The Dark Knight Trilogy is essentially an Elseworlds story

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Darkhunt

Let me get this straight... you won't be able to take killing off a mortal man seriously in these movies, but you will be able to take seriously the concept of a man dressed as a bat waging an infinite war on crime for the rest of eternity without getting caught or killed. Makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Miranda Fox

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Why? Because it's your precious Batman?

I think it would be a bold and brilliant move to have the hero die at the end of the movie. But obviously have him go out like a true hero. He makes the ultimate sacrifice.

I agree, but personally, I hope that Bruce doesn't die at the end of The Dark Knight Rises.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Pretty much yea. There doesn't need to be much thought put into it. All comic book movies are "alternate realities" or "elseworld" tales.

Like I said earlier, I prefer to think of them more as Ultimate universes than Elseworlds stories. Maybe it's just that when I think of Elseworlds, I imagine the much more drastic re-imaginings of the characters, like Gotham by Gaslight or Batman: Nine Lives (and possibly the Darren Aronofsky Batman: Year One script), or where they go absolutely crazy like the Batman & Dracula: Red Rain, Batman: Bloodstorm, and Batman: Crimson Mist. When I think of Ultimate universes, I think of a new canon of sorts, a reinterpretation of the character's original canon. Does this make sense or am I talking out of my ass?

[WeasleyIsRKing]

Maybe a little bit of both.

[Steyin]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Why? Because it's your precious Batman?

For me, yes in a way. I accept he will die, just not at this point in time.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I think it would be a bold and brilliant move to have the hero die at the end of the movie. But obviously have him go out like a true hero. He makes the ultimate sacrifice.

And I think that is a huge cliche versus the "ultimate sacrifice" in Bruce's case being giving up a "normal life" to protect the better good. To disallow yourself a long period of happiness or commitment with another person; to deny yourself love in the long term and the chance of never settling down nor passing on your heritage (in which case isn't true thanks to Damian now in the comics obviously, but rather the concept of such an act) seems more of a sacrifice psychologically and emotionally than just dying for the cause. The belief that evil will never let down so you have to keep going on with the battle for as long as life lets you just resonates more with me.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by WeasleyIsRKing

Maybe a little bit of both.

Quite possibly.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

An ongoing, serialized format is what makes comic books so unique and great.

You can still have writers come in and do their thing and not have continuity hold them back. Continuity can be used as a tool to tell great stories. Just look at Grant Morrison's recent Batman work for an example of that.

We see these characters grow and develop over years. They have histories. If all comics were one shots you couldn't have that character development or growth. They'd just be blank slates and you'd never see the characters develop as actual people. They'd be stuck as superhero archetypes forever. To be, that would be incredibly boring.

I mean, one of the greatest pieces of modern literature, Neil Gaiman's Sandman, is 75 issues long. It's an ongoing comic. It is just so vast and expansive. The main character, Dream of the Endless, goes on a real journey of character. It's hard to describe really, you need to read it.

That story could not have been told in a one shot/graphic novel, or a 12 issue mini series.

What makes them unique is irrelevant, it's an out dated concept. We live in a time now where you can purchase what you want when you want. Comics are in dire trouble and need a new formula to attract people in order to survive, and they need to be treated more like books. Continuity be damned, people don't have the time to commit to a monthly installment, just tell the effing story as a whole, if that means Batman only gets one book a year so be it.

[Aesculapius]

Well the will probably be careful to a degree as far as what they do. The Nolan Batman has more or less become the standard. It has resonated in a way the series never has before, because it's not corny!

Also if they do reboot Batman, my vote is all for Flashpoint's Batman. =p

EDIT: Okay, here is the twist: Ra's comes back, and after all the epicness happens, Bruce Wayne dies, and Ra's takes up the Batmantle, making Batman becoem more than a man... an icon for criminals to fear.

TWIST!!!!!!!!!!


Kidding, Bruce dying just wouldn't feel right. It's as much about his struggles as a person as it is about Batman.

