All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I'm pretty sure that was exactly the point he was making. Read his comment again:

Maybe it is, but it was hard to tell, since my comment (that he responded to) was about not just slamming WB but slamming all involved if you don't like the idea.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Kal-El.9859

I think they are more than capable of doing so. Just stay away from the campy crap and take a SERIOUS tone...not a REALISTIC tone to the movies. Don't aim them specifically at children in hopes of making a buttload of cash off the toys. Make them more comic bookish and fantastical with villains such as Penguin, The Riddler, The Joker, Two-Face, Killer Croc, hell maybe even Man-Bat....

I have seen The Dark Knight. It would take a lot to beat that. You can't talk serious tone and then bring up all those characters in a none realistic tone in a live action film. The thing about Batman is very much based in reality. Guns, gangsters, human beings that pose an honest threat to our hero. Even the Arkham games face this problem with the more fantastical villains.

More importantly, Bale is very much the RDJ in this situation. He makes the JL open to wider audiences and comfortable.

[Excelsior.]

So WB not caring about anything but money makes them useless F's, but Nolan not caring about anything but money wouldn't?

If Nolan is only doing this for money and not because he's found a way to fit his Batman with Cavil's and not tarnish the character arc of his trilogy, then my opinion of him obviously sinks. But, considering their histories, I am more hesitant to call Nolan "useless F' than WB. And as I've already said, WB is quite useless regardless of whatever Nolan is doing or not doing, not by failing to make money, they can make money, and since I don't get a share, I also really don't care that they can make money. No, they are useless because they are being shamed by marvel every step of the way on how to translate comic book characters to the big screen.

All I'm saying is that if Nolan and Bale are involved you should apply your critique across the board.

And I will, as I hear more on this development. As of this moment Bruce's character arc is in serious jeopardy of being tossed completely aside unless Nolan has found a way not to. But considering my respect of the man, I will see if this is truly a case of naked greed or not.

[JimJimBinks]

Originally Posted by Poni_Boy

Unfortunately most blogs/sites still rely on hits to pay the bills. The ones that don't, for the most part, steer clear of stuff like this.

AICN was the one that threw me. Before them I figured places like Batman-On-Film had been trying to piggyback hits.
Though the webmaster of batman on film had been hinting at something like this for a few days.

AICN had nice run as of late disproving elmayimbe's scoops.

[Kal-El.9859]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I have seen The Dark Knight. It would take a lot to beat that. You can't talk serious tone and then bring up all those characters in a none realistic tone in a live action film. The thing about Batman is very much based in reality. Guns, gangsters, human beings that pose an honest threat to our hero. Even the Arkham games face this problem with the more fantastical villains.

More importantly, Bale is very much the RDJ in this situation. He makes the JL open to wider audiences and comfortable.

I'm tired of seeing Batman portrayed in a realistic fashion. It's time for a more fantastical take on Batman....you can have your gangsters and guns but also your fantasy element but take it seriously...serious does not equal realistic

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Kal-El.9859

I'm tired of seeing Batman portrayed in a realistic fashion. It's time for a more fantastical take on Batman....you can have your gangsters and guns but also your fantasy element but take it seriously...serious does not equal realistic

You got it. Burton's Batman happened.

Also, it isn't like Nolan's films are super realistic. They very much play up the fantasy, but do so with the correct tone. Just look at the vehicles.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Ha!

Can you inform the lovely miss Hopefuldreamer that I knew you sorta (on these boards) before you were a mod and briefly wrote for TMT.

Anyway, never believe a review on IMDB.

Spidey had a run as a writer on TMT and we left the door open for a future return. Plus she has a crush on me.

Originally Posted by craigdbfan

I was that bum for anyone that's curious.

I should have phrased that better.

In addition to what I wrote don't write inflammatory idioms towards a mod or anyone in general for that matter. Especially if they haven't even addressed you in a way that even warrants that type of a reaction.

Now that is what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Kal-El.9859

You have funny looking hair...

When I wake up.

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

I have the pictures to prove that.

That's gross.

[Anita18]

The more I think about it, the more I think Bale coming back not only retcons TDKR, but the entire trilogy. Nolan spends the whole time basically laying out why being a superhero is a bad idea, because of what happens to Bruce and Gotham because of Batman's existence. It's akin to Watchmen deconstructing the superhero mythos, except Nolan approaches it as if this Batman existed in our world. He basically tells us that superheroes meddling too much in society is a terrible idea. (If Blake is smart, he'll stay on the down low and not make the mistakes Bruce did.)

