The Dark Knight Rises Anyone else think that nolans movies arent really "Batman movies"?

[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.

 

[GeometryKid]

360 degrees?

So after Batman and Robin.... they went right back to Batman and Robin?

I think you meant 180 degrees.

 

[C. Lee]

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.

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.

 

[Tatsumarushinob]

The problem with TDK, despite its goosebump inducing finale, was that the Dark Knight and Bale were severely underused. In order for Batman to be the main star, you need to have him in the costume for most of the film, unless its an origin story like Batman Begins. Which, by the way, made the fatal flaw of introducing useless characters such as Rachel and Finch and eliminating Dent. If Dent would've been there from the start, TDK and BB would have been more epic in my opinion. Why you ask? Well if you put Dent in the first one with Batman and Gordon you establish a solid foundation in the first movie, thus avoiding the sense that they rushed things in the second one. What you get in TDK is a 10 minute prologue with the Joker in TDK, the scene with Maroni in the courthouse resulting in Dent's scarred face and severed personality. Things become more dangerous cause now you have a villain that's totally unpredictable with now motive whatsoever, except for pure madness and anarchy in the Joker. And on another end you get Two-Face, a villain that is tied to the Dark Knight's conscience; a friend lost in the war against crime. Hopefully they'll find a way to tie it all up in the third one. Nolan's movies are not bad at all, just some odd choices.

 

[itsthebatman]

the new films also lost the fun of the original films.

Because Batman and Batman Returns were such laugh riots, of course.

 

[elgaz]

The original films were 'fun' in the sense that they were so gothic, stylistic and different. They were entertaining because the director went all out and created a very unique world on-screen which only Batman could exist in, and which had little or nothing in common with the world we live in. And it was fun to go into the cinema, shut ourselves off for 2 hours and lose ourselves in that movie experience.

(And by original films, I mean Burton's films - not Batman Forever or Batman & Robin, which were more embarassing than fun. Batman & neon = does not work).

Nolan obviously took a very different approach and has tried to insert Batman into our world. And for me, and many other viewers, it works - at least, as much as any Hollywood film can in terms of realism. Has it made the films less 'fun'? That depends on your expectations and your perception of what you're watching. Batman 1989 is fun to me, but it doesn't engage my brain the way The Dark Knight did. I didn't get the same thrill from seeing Jack Nicholson play ................ Jack Nicholson in white makeup, as seeing Heath Ledger totally engulf himself in the role and sculpt an entirely new take on the Joker. And whilst it was great seeing a new Batmobile on screen in 1989, I look at the Tumbler now and it makes infinitely more sense to me why Batman would drive that and not a giant Bat-styled coupe. And as much as I love Keaton's take on the character, the 1989 Batman is more 2-dimensional than the current one. He broods a lot, doesn't say much, but we never really get a sense of what's going on in his mind.

As such, I'm not sure how you can say the new films sadden you. Burton may have made the original films darker in terms of style and aesthetics, but Nolan's complex story in the Dark Knight - focusing on Batman's soul searching, losing Rachel, wondering what he needs to do - is much darker than any Batman story Burton ever told us. Nolan explores consequences, and it's that sense of wondering what's round the corner for our hero which makes his Batman films exciting to watch.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I absolutely love and are a huge fan of both Burton and Nolan's takes. Burton created a Gothic gangster movie and created this very dark Bizarro world, and told the story in a very operatic style and feel.

Schumacher's I hated and I absolutely despise it today even more than I did before. I think its "dumb popcorn movie for kids" approach in a Barbie world that , by his own admission, Schumacher was going for since he didnt think much of Batman was terrible. The writing was awful and I simply didnt like its comical style. Even as a standalone movies, I still dont find them in any way entertaining. And that's not because theyre not dark. Dark is just a type of a story, has nothing to do with the quality. Its just that I simply dont like it

Nolan's take works perfectly. Of course, you cant expect Nolan to go with the Goth Opera world of Burton, only Burton can work in his style so well. And while sure, the GOTHam was always full of cathedrals and gargoyles, it would still be too close to Burton's movies and not fresh enough. I also admit that its not much faithful to the comic, but none of the movies were, more or less. Besides, it was never suppose to be or intended to be - just the opposite - it was a new take. Nolan said he wanted to show the Batman world through the prism of our reality, and such approach is very interesting and works great.