[20thCenturyBoy]

Originally Posted by jmc

What makes them unique is irrelevant, it's an out dated concept. We live in a time now where you can purchase what you want when you want. Comics are in dire trouble and need a new formula to attract people in order to survive, and they need to be treated more like books. Continuity be damned, people don't have the time to commit to a monthly installment, just tell the effing story as a whole, if that means Batman only gets one book a year so be it.

Its a very sad truth that the serialized nature of comics is likely to die off eventually. However, I've got to agree with Morningstar because I don't think you're ever going to get superhero comics a much larger audience than they already have. Its not that comics are horrendously ghettoized as an art form anymore, its just that, frankly, superhero comics don't have that mainstream an appeal in their current form and superhero comics dominate the industry. I understand what DC's trying to do (and tries to do every couple of years), but it seems like this new, more mainstream audience for superhero books is a Windmill that DC keeps trying to conquer under the impression its a giant.

Now, where you'll hear no arguement from me is that comics should be treated more like books. 100% agreed. Something comes along with that though: Focus on original material. I'm not deeply familiar with the intricacies of the comic book industry but Sandman did amazingly for a comic book in terms of attracting non-comics readers because it was self-contained, original, etc.

I think that's part of the reason when you see younger readers (Teenagers, primarily) reading comics its almost always manga. Because they have their own stories with a beginning, middle and end, Rather than the overwhelming focus on their past, etc.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

An ongoing, serialized format is what makes comic books so unique and great.

You can still have writers come in and do their thing and not have continuity hold them back. Continuity can be used as a tool to tell great stories. Just look at Grant Morrison's recent Batman work for an example of that.

We see these characters grow and develop over years. They have histories. If all comics were one shots you couldn't have that character development or growth. They'd just be blank slates and you'd never see the characters develop as actual people. They'd be stuck as superhero archetypes forever. To be, that would be incredibly boring.

I mean, one of the greatest pieces of modern literature, Neil Gaiman's Sandman, is 75 issues long. It's an ongoing comic. It is just so vast and expansive. The main character, Dream of the Endless, goes on a real journey of character. It's hard to describe really, you need to read it.

That story could not have been told in a one shot/graphic novel, or a 12 issue mini series.

Good to see someone else who loves Morrison's Batman work! As well as Sandman, but while I agree with you, just to play Devil's Advocate Sandman's is like a series of novels, While its vast and expansive its a single story with a beginning, middle and end that's easy to get into at the beginning. Substantially different from superhero comics.

[raybia]

Originally Posted by D.P.

I'm looking at the series as a whole as one big story broken into 3 chapters, so it's only logical to expect a big twist in the final third chapter, and I think Nolan will deliver in that regard.

I don't know who mentioned it first, and I don't want any kind of Knight Rise controversy over who said what first, but someone on the boards compared the trilogy to a "Prestige" from the Nolan movie bearing the same name.

Suggesting that some of the things we've seen in BB and TDK have been illusions/misdirections setting us up for something larger in TDKR.

I think we'll either get something extremely shocking, or something that's ambiguous and to be left up to interpretation. We'll see.

But that could just be in the conspiracy theorist in me searching for something deeper.

That would be me. I'll try and find and repost it.

[raybia]

Originally Posted by 20thCenturyBoy

Its a very sad truth that the serialized nature of comics is likely to die off eventually. However, I've got to agree with Morningstar because I don't think you're ever going to get superhero comics a much larger audience than they already have. Its not that comics are horrendously ghettoized as an art form anymore, its just that, frankly, superhero comics don't have that mainstream an appeal in their current form and superhero comics dominate the industry. I understand what DC's trying to do (and tries to do every couple of years), but it seems like this new, more mainstream audience for superhero books is a Windmill that DC keeps trying to conquer under the impression its a giant.

Now, where you'll hear no arguement from me is that comics should be treated more like books. 100% agreed. Something comes along with that though: Focus on original material. I'm not deeply familiar with the intricacies of the comic book industry but Sandman did amazingly for a comic book in terms of attracting non-comics readers because it was self-contained, original, etc.

