After Nolan's BATMAN trilogy... - Part 1

Nolan's Batman had a great balance of humor and seriousness, probably the best of any Batman medium.

The banter between Bruce and Alfred, and Bruce and Lucius was great. Perfect comedic timing.

Bale's 'playboy Bruce' performances were quite comical too, like when he was asking to go to the hospital in TDK and playing dumb.

Ledger as Joker was sadistically amusing as well. He had so many great one liners. The pencil trick "it's goooone" made the entire audience laugh.


You can't really expect more 'fun' out of Batman than that without drastically changing the character and concept.
 
A dry humor can (and is) plenty prevalent with Batman depending no the situation. He could also be funny when being dead-serious....like when he tells other members in TAS how much they're pissing him off (to Booster Gold) "...CROWD control....!", (to Flash after he presses the fire-lasers button and takes out a wall at Wayne Manor) "...you're not....helping....!!", (to Lois while saving her in World's Finest, referring to Superman) "...never around when you need him...".

It doesn't have to be 'so a guy walks into a bar....' level. ;)
 
Batman from BTAS didn't tell jokes.

Neither did the Batman from the Arkham Asylam/Arkham City games.

So why are we talking about a Batman who cracks jokes?
Sure Conroy's Bats tells jokes. What show were you watching? One of my favorites is when he toys with the Joker is a Christmas episode.

Check 2:14 seconds in
 
The point is 96-98% of the time Batman from BTAS is dead serious.
 
Batman shouldn't be about comedy. The only time we see him smiling and cracking a gag of some kind, is when he has somebody at his mercy. So Batman has kind of a wicked sense of humor.
 
Batman shouldn't be about comedy. The only time we see him smiling and cracking a gag of some kind, is when he has somebody at his mercy. So Batman has kind of a wicked sense of humor.

And a bit mischievous as Bruce Wayne....especially when it comes to the ladies.
 
Yeah, as Bruce Wayne he can certainly have a sense of humor. It also depends on who is around. I think he gets a lot of his joking out around Alfred in many incarnations. I don't think you can make the statement Batman has no sense of humor. Batman retains his humanity, and in part that's retaining a sense of humor.
 
When mentioning The Avengers, I do think a more comic-booky Batman film is what's being asked for, but that's almost guaranteed with the following franchise. An insider told us WB is actually interested in heading into the 'Arkham' direction. Yet, I don't believe those who are suggesting a more 'fun' movie are trying to embrace the Batman lore and mythology from the comics. Not from the impression I'm soaking up when I read comments such as:

''Ugh, Nolan's Batman is so depressing. Why can't we get a Batman movie like The Avengers? There was no colorful, humor or fun moments in TDK."

Well, for the most part, that's not Batman. That's why. Unlike most heroes, Bruce Wayne is a severely damaged human being (remains that scared eight year old in the dark alley with his dead parents) who's hellbent on revenge/justice of every second of every day in his life. Thus, making him a cynical emotionally-crippled *******.

Dick Grayson might be an extension of Bruce Wayne's character in the comics but it would still be mighty laborious to make the dynamic between the duo work. Adding another main character to story usually leads to another character(s) getting a portion of their development/growth subtracted, and I don't want that character to be Bruce Wayne.

How is them going the Arkham route make the next Batman films more comic booky?
 
Batman from BTAS didn't tell jokes.

Neither did the Batman from the Arkham Asylam/Arkham City games.

So why are we talking about a Batman who cracks jokes?


Because Batman exists since 1939, and not since BTAS?

Because a character whose longevity is so spectacular allows creative team to have a different vision?

Because Batman has been cracking jokes during decades?

Because without the Adam West show, the comics would have been cancelled?

Because a Batman who cracks jokes can be great, if done by talented people, as seen in the brave and the bold?

Because we don't need to see the same grim and gritty cliches all the time, or else most people would grow tired of Batman?
 
Yeah but most Batman fans put BTAS far above versions of Batman where he cracks jokes.
 
Yeah but most Batman fans put BTAS far above versions of Batman where he cracks jokes.

I would most likely call themself BTAS Fan. Are you trying to say than most Batman fans don't like Bill Finger stories?
 
I can appreciate both a dark, brooding Batman, and a Batman cracking joke. What matters is the writing. As long as it's well written, it can be great. Why the need to prefer one above another? Why shouldn't we allowed to appreciate both?
 
