this in the Killing Joke.

[ALP]

I love the museum scene, but Joker should have been dancing to classical music, something like Bach or Stravinsky as opposed to Prince. It would have gone alone with the artist persona. Anyway I find myself agreeing almost fully with jamesCameron. I definitely understand why most people prefer Christian Bale's Batman, I quite like his version as well. It's faithful to the comics in most ways but what Burton did was so captivating. His Wayne was completely internalized and distant. Bale's Batman/Bruce Wayne was pretty in control, he felt like a normal man who became Batman whereas Keaton was this disturbed individual. Funny because Batman Begins gave us almost all of his origin whereas B'89 only gave us a single flashback yet Keaton's character gave off the bigger effect of traumatization. It was very operatic. But like I said, it just depends which you prefer. I do see why more people prefer Bale.

As for the OP, there's almost no such thing as more or less of a Batman movie. I view them all as equal...except B&R, Schumacher pushed it far too much there. Burton was more theatrical, Schumacher was more campy, and Nolan is more grounded/realistic. I like the poetic nature and atmopsphere of what Burton did. Nolan is brilliant at characterization, juggling multiple characters, and overall storytelling. There are even some cool moments that Schumacher got right in Batman Forever.

[RisanF]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

So...it looks like any other average movie in spite of the fact (like you say) it has a cool car, rubber suits, and villians with makeup.

You complain not enough statues in his city even though that is one of the big complaints about the old Batman movies.

You complain that he gives us a completely new take on the Batmobile...and then complain that the movie is common/average (if you do things just like the other 4 movies and Tv series...that would be staying within the AVERAGE....but he went outside the definition of average).

You think the villians are rather PLAIN and BORING looking.....the white painted face with big red lipstick over his huge scarred mouth JOKER and the incongruity of the wildly stiched ruck sack over the head of a man in a nice suit SCARECROW were plain?

Like GeometryKid said....learn the difference between 180 and 360 degrees before you use it as a point in your discussion.

I don't see really how the movie being "common/average" and the movie having rubber suits conflict with each other. This new wave of Batman movies movie are so busy being "realistic" that the fantastical elements of the makeup, the cars, and Batman himself feel tacked on and irrelevant. Batman feels like more like a gimmick than a living, breathing entity. Without the Batman gimmick, these could've been any pair of cop films out there.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by Paste Pot Pete

There's no scene like this in the Killing Joke.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...enchmen_01.jpg

[Paste Pot Pete]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5F...enchmen_01.jpg

That's stretching.

[GothamAlleys]

Its just an example of Joker dancing with his henchmen and one of many examples. The comic Joker was a clown in his behavior as well and was extremely energetic, so I was just scratching my head why someone would be complaining about Joker dancing to the music in the movie

[tnr105]

Here's me, someone who prefers Nolan's take, but does like Burton responding as Devil's Advocate.


-Burton said that while his films could be classified as Style over Substance, he likes to capture "The look and feel of things" and that the biggest thing for him is the atmosphere

-Sorry, I messed up my facts. Burton originally wanted a cod piece to have the suit look like the bat-trunks.Schumacher gets the blame because of the nipples, ect. (This is actually very common in comic book movies. During the filming of Superman Returns it was discussed how much padding Brandon Routh's crotch would have)

-There's a big difference between what 89 did and the Killing Joke. In 89, Joker just did it for kicks, in Killing Joke, he was psychologically torturing Gordon.

-Yes, the Joker was wealthy. But the concept of time does not exist in those films. When did he find the time to get a spiffy purple suit and hand buzzers and that long barreled gun? It was all one night when he murdered Grissom and took over the mob.

-The whole Shreck/Penguin mayor thing was filler it did nothing to advance the plot of Penguin's plan, and Shreck's power plant thing never comes to fruition. Also, how did he crap out toxic waist from a textile plant? I didn't know cotton was radioactive.

-Catwoman should have been street pizza. I can understand that the cats gave sensation back after impact, and I can buy her brain-damage, but they took it to far for my taste.