I think that's part of the reason when you see younger readers (Teenagers, primarily) reading comics its almost always manga. Because they have their own stories with a beginning, middle and end, Rather than the overwhelming focus on their past, etc.



Good to see someone else who loves Morrison's Batman work! As well as Sandman, but while I agree with you, just to play Devil's Advocate Sandman's is like a series of novels, While its vast and expansive its a single story with a beginning, middle and end that's easy to get into at the beginning. Substantially different from superhero comics.

What came to mind while reading your article are the long time daytime soap operas that recently began getting cancelled. By the end of the decade it will be a relic of a long gone era. I think the monthly comicbook serial may suffer the same fate.

[20thCenturyBoy]

Originally Posted by raybia

What came to mind while reading your article are the long time daytime soap operas that recently began getting cancelled. By the end of the decad

Unfortounatly, that's probably an apt comparison. I'm not sure what the numbers for the big DC books are but I know they're not huge. People who don't have a great love for the history of superhero comics (Which I do, personally, but just because one loves something doesn't mean they can't see the writing on the walls) aren't going to want to catch up on the decades long history of the characters, like soap operas, People like stories with a beginning, middle and end.

Its also not hard to imagine that DC's revamp/reboot/whatever they're calling it today is somehow tied into the increase in movie adaptations of their material. The only problem there is that there's very little correlation between movies and sales of comics because the movies aren't really direct adaptations, so its different than watching a movie then reading the book its based on.

That's not to say new fans don't exist, of course they do, there'll always be people who love superhero comics but they're not going to suddenly come in vast numbers because of cinematic adaptations. The film adaptations keep people familiar with the characters, but that's about it when it comes to effect they have on the comics.

Superhero comics are a genre. There's enormous variation in that genre, like there is in say, fantasy. But there are plenty of people who don't particularly like the fantasy genre. It has its own audience. The comics industry would do well to do things in other genres, I don't know if it'd work but they don't seem to be trying. It ghettoizes itself by focusing almost soley on superhero comics, I think.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by 20thCenturyBoy

Its a very sad truth that the serialized nature of comics is likely to die off eventually. However, I've got to agree with Morningstar because I don't think you're ever going to get superhero comics a much larger audience than they already have. Its not that comics are horrendously ghettoized as an art form anymore, its just that, frankly, superhero comics don't have that mainstream an appeal in their current form and superhero comics dominate the industry. I understand what DC's trying to do (and tries to do every couple of years), but it seems like this new, more mainstream audience for superhero books is a Windmill that DC keeps trying to conquer under the impression its a giant.

Now, where you'll hear no arguement from me is that comics should be treated more like books. 100% agreed. Something comes along with that though: Focus on original material. I'm not deeply familiar with the intricacies of the comic book industry but Sandman did amazingly for a comic book in terms of attracting non-comics readers because it was self-contained, original, etc.

I think that's part of the reason when you see younger readers (Teenagers, primarily) reading comics its almost always manga. Because they have their own stories with a beginning, middle and end, Rather than the overwhelming focus on their past, etc.

The problem is DC's reboot is essentially doing the exact same thing as before but they're hoping for a different result. The serial nature of comic is part of the reason many people shy away because they simply don't know where to begin nor do they have time to investing in continual reading every month. I don't buy it for a second that comics are niche, the problem is they're not trying to market the damn thing to anyone outside of the already existing fan base, they're preaching to the choir. The time has come for the ongoing serial format to be done away with and for the implementation of finite graphic novels as the main form of story distribution, treat them more like film, get creative teams in let them work on the whole story at once, have a big press build up every year, or twice a year, market the **** out of it, and for god sakes sell the thing in book stores and major shopping outlets. If comics are to survive the next century old methods needs to be changed, so far they're not doing that.

[Doc Samson]

The thing that absolutely kills me about discussions like this, is that the comics themselves don't have some holy grail of strict guidelines when it comes to a characters mythology. Whatever works, they find a way to incorporate, whatever doesn't, they find a way to retcon. It's been this way since the beginning of time, so why are movies any different?