I will give a slight edge to the oldies because of the nostalgia factor, but both the originals and Nolan's movies are fantastic and very immersive. And dark in different ways - Burton's Batman is "Operatic ' dark, Nolan's is 'crime" dark.

However, I have to disagree with some criticism from both sides

the realism for me just killed the series

I think just the opposite - look what a phenomenon the Batman franchise became again. It helped bring back Batman from the pink Barbie world of Schumacher and Batman stopped being a joke. We get a fresh new approach plus the movies can now be enjoyed by crime drama viewers and people who arent interested in any kind of fiction

i guess im just not a fan of nolan.

Im not either, but I think his Batman movies are fantastic.

the new films also lost the fun of the original films.

As other already mentioned, there are different types of fun. There may be thrilling fun and there may be a fun of getting immersed in a story - the one we get with Nolan's Batmans

what happened exactly? now they have to make everything realistic. i dont get it.

Realistic doesnt equal bad. Fantasy doesnt equal bad. Neither of them equals good either. Its just a type of story, a type of approach. We didnt get it yet. We already got a dark gothic world with Burton and an over the top fantasy world with Schumacher. It was done before. The relism thing was not

I didn't get the same thrill from seeing Jack Nicholson play ................ Jack Nicholson in white makeup,

I always found this statement very untrue and extremely generalizing. About the only common trace I see in Jack's characters, and in only very few movies, is his devilish persona, like in Witches of Eastwick or Batman. And the same can be said about every actor and every director or musician - theres always a certain characteristics that they always carry on, and thats what makes them them. I fail to see how Jack's role in, for example, Prizzi's Honor, Chinatown or Hoffa are in any way similar. There are big similarities between The Shining and Batman performances because they were intended - Jack's performance in The Shining was one of 2 reasons why Bob Kane wanted him for the job (the other being that he looked like Kane's Joker - same hairline, hair, pointy eyebrows), and if the performance for Joker is suppose to be based on a completely insane , axe wielding lunatic who has great fun killing, then count me in. Again, I fail to see Jack Nicholson in 'Batman" and I only see the behavior of Joker - dancing to the songs , talking to corpses and himself, constantly joking and being very energetic, basically having great time and fun while killing and committing crimes. Thats all Joker and those things can be proven by comic book panels

Tumbler now and it makes infinitely more sense to me why Batman would drive that and not a giant Bat-styled coupe.

While I love Tumbler I cant dump on the Batmobile idea in any way. I think its great and very fitting that Batman would stylize his vehicles like he did his weapons and costume

And as much as I love Keaton's take on the character, the 1989 Batman is more 2-dimensional than the current one.

I dont think I can find a statement that I can disagree more. I always felt his character was very deep and mysterious. I always felt for the character and enjoyed him so much that I was watching movies with keaton to get more of it. However, it seems like I underestimated Keaton because he played very different characters in every movie, and I was hoping to see more of his Wayne in them. His Wayne, just like the comic character, is partially insane and keeps to himself. Hes a very complex character that doesnt say much adn is still hurting, and spends time just sitting alone in the dark, thinking.

He broods a lot, doesn't say much, but we never really get a sense of what's going on in his mind.

And that was the point and made the character that much darker. Burton treated him like Phantom of the Opera and such approach was intentional:

Tim Burton: [The people who criticized lack of focus on Batman] were missing the point of the character of Batman. This guy wants to remain as hidden as possible, and in the shadows as possible, and unrevealing about himself as possible, so all of those things - you know, he’s not gonna eat up screen time by these big speeches and doing dancing around the Batcave

Again, I felt less is more with him in the sense of who he is. (&#8230 Michael’s eyes - it goes back to kind of like silent movie acting. I like when people sort of just look. It’s a movie so you kinda get more between the lines then you do [from] the actual lines (&#8230 There's a loneliness to that character and witheldness. He’s a character that is sad and is private
Even when hes standing there looking there's an electricity about him. Again this is why I wanted him for Batman because its all about that. (BR audio commentary)

Bruce is a solitary man, tarnished by internal demons. We never get to understand him or know him

is much darker than any Batman story Burton ever told us.

