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

not true. he hid on top of that train and used his shadow to scare the driver before picking him up. he did alot of that kind of thing in both burton films.

He also still hides away from people, prefers to have dates in his place away from society, sits alone in a darkened castle and have that Frankenstein and his bride relationship with Selina. Thats as Gothic as can get


i also prefer the original 4 films. as silly as schumachers films may be, i can watch Forever a num,ber of times. i find that movie so entertaining and cool and val kilmer wasnt half bad as batman! i also liked the batmobile and jim carrey alot. batman and robin might have been the 60's silly version of batman, but the movie was defiently batman all the way.

All Batman movies so far are definitely Batman movies, theyre very faithful to their sources, they just had different sources they drew from thats why theyre so different. Burton was all about 40s, Forever was 70s, B&R was 60s. But Schumacher's movies I deeply dislike


nolans movies do not come off like batman movies, they seem more like an average crime thriller with batman in it.

Well, Batman Begins is virtually the adaptation of the comics books such as Year One and Haunted Knight. Its very much a Batman movies, but it may feel different than everything else Batman because its based on one shots or limited mini series' which were always different in tone and darker than the monthly issues

As for TDK, in this instance I understand why some might think its, as often called, a crime drama with batman in it, but it draws plenty form comics as well. Its basically a fusion of Long Halloween. Killing Joke and the first Batman comic - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part-vi.html
 
Nolan movies feel more like bat flicks than any of the others to me. I can see loads of the comic book stories like Long Halloween, Year One, Killing Joke and others in them.

Schumacher's feel more like the 60's Batman and Burton's movies just feel like Burton movies with characters that have Batman character names in them.
 
Nolan movies feel more like bat flicks than any of the others to me. I can see loads of the comic book stories like Long Halloween, Year One, Killing Joke and others in them.

Schumacher's feel more like the 60's Batman and Burton's movies just feel like Burton movies with characters that have Batman character names in them.

And some say Nolan's TDK is just action movie/ police drama with Batman in it.

Truth is, they're all Batman movies. And they all have references to the comic books.
 
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.

Adaptations :up:
 
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.
I understand what you are saying and feel the same way, alot of aspects including basic characterisation of the characters have been glossed over.

I'm a firm believer that if you stick to the root of a character, all subsequent adaptations are valid, but if you choose to start from fresh persay then you are also fine.

i find nolan's characterisation to be the latter and not at all reflective of their comic book counterparts at as such.

does this make it any less entertaining as a film, certainly not.

is it a batman film though, nay.

They did the same thing with spidey back in the day making peter parker a lovable character from the get go.

Let's not be kidding, you could hav taken batman out of the dark knight and it would have still worked as a great film. He was the least significant entity in it. I actually prefer the role he plays with ra's in batman begins albeit the final act in that film was convoluted and incredibly rushed and cliched.

all in all, batman no longer belongs to the fans, he belongs to the masses and I will allow nolan the time of day to enhance the brand for the greater good.

however, if i wanna see a proper batman film, i'll watch mask of the phantasm. Nothing done so far on film even comes close.
 
not true. he hid on top of that train and used his shadow to scare the driver before picking him up. he did alot of that kind of thing in both burton films.

Ok, I'll give you that one. I must have forgotten it because it is such a brief scene. Lasts about 3 seconds and then ends abruptly. Stealthy stuff is when he literally appears out of nowhere and attacks. Where did he do this a lot in Returns? He literally just walked or drove into situations in it.

He didn't even do any of his disappearing acts in Returns either. Not that I find this stuff essential to be in a Batman movie, but the reason it was brought up is because someone mentioned it was dropped altogether in TDK, when there's several scenes where Batman appears and disappears including the bank vault with Gordon, the roof of Police HQ with Dent and Gordon, the party with