Frank Miller wasn't setting out to do anything that was supposed to be included in Batman's canon. In fact, he's always gone out his way to differentiate his work from the regular stuff, calling it his "Dark Knight Universe" much like Nolan's doing right now.

But guess what, some of it really worked. Corrupt police force & Gordon's mishaps while trying to stay above it all? Check, let's put that in regular continuity! Carmine Falcone? Sounds cool, let's use him for now on. Catwoman being a prostitute? Ehh, not so much, let's scrap that part. They do this all the time, in every book!

Heck, Harley Quinn didn't even originate in a book, but she was a good character, so they threw her in there as well, why should a director have restraints? It's taking liberties with these characters that keep them fresh in the first place.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

The thing that absolutely kills me about discussions like this, is that the comics themselves don't have some holy grail of strict guidelines when it comes to a characters mythology. Whatever works, they find a way to incorporate, whatever doesn't, they find a way to retcon. It's been this way since the beginning of time, so why are movies any different?

Frank Miller wasn't setting out to do anything that was supposed to be included in Batman's canon. In fact, he's always gone out his way to differentiate his work from the regular stuff, calling it his "Dark Knight Universe" much like Nolan's doing right now.

But guess what, some of it really worked. Corrupt police force & Gordon's mishaps while trying to stay above it all? Check, let's put that in regular continuity! Carmine Falcone? Sounds cool, let's use him for now on. Catwoman being a prostitute? Ehh, not so much, let's scrap that part. They do this all the time, in every book!

Heck, Harley Quinn didn't even originate in a book, but she was a good character, so they threw her in there as well, why should a director have restraints? It's taking liberties with these characters that keep them fresh in the first place.

Agreed. Generally most Batman incarnations, as with most serial characters, are essentially a hybrids of the best aspects of previous incarnations, sometimes with some new ideas added.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2014

Agreed. Generally most Batman incarnations, as with most serial characters, are essentially a hybrids of the best aspects of previous incarnations, sometimes with some new ideas added.

It's just stunning that comic fans seem to be so against this in a movie. Taking liberties is the backbone of a character's lifeblood, it just wouldn't work any other way. Almost every great story in Batman's history was initially, an out of canon graphic novel, probably at least partially, because the creators knew they had more liberty and freedom to do what they wanted with that approach.

The Killing Joke
Year One
The Dark Knight Returns
The Long Halloween
Dark Victory
AA: A Serious House on Serious Earth
Prey
Joker

If you go deep enough into any book, there's bound to be continuity issues if you travel back far enough.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

It's just stunning that comic fans seem to be so against this in a movie. Taking liberties is the backbone of a character's lifeblood, it just wouldn't work any other way. Almost every great story in Batman's history was initially, an out of canon graphic novel, probably at least partially, because the creators knew they had more liberty and freedom to do what they wanted with that approach.

The Killing Joke
Year One
The Dark Knight Returns
The Long Halloween
Dark Victory
AA: A Serious House on Serious Earth
Prey
Joker

If you go deep enough into any book, there's bound to be continuity issues if you travel back far enough.

Agreed. Hell, one of my favorite things about these films about superheroes with a long-running series like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man is that they allow the writers to create their own original story. If a new Harry Potter movie comes out, you know what the story is, because it was in the book. When a new Batman film comes out, or even when it is being made, one of the big things that people buzz about is, "What will the story be?" You can't say that about most adaptations.