I disagree and Nolan does too, since he said that he thought that BR went too far and was too dark and too disturbing. The originals were Gothic operas with dark, shadowy and mysterious characters that we dont truly understand. Nolan;s movies are also dark of course, but in a different way - theyre as dark as the news we're watching every night on TV, theyre the dark side of reality

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

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

 

[Visceral]

Nolan brought neo noir to batman, something that really needs to be done more in the comics.

After the Nolan trilogy I really want michael mann to direct

 

[returntovoid]

Batman Begins felt like a Batman film although it was realistic but not too realistic, Batman acted like Batman, he was intimidating but he was not too disturbed like Burton's rendition and they got the characters stealth/tactics. It was also more focused on Batman, sure there was not so much in the Batsuit in the first 40 minutes but there was a lot of Bruce-in-private where he's just like the Batman persona except he's not wearing the Batsuit.

I was disappointed with The Dark Knight, as a film it delivered but not as a Batman film. The realism went way too far, didn't feel much like a Batman film and not much focus on Batman, ironic considering it's titled The Dark Knight. Many of his character traits were missing, no longer was he intimidating, his stealth/tactics were thrown out the window, Batman become a emotional/desperate person who wants to quit to be with someone who does not love him for who really is rather than being this darkly obsessed creature of the night that wont give up his will and then he takes the blame for murders done by The Joker and Two-Face in the end. The moral of the film, lying for the public's good put me off and I didn't like the war on terror/terrorism metaphor. In spite of all this critiscm on my part, it's a great entry into the film series although overrated.

Here's my ranking of the Batman films.

Favorite:
1. Batman Returns
2. Batman 1989
3. Batman Begins

Great:
4. Batman: The Mask of Phantasm
5. The Dark Knight
6. Batman: Under the Red Hood
7. Batman: Return of The Joker
8. Batman: Gotham Knight
9. Batman: Sub-Zero

OK:
10. Batman: Movie 1966

Horrible:
11. Batman Forever
12. Batman & Robin

 

[returntovoid]

The problem with TDK, despite its goosebump inducing finale, was that the Dark Knight and Bale were severely underused. In order for Batman to be the main star, you need to have him in the costume for most of the film, unless its an origin story like Batman Begins. Which, by the way, made the fatal flaw of introducing useless characters such as Rachel and Finch and eliminating Dent. If Dent would've been there from the start, TDK and BB would have been more epic in my opinion. Why you ask? Well if you put Dent in the first one with Batman and Gordon you establish a solid foundation in the first movie, thus avoiding the sense that they rushed things in the second one. What you get in TDK is a 10 minute prologue with the Joker in TDK, the scene with Maroni in the courthouse resulting in Dent's scarred face and severed personality. Things become more dangerous cause now you have a villain that's totally unpredictable with now motive whatsoever, except for pure madness and anarchy in the Joker. And on another end you get Two-Face, a villain that is tied to the Dark Knight's conscience; a friend lost in the war against crime. Hopefully they'll find a way to tie it all up in the third one. Nolan's movies are not bad at all, just some odd choices.

I agree.

 

[The Joker]

Disagree with everything the OP said. Nolan is the first director to get more right than wrong with Batman, IMO. Especially with TDK.

I agree.

It's funny you agree with that, when Batman is not the focal point of either of Burton's movies. Especially Batman Returns, which you have listed as your favorite. The Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman drive those movies. Batman is a side character.

 

[Diamondhead]

Hey dudes i was the first one to come up with that
the dark knight is just a movie with the batman in it !

 

[Fudgie]

The Dark Knight is the greatest Batman movie yet. Ticked all the right boxes.

 

[Diamondhead]

Disagree with everything the OP said. Nolan is the first director to get more right than wrong with Batman, IMO. Especially with TDK.



It's funny you agree with that, when Batman is not the focal point of either of Burton's movies. Especially Batman Returns, which you have listed as your favorite. The Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman drive those movies. Batman is a side character.

oh pluuuuse
he even tried to put a little bit of transformers in it
you know part of the batmobile becoming a bike
not to mention tring to give the batman x ray vision too
well...at least "sonar vision"

I stop reading batman comics a long time ago
and i still don't belive he wears a rubber sut in the comics

 

[Fudgie]

All the Batman movies have a rubber suit though.Batman is all about the gadgets and tech.