1334773417575.jpg
 
Léo Ho Tep;23399117 said:
I can appreciate both a dark, brooding Batman, and a Batman cracking joke. What matters is the writing. As long as it's well written, it can be great. Why the need to prefer one above another? Why shouldn't we allowed to appreciate both?

We've seen the cheesy Batman done in Batman the Movie and the Schumacher films.

We haven't had one done like BTAS and Arkham City.
 
I think Andrew Scott would be a terrific Joker:

jokermoriarty.jpg
 
Bale's Batman does act a bit like he's trying to pass a really hard turd all the time. I think that's kind of the off putting nature about it. He only has that one volume and stays there. Keaton was great as Batman because he was subtlely crazy, creepy and menacing but he could lighten that a bit around Vicky Vale and characters he wasn't fighting. Bale never really does that. Even the lines to Rachel in Batman Begins to Rachel all came with that intensity. I saw him loosen that up a bit in the next one, but a lot of that still remained. He seems to lack emotional range inside the Bat-costume.

While the movie states Bruce is the "mask" and Batman is the real man, I never truly buy this. Bale's Bruce seems to be the more genuine person, and Batman the act. Keaton definitely flipped that, as does Conroy. Case in point: the episode "Appointment on Crime Alley" Daggett calls Bruce. Immediately as he hangs up (with Alfred present) Conroy switches from his Bruce voice to his Batman voice seemlessly. Almost like he was dropping an act.
 
Last edited:
A blend of Keaton and Bale would be the perfect on screen Bats.
 
yeah, Bale's feels way too forced, like he is putting on act, like batman is an outlet for all his anger, and that's not what batman is. he's not spider-man where peter parker gets to blow off steam while in costume, for batman, bruce wayne is the outlet.
 
yeah, Bale's feels way too forced, like he is putting on act, like batman is an outlet for all his anger, and that's not what batman is. he's not spider-man where peter parker gets to blow off steam while in costume, for batman, bruce wayne is the outlet.
One thing we miss a ton of, and maybe because he lacks a cave, is we rarely see Bruce half in costume or just "being Batman". By that I mean where Batman isn't particularly doing anything and in the bat costume. That's something Batman does that almost no other heroes do. Spider-Man doesn't hang around the house much as Spider-Man. Batman does it all the time. It's like if he never left the Manor he'd never stop being Batman. When other's are not looking he is Batman.
 
yeah, Bale's feels way too forced, like he is putting on act, like batman is an outlet for all his anger, and that's not what batman is. he's not spider-man where peter parker gets to blow off steam while in costume, for batman, bruce wayne is the outlet.
I know I'm gonna get rapped in the mouth for this, but I kinda disagree. The whole persona thing is a little different for each hero. For one, I don't think Peter Parker puts on the costume to blow off steam any more than Batman does. Also, while Batman certainly is an outlet and an expression of his true self, I'd say he's still putting on something of an act. He behaves differently when he puts the costume on, even towards people who know his secret (this turned off a lot of people in TDK, the way he did the voice even when talking to Lucius. I still think it was intentional though).
 
I don't see why people keep thinking of well-known directors? Why not think outside of the box once in a while? Personally, I'd like to see either Louis Leterrier, Kevin Tancharoen, or Marc Webb do a Batman film.
 
I think WB needs to get a filmmaker with something to prove. A director who's still hungry. Someone who can tell a good story, build suspense, but hasn't had a breakout hit.

When Christopher Nolan was hired, he was a talented young filmmaker with critical appeal, but no real commercial success. Jon Favreau was a respected writer but unproven director before Iron Man, and he delivered gold. Joss Whedon never had a hit before Avengers, and, because of his hunger and respect for the characters, he delivered a hit. We should find someone in that same mold.

Someone who gets the characters, and has something to prove.

To me, that's one of three people:

1. Rian Johnson (Looper, Brick)
After Looper, I think Johnson is going to become a commodity, but I doubt the movie is going to do bonkers numbers. Batman could be the first real hit for a talented young director.

2. Martin McDonagh (In Bruges)
Brilliant at dark comedy with seedy characters and random acts of violence.

3. Scott Frank (The Lookout)
The Lookout is a great, twisty thriller with JGL, Isla Fisher, Mathew Goode, and there's an especially strong performance by Jeff Daniels.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,545
Messages
21,757,401
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"