[theman]

old thread, i know, but i couldnt help chiming my 2 cents in.

i also consider nolans batman to be "elseworlds". if i didnt, i'd go crazy cuz his batman is, well, not the "real" batman as in, from the comics. bales batman just kinda aquires gadgets, vehcles etc from hisown Q type guy, whereas the other batmans actually seemed to build and make custom vehicles and weaponary that actually reflected a bat, showing just how obsessed he is with this creation of his. to me thats really batman. bale doesnt seem nearly as obsessed and even commits sacrilidge by "giving up" being a crimefighter for a whole decade just cuz hisgirlfriend died. that...just...isnt something batman woud do. hes always out there! also none of the villians are like the comics really, batmobiles a tank, that fugly plane thing, etc. so yes, they are elseworlds. the reason i can accept themis because 1. nolan has said he wanted to do his batman as a "how would batman work in the real world?" concept, which is elseworlds, kind of a "what if" scenario. 2. batman has ben done in just about very concievable way now, from dark and gothic and cartoonish camp. so whats left but this? its not my favorite batman by any means, but its at least somethin dfferent. i just dont consider nolans interpretations the real batman. maybe im biased cuz the burton films just hit the spot so dead on for me, but still, i can enjoy the nolan flicks for what they are, just as i can enjoy schumachers.

[DACrowe]

It's an adaptation. Elseworlds is just a comic book term because comic readers have to quantify everything.

But that's fine. Though I do not really understand why Nolan having Batman quit is a deal breaker, but Burton having Batman being an unapologetic murderer is acceptable.

[theman]

well batman has killed like that in the early days of the comics, or come very close to killing in the later ones. i dont see why that is such a stretch for fans, batman beats the sh** out of people to the point where they are almost dead, or crippled for life. so for me, batman "killing" really isnt a big deal. but making joker a greasy looking hobo who carves his smile and a scarecrow whos costume merely consists of a potato sack is far more upsetting.

elseworlds is anything other then what batman and his villians are in the comics, which is what nolans is for the most part. but its quite obvious he was trying to not do whats in the comics. years from now i think after the hype has died down, people will see that while his movies made me well made crime thriller action movies with a decent narrative, his batman movies are not good comic book adaptations. yes burton took some liberties too, but he was still visually and stylistically closer to the comic books then nolan. nolan for me took WAY too many liberties, but like i said, it was something that hadnt been done before and thats why i can accept it. it IS an elseworlds story, not tryingto do the comic book batman.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by theman

well batman has killed like that in the early days of the comics, or come very close to killing in the later ones. i dont see why that is such a stretch for fans, batman beats the sh** out of people to the point where they are almost dead, or crippled for life. so for me, batman "killing" really isnt a big deal.

That's you. For 95% of Batman's comic book existence he doesn't kill people arbitrarily the way Keaton's Batman did. He's Batman not The Punisher.

but making joker a greasy looking hobo who carves his smile and a scarecrow whos costume merely consists of a potato sack is far more upsetting.

But making the Joker the killer of Batman's parents and a love sick stalker of Vicki Vale, Penguin a baby killing sewer freak who lives with circus people is perfectly in tune with the comics, and Batman and Gordon hardly sharing a single scene together was more in tune with the comics.

Not.

elseworlds is anything other then what batman and his villians are in the comics, which is what nolans is for the most part. but its quite obvious he was trying to not do whats in the comics. years from now i think after the hype has died down, people will see that while his movies made me well made crime thriller action movies with a decent narrative

It's sure not looking that way;

http://www.empireonline.com/features...-knight-effect

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/inde...says_dark.html

http://collider.com/sam-mendes-skyfa...knight/204523/

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89076

http://nerdbastards.com/2012/05/02/k...es-in-general/

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.co...atman-trilogy/

his batman movies are not good comic book adaptations. yes burton took some liberties too, but he was still visually and stylistically closer to the comic books then nolan. nolan for me took WAY too many liberties, but like i said, it was something that hadnt been done before and thats why i can accept it. it IS an elseworlds story, not tryingto do the comic book batman.

http://www.justpressplay.net/article...q-trilogy.html

http://www.jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcomi...ht_comics.html

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.ie/2011...s-part-vi.html

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/i...hp?topic=271.0

http://www.batman-online.com/feature...k-knight-rises

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.ie/2011...es-part-v.html

Grant Morrison on Ledger's Joker and Nolan's Batman movies;

Heath Ledger’s Joker -- no question it was an amazing performance. And if he were still with us, we could ask him about his various inspirations: what did he watch, what did he read, what did he observe, how did he inhabit his character? Well, one of the clues he left us was his Joker diary, which he kept four months before shooting.