And then...ZOMG ALIENS WE NEED BATMAN BACK!

I mean, it would be possible, but it would cheapen the very concept of Nolan's trilogy.

[ThePhantasm]

Is that the theme of the trilogy? "Superheroes are a bad idea?" Because if that was the case, I don't think the trilogy would end with Batman getting a successor...

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Is that the theme of the trilogy? "Superheroes are a bad idea?" Because if that was the case, I don't think the trilogy would end with Batman getting a successor...

Or a statue. Or saving the day.

[Excelsior.]

Superheroes aren't a bad idea, it's just corrosive to Bale's Bruce Wayne. Until Cavil makes love to him that is.

[Poni_Boy]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Superheroes aren't a bad idea, it's just corrosive to Bale's Bruce Wayne. Until Cavil makes love to him that is.

In costume? Billion dollar opening weekend

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Superheroes aren't a bad idea, it's just corrosive to Bale's Bruce Wayne. Until Cavil makes love to him that is.

The big bad scheme in TDKR would not have happened if not for Bruce's actions in BB. Not that anyone knows that - all they know is that Batman flew an atom bomb out of the city. Which is heroic, yes, but perhaps the whole thing could have been prevented.

The very premise of TDK asks if Batman's existence is harmful to society. That's why it was elevated from mere "comic book movie," because it asked such questions, even though we still had fun watching explosions.

Bruce grooming a successor makes sense with the "moving on" arc, which is much stronger than the "Batman is bad for society" idea throughout the trilogy. But it's something that can't be ignored.

Plus, there's no telling what Blake will do with the tools he's been given. It seems like he wouldn't bend the law as much as Bruce, at least. The Joker getting all his power in TDK resulted directly from Batman breaking international laws and spiriting Lau back from Hong Kong back to Gotham. Will Blake do stuff like that? Hopefully not. He probably doesn't have the resources, anyway.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Anita18

The big bad scheme in TDKR would not have happened if not for Bruce's actions in BB. Not that anyone knows that - all they know is that Batman flew an atom bomb out of the city. Which is heroic, yes, but perhaps the whole thing could have been prevented.

The very premise of TDK asks if Batman's existence is harmful to society. That's why it was elevated from mere "comic book movie," because it asked such questions, even though we still had fun watching explosions.

What? Of course it wouldn't have happened... because Ra's Al Ghul would have %&*^ing destroyed Gotham City! Stopping a villain and then stopping his students / daughter from doing the same thing is beneficial to society, not harmful.

[Excelsior.]

Originally Posted by Anita18

The big bad scheme in TDKR would not have happened if not for Bruce's actions in BB. Not that anyone knows that - all they know is that Batman flew an atom bomb out of the city. Which is heroic, yes, but perhaps the whole thing could have been prevented.

The very premise of TDK asks if Batman's existence is harmful to society. That's why it was elevated from mere "comic book movie," because it asked such questions, even though we still had fun watching explosions.

Bruce grooming a successor makes sense with the "moving on" arc, which is much stronger than the "Batman is bad for society" idea throughout the trilogy. But it's something that can't be ignored.

Plus, there's no telling what Blake will do with the tools he's been given. It seems like he wouldn't bend the law as much as Bruce, at least. The Joker getting all his power in TDK resulted directly from Batman breaking international laws and spiriting Lau back from Hong Kong back to Gotham. Will Blake do stuff like that? Hopefully not. He probably doesn't have the resources, anyway.

The Dark Knight certainly painted the actions of Bruce as having severe consequences, and at the end it was the citizens of Gotham, good and bad, that stood up to the Joker's game, not Batman himself, but those same citizens are painted as being utterly useless in Dark Knight Rises, merely cowering at whatever Bane threw at them, not standing up for them. Which is where Blake and his arc came in and the idea that Gotham always needs a hero who operates extra martially.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

What? Of course it wouldn't have happened... because Ra's Al Ghul would have %&*^ing destroyed Gotham City! Stopping a villain and then stopping his students / daughter from doing the same thing is beneficial to society, not harmful.

Ra's hints that Batman is only delaying the inevitable, and that Gotham would be better off starting from scratch. It's a formula that the LOS had been using for millennia, apparently. And in TDKR, Talia was mostly there for personal revenge. You can't convince me otherwise.