-Yes, Penguin did that. In the Silver Age however, which was known for camp. Nowdays, he is mobster running deals out of the Iceberg Lounge. Also the police only appear whenever he frames Batman. When the Red Triangle gang kidnaps the Mayor's baby, they should of shot the KNOWN Hostile criminals in the head. The thought that the Penguin's stubby legs outran them was nonsensical. Also how did he get that Duck-Mobile come up through a penthouse? And how did Catwoman find Batman at the lair? By the time she went down to her car to get her costume, changed,went back up the sky rise, and hopped in the hole, Penguin would be gone and she would be trapped in the maze that was the sewer. I can suspend my disbelief only so far.

-They are not in anyway timeless, go back and watch, you will see some things are very dated.

-I agree completely on your final point. The whole concept of Batman is fantasy, so every interpretation is not "realistic" I LOVE Batman the Animated series, and I am a fan of Burton. I loved his Batman work back in the day, but now they are just fun popcorn movies to me. Shut off your brain, don't pay attention to plot holes, and just watch. You like what you like, and it's all a matter of opinion.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by tnr105

-There's a big difference between what 89 did and the Killing Joke. In 89, Joker just did it for kicks, in Killing Joke, he was psychologically torturing Gordon.

And Joker also did his dance for kicks. He didnt have to dance and sing but wanted to. The point is that Joker behaves that way - he has great, childlike fun while committing crimes and is known for an incredible hyperactivity. Hammill's Joker couldnt even sit still for a second, and thats what the comic book Joker was too

-Yes, the Joker was wealthy. But the concept of time does not exist in those films. When did he find the time to get a spiffy purple suit and hand buzzers and that long barreled gun? It was all one night when he murdered Grissom and took over the mob.

It WASNT on the same nights and I think the implication that days have passed is clear enough

-The whole Shreck/Penguin mayor thing was filler it did nothing to advance the plot of Penguin's plan,

It wasnt a filler. It did two things 1) showed even more how Penguin was always on the losing side all his life and continues to be by being manipulated, used and then dropped by Shreck and 2) it greatly contributed to Penguin's story arc. It showed that Penguin was willing to drop his personal vendetta and accept himself as a human being (albeit still greedy and twisted), and then later on when he gets rejected again and all of his dreams that he got so excited about went down the drain he reverted back to saying that hes not a human and was pushed over the edge which resulted in him immediately going with the plan which became the movie's climax

and Shreck's power plant thing never comes to fruition.

Well yeah, why would it? Then he would win and get what he wanted, a big factory that in reality drained the power from Gotham

Also, how did he crap out toxic waist from a textile plant? I didn't know cotton was radioactive.

It was a textile plant in name only, just like the Power Plant

-Catwoman should have been street pizza. I can understand that the cats gave sensation back after impact, and I can buy her brain-damage, but they took it to far for my taste.

The thought that the Penguin's stubby legs outran them was nonsensical. Also how did he get that Duck-Mobile come up through a penthouse? And how did Catwoman find Batman at the lair? By the time she went down to her car to get her costume, changed,went back up the sky rise, and hopped in the hole, Penguin would be gone and she would be trapped in the maze that was the sewer. I can suspend my disbelief only so far.

Batman Returns, like most of Tim Burton's early movies, does not comply to the rules of logic and technical accuracy - nor does it need to, nor did it ever claimed to do. It's a ethereal and expressionistic tale, its not that type of a story

-Yes, Penguin did that. In the Silver Age however, which was known for camp.

No, in the Golden Age. And we know that Burton's Batman was leaning much more towards Kane's work

Nowdays, he is mobster running deals out of the Iceberg Lounge.

Yes, nowadays, but again, Burton's Batman was focusing more on the roots.

Also the police only appear whenever he frames Batman. When the Red Triangle gang kidnaps the Mayor's baby, they should of shot the KNOWN Hostile criminals in the head.

I also think its a weird thing that police is non existant in the movie, but it doesnt bother me the least

-They are not in anyway timeless, go back and watch, you will see some things are very dated.