 

[Diamondhead]

The Dark Knight is the greatest Batman movie yet. Ticked all the right boxes.

c'mon it was because the death of that dude who played the joker (whom i forgot the name ,no offence)
people won't be so baffle the next time

beside most of you batfan makes the movie's money because you went to see the movie dozen of times
which is good if you're really a superfan

as for me one time is more than enough.

 

[returntovoid]

It's funny you agree with that, when Batman is not the focal point of either of Burton's movies. Especially Batman Returns, which you have listed as your favorite. The Joker, Penguin, and Catwoman drive those movies. Batman is a side character.

Yeah, but I liked how Burton kept him in the shadows and whenever Batman appeared, he was a very memorable character. Even when he's not on screen, his presence can be felt like the Shark in Jaws.

 

[Diamondhead]

All the Batman movies have a rubber suit though.Batman is all about the gadgets and tech.

that's why i prefer the batman in the comics when i was a kid

he was just a guy who trained a lot, he wasn't that super smart
in fact he wasn't he would react impulsively to a situation and punch is way out of it
that was the spirit

 

[GothamAlleys]

Actually Batman was using his brains, intelligence and detective skills. After all, he's basically Sherlock Holmes in cape

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, but I liked how Burton kept him in the shadows and whenever Batman appeared, he was a very memorable character. Even when he's not on screen, his presence can be felt like the Shark in Jaws.

There was no shadowy Batman stuff in Returns. He pretty much just walked or drove into the fight scenes with the Red Triangle gang. He never used any shadows or stealth in Returns.

But then that's not a bad thing. Batman doesn't always use stealth and shadows. It's not a pre-requisite.

I never felt his presence when he wasn't on screen. I did with the villains though, as they impacted Gotham and the story far more than Batman did.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I dont see a reason to slam any of the other versions just to try to prove that the personal favorite is somewhat better. Besides, even IF Nolan's movies dont really feel like Batman movies, Batman movies or not, theyre great movies. One must remember that Nolan didnt read comics and never intended to make a comic book movie. After all, one of his cited influences is 'Heat' which is a crime drama, exactly what TDK is. He simply takes the basic essence of Batman and portrays him as a realistic crime movie character

 

[returntovoid]

I dont see a reason to slam any of the other versions just to try to prove that the personal favorite is somewhat better. Besides, even IF Nolan's movies dont really feel like Batman movies, Batman movies or not, theyre great movies. One must remember that Nolan didnt read comics and never intended to make a comic book movie. After all, one of his cited influences is 'Heat' which is a crime drama, exactly what TDK is. He simply takes the basic essence of Batman and portrays him as a realistic crime movie character

Yeah, it's still a great film, just not my preference but nothing wrong with that.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Many of his character traits were missing, no longer was he intimidating

He still scared the average joe. All it took was the Bat-signal to scare one guy away. It only makes sense that the mob would figure out after a year what Batman's ground rules were. It's why Falcone **** his pants when he first saw Batman and Maroni wasn't phased at all. "They're wise to your act. You got rules." But after Batman being deemed a killer after TDK, he'll be going back to scaring the poop out of mobsters.

emotional/desperate person who wants to quit to be with someone who does not love him for who really is rather than being this darkly obsessed creature of the night that wont give up his will

That's nothing new. Mask of the Phantasm has a similar story. Plus, Bruce wanted to quit because he saw his job coming to an end. The mob, the primary reason why he became the Bat, was dieing everyday and Harvey Dent was batting clean up. He underestimated The Joker from the beginning and until it was too late did he realize what he (Joker) was capable of and what he (Bruce) had to do.

and then he takes the blame for murders done by The Joker and Two-Face in the end.

No, only Two-Face's.

 

[returntovoid]

Plus, Bruce wanted to quit because he saw his job coming to an end.

Well, being Batman is much more than just a mere job for him and quitting would be not being himself. Fighting crime as Batman is way for him to deal with the trauma of his parents death and if he didn't become Batman, he'd probably being abusing himself with drugs/alcohol.

I have no problem with writers trying to humanize Batman but I just think there are more compelling ways than his quitting/unnecessary guilt.

Not everyone has to agree with me, just stating my opinion.