So Batman really only saved the day in BB. In TDK and TDKR, they only highlight the (pretty negative) consequences of his existence.

[Poni_Boy]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

The Dark Knight certainly painted the actions of Bruce as having severe consequences, and at the end it was the citizens of Gotham, good and bad, that stood up to the Joker's game, not Batman himself, but those same citizens are painted as being utterly useless in Dark Knight Rises, merely cowering at whatever Bane threw at them, not standing up for them. Which is where Blake and his arc came in and the idea that Gotham always needs a hero who operates extra martially.

Yeah that last movie didn't do anything except prove that the citizens of Gotham are utter ****ing retards. and the cops are worse, as shown in the West Side Story styled showdown at the end.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Anita18

And in TDKR, Talia was mostly there for personal revenge. You can't convince me otherwise.

Not even with her own words?

Talia: Innocent is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce. I honor my father by finishing his work. Vengeance against the man who killed him is simply a reward for my patience.

[craigdbfan]

Poor Superman being drowned out in his own thread by Batman.



So I hear that Superman fellow has a movie coming out this year.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by craigdbfan

So I hear that Superman fellow has a movie coming out this year.

What Superman movie?? Has there been any marketing for it?

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

The Dark Knight certainly painted the actions of Bruce as having severe consequences, and at the end it was the citizens of Gotham, good and bad, that stood up to the Joker's game, not Batman himself, but those same citizens are painted as being utterly useless in Dark Knight Rises, merely cowering at whatever Bane threw at them, not standing up for them. Which is where Blake and his arc came in and the idea that Gotham always needs a hero who operates extra martially.

To be fair, the ferry passengers didn't "stand up" to Joker's game as much as they simply showed that they aren't monsters. They didn't necessarily prove themselves to be assertive and heroic, only that they aren't ready to commit mass murder. One is quite different from the other.

I don't think the actions of the citizens in TDK and TDKR are unrealistic, or retarded. I'm pretty sure we would have all acted in the same way. The cops understood that they were there to sacrifice themselves as distraction so the citizens could flee.

And I don't think what Blake or Gordon did to thwart Bane's plan to be "extra-martial." They simply didn't have the resources Bruce did to stop him.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Not even with her own words?

Talia: Innocent is a strong word to throw around Gotham, Bruce. I honor my father by finishing his work. Vengeance against the man who killed him is simply a reward for my patience.

So, nobody in the LOS is smart enough to notice that perhaps Gotham has changed in the 9 years since Batman? The mobs are gone, corruption is basically relegated to the occasional slimey businessman. What is there for the LOS to destroy anymore?

Talia's just in denial.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Anita18

So, nobody in the LOS is smart enough to notice that perhaps Gotham has changed in the 9 years since Batman? The mobs are gone, corruption is basically relegated to the occasional slimey businessman. What is there for the LOS to destroy anymore?

Talia's just in denial.

The LOS doesn't care. They are extremists. They see Gordon as corrupt. They see the rich as corrupt. They see everyone but themselves as corrupt. So yeah, they aren't "smart enough," they are blinded by their hatred.

But I'll stop talking about this now... this is a Superman thread.

[Anita18]

I need some Cavill hotness now, myself.

[Excelsior.]

To be fair, the ferry passengers didn't "stand up" to Joker's game as much as they simply showed that they aren't monsters. They didn't necessarily prove themselves to be assertive and heroic, only that they aren't ready to commit mass murder. One is quite different from the other.

I would say managing the urge to survive by not blowing up a boat full of scumbags was rather selfless. And Deebo, a convict for God knows what, committed the selfless act of not blowing up a boat full of people that he thought would for sure blow him up. I would say selflessness is a textbook trait of heroism.

I don't think the actions of the citizens in TDK and TDKR are unrealistic. I'm pretty sure we would have all acted in the same way.

It's not about realism or unrealism. Simply conflicting portrayals of the same people to make a finer point. Batman's needlessness in Knight; the need of Batman in Rises. And even though they are not Gothamites, don't forget the willingness of the military to kill Blake just so he won't escape with the bus full of kids to relative safety. Where is the leap of faith that characterized the people at the end of TDK?

And I don't think what Blake or Gordon did to thwart Bane's plan to be "extra-martial." They simply didn't have the resources Bruce did to stop him.

I am talking about what Blake will do as Batman 2.0/Robin/Nightwing. He certainly didn't want to operate under the shackles of the law anymore, as he himself said and made it clear when he threw his badge away.