Timeless because theyre not happening in any specified time or place or world even.

I loved his Batman work back in the day, but now they are just fun popcorn movies to me.

Batman is, but Batman Returns certainly isnt and its generally acknowledged:

This is an unusually complicated narrative with three separate, competing plot strands which actually take place in utterly different genres (comicsbeat.com)

Daniel Waters (screenwriter): " Theres a real tragic side to every character that adds to the terror”(Fangoria #114, July 1992)

Batman Returns is so personal that it owes much more to Edward Scissorhands. Not only is the theme identical--that of the misunderstood man-boy, whose knowledge of the dark side of life has made him unlovable, he fears, to other human beings--but so are the tattered leather costumes, the exaggerated, expressionistic set design, the swelling, highly emotional score by Danny Elfman, and many of the more self- pitying lines of dialogue.
Over it all falls the lovely and inexplicably moving artificial snow of Edward Scissorhands's fairy-tale setting. (Toronto Star, June 1992)

More here - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/201...candy-was.html

For me its also the most emotional Batman movie

Shut off your brain, don't pay attention to plot holes, and just watch.

Sure, but thats how it is with all Batman movies. They all have massive amounts of plotholes, but the difference with Burton is that his movies are surreal tales, not normal movies

[Bat-Mite]

Originally Posted by RisanF

I don't see really how the movie being "common/average" and the movie having rubber suits conflict with each other. This new wave of Batman movies movie are so busy being "realistic" that the fantastical elements of the makeup, the cars, and Batman himself feel tacked on and irrelevant. Batman feels like more like a gimmick than a living, breathing entity. Without the Batman gimmick, these could've been any pair of cop films out there.

Dear Nolan's Batman, how art thou realistic? Let me count the ways:

A magical gliding cape that can steer PERFECTLY to its designated location and can conveniently change back into a regular cape once its purpose is fulfilled. It can even function as a parachute when only halfway opened, leaving Batman free to hold onto Rachel with his free arm.

A batmobile that can jump many feet in the air at whim due to the rocket on the back of it. I don't even remember Burton's batmobile jumping places. Oh, and it can also ride across rooftops without them caving in, so it's apparently deceptively light in weight, even though it can crush cop cars (without injuring the cops inside). It can also be controlled remotely, has a giant batcycle hidden within, and even has the courtesy to tell you "Goodbye!" before it self-destructs. Also comes with magic stealth powers.

The aforementioned batcycle, a.k.a. "batpod" (what a realistic name for it) has machine guns, missiles, and is capable of flipping a semi truck over using just a couple of cables. It can also do flips on walls for the sake of badass gloating in your moment of triumph.

A fear gas that automatically makes you see the things you fear most! Its preferred method of mass dispersal is via a microwave emitter that vaporizes water supplies, however, the steam from it is completely harmless if you happen to be taking a shower or some such. Also, the microwave emitter is a safe little gadget, as it doesn't have any effect on human beings despite 80% of the human body being made up of water.

A secret society of ninjas is responsible for some of the most catastrophic events in human history. Oh yes, I'm sure you'll see this in every cop drama out there.

A little electronic device under the shoe is capable of summoning every freakin' bat within city limits in just a matter of seconds. I've gotta get me one of those! Should come in handy on Halloween.

A grappling hook that can insta-grapple to anything, including a speeding monorail. It can also zero in on the legs of supervillains as they fall through the air.

A super computer that not only lets you spy on every single cell phone in the city, but it's also smart enough to zero in on one distinct voice out of the millions it's picking up, and it can also make you see through walls. It also makes your eyes light up, which is rather pointless other than to make you resemble your comic book counterpart.

Batarangs capable of ripping a train into pieces. Seriously. Tossing a couple out the windows will detach the car you're in from the rest of the train and rip the back of it out in order for you to make a quick getaway with your magic cape.

It's extremely easy to fake your death, to the point that your coworkers, boss, and family really think you're dead. Only your family will truly act shocked about the whole thing.