In it, there’s a list of what would make the Joker laugh – including AIDS, landmines, geniuses suffering irreversible brain damage, brunch, and sombreros. “It gave me this chill,” Grant Morrison said, because it was word-for-word what Morrison had written in one of his Batman stories.

“There’s a Batman [Batman #663, “The Clown at Midnight”] that I did last year that hardly anyone read,” Morrison said.

As a response to his own "Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth,” Morrison had continued his themes of the duality of Joker and the Batman in “The Clown at Midnight.” Having established with “Arkham” that the Joker had a sort of “super-sanity” and that he shifted between personalities,” Morrison explored the idea further in “The Clown at Midnight,” by showing that each time the Joker escaped, one of those new personalities would emerge.

“It’s a really good story,” Morrison said, “but because it was prose, people didn’t want to read it.”

Except, apparently, Heath, who saw Morrison’s list and put it in his Joker diary. “He actually had a whole list -- blind babies, doctors, accidents -- really horrible stuff,” Morrison said. “Heath wrote it all down. So yeah, I can see there’s a lot of [‘Arkham’ and ‘Midnight’] in his Joker.”

The filmmakers have taken great pains to acknowledge the original comics they drew from, Morrison pointed out. With those shout-outs, sales for the originals have skyrocketed – not just for “Arkham,” but also Alan Moore’s “The Killing Joke,” Frank Miller’s “Year One” and “Dark Knight Returns,” and Jeph Loeb’s “Long Halloween.”

“David Goyer has said they owe a debt to us,” Morrison said. “And it’s really easy to see our influence. But at the same time, they also created something quite new and extraordinary.”

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/04...s-joker-diary/

Can you find any DC comic writer saying anything like that about Burton's or Schumacher's movies? Nolan's movies have been far more faithful to the comics overall than Burton's ever were.

[Excelsior.]

It always amuses me to see disgruntled fans (on both sides of the coin) try to justify and validate what they love and hate by attempting to predict the future.

A disgruntled hater would say, "J...just you wait, in a couple of years, no one will care about this movie I hate. Everyone shall see the light and agree with me!"

A disgruntled fanboy would say, "J...just you wait, in a few years, people will see the light and consider this film I love to be the masterpiece that I know it is!" I remember a lot of Iron Man 2 fans saying that. Whatever came of that?

[Figs]

The Joker, that's pretty much the biggest owning I've ever seen online before.

[Llama_Shepherd]

It was just so darn beautiful.

[Omegabat]

@The Joker

Wow dude,can I steal this? would love smacking Burton lovers across the net should the need arise.

[The Joker]

Thanks guys

Omegabat, feel free to use what ever you like.

[TheDarkKnight08]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's you. For 95% of Batman's comic book existence he doesn't kill people arbitrarily the way Keaton's Batman did. He's Batman not The Punisher.



But making the Joker the killer of Batman's parents and a love sick stalker of Vicki Vale, Penguin a baby killing sewer freak who lives with circus people is perfectly in tune with the comics, and Batman and Gordon hardly sharing a single scene together was more in tune with the comics.

Not.



It's sure not looking that way;

http://www.empireonline.com/features...-knight-effect

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/inde...says_dark.html

http://collider.com/sam-mendes-skyfa...knight/204523/

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89076

http://nerdbastards.com/2012/05/02/k...es-in-general/

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.co...atman-trilogy/



http://www.justpressplay.net/article...q-trilogy.html

http://www.jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcomi...ht_comics.html

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.ie/2011...s-part-vi.html

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/i...hp?topic=271.0

http://www.batman-online.com/feature...k-knight-rises

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.ie/2011...es-part-v.html

Grant Morrison on Ledger's Joker and Nolan's Batman movies;



http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/04...s-joker-diary/

Can you find any DC comic writer saying anything like that about Burton's or Schumacher's movies? Nolan's movies have been far more faithful to the comics overall than Burton's ever were.

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but this was beautiful.