Color changing hair dye! Start out with brown hair, but the moment you get into close proximity to a school bus, your hair will instantly turn green. It also apparently aids you in escaping, as nobody notices you driving a school bus out of the side of the bank if you wear it.

Also, even if you're the most notorious villain in the city, have had your face all over the television, and the city is on high alert, nobody's going to notice you/your men putting bombs all over the place in areas such as hospitals and escape ferries. Also, the GCPD will have the good sense to leave you in a room with just one guard, without being handcuffed and with having sharp shards of glass all around you.

Getting half of your face burned off (to the point where pieces of your skull are jutting out) is not only survivable, but also isn't as painful as you might think. You can even survive a violent car crash in this condition, whereas a perfectly healthy mob boss can't. Just don't step near any ledges.

Yeah, this stuff is typical, realistic, cop movie material. There's nothing remotely comic book-like about any of it.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

Its just an example of Joker dancing with his henchmen and one of many examples. The comic Joker was a clown in his behavior as well and was extremely energetic, so I was just scratching my head why someone would be complaining about Joker dancing to the music in the movie

Don't forget...

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2...istofCrime.jpg

[ALP]

Originally Posted by Bat-Mite

Dear Nolan's Batman, how art thou realistic? Let me count the ways:

A magical gliding cape that can steer PERFECTLY to its designated location and can conveniently change back into a regular cape once its purpose is fulfilled. It can even function as a parachute when only halfway opened, leaving Batman free to hold onto Rachel with his free arm.

Why do you call it magical gliding? It became rigid when an electrical current was introduced to the memory fabric. This is specifically stated in the film. Is it 100% realistic? No, but incredbly wrong to describe it as "magical" when a very credible reason is specifically given. Also, Goyer said he got the idea from a prototype fabric that does the same thing and is being developed in real life. "Magical" is in Batman'89 when Batman's cape goes from rigid to flowing without any explanation whatsoever.

Batarangs capable of ripping a train into pieces. Seriously. Tossing a couple out the windows will detach the car you're in from the rest of the train and rip the back of it out in order for you to make a quick getaway with your magic cape.

Batarangs did not rip the train into pieces, in the scene Batman throws mines at the train's connector which rips it in half. Just as he threw mines at the door in Arkham.

Everything else I quite agree with, I just wanted to point these two out.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg Bop

Does SHH really need another long, pointless Nolan v. Burton discussion?

It's the same bullcrap over and over. I don't understand why people feel the need to tear down one in order to lift the other up. They're both really damn good and both are VALID interpretations of the Batman mythology.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

It's the same bullcrap over and over. I don't understand why people feel the need to tear down one in order to lift the other up. They're both really damn good and both are VALID interpretations of the Batman mythology.

I'm done comparing the films, to be honest. That goes for TDK and Batman Begins too.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I'm done comparing the films, to be honest. That goes for TDK and Batman Begins too.

Yep, just enjoy each of them for what they are.

[Bat-Mite]

Originally Posted by ALP

Why do you call it magical gliding? It became rigid when an electrical current was introduced to the memory fabric. This is specifically stated in the film. Is it 100% realistic? No, but incredbly wrong to describe it as "magical" when a very credible reason is specifically given. Also, Goyer said he got the idea from a prototype fabric that does the same thing and is being developed in real life. "Magical" is in Batman'89 when Batman's cape goes from rigid to flowing without any explanation whatsoever.

I was more referring to how it flies so perfectly with the magical comment. But even the scientific explanation for it is comic book science similar to that for the microwave emitter. And the memory fabric they're actually working on is a type of armor, from my understanding. I doubt they'll ever be able to make a glider out of it, or if they do, it will probably be many years down the road.

Batarangs did not rip the train into pieces, in the scene Batman throws mines at the train's connector which rips it in half. Just as he threw mines at the door in Arkham.

Well, that explains that! I only ever noticed the batarang he was holding at R'as' throat, so either they cut away from the mine too fast or I just suck at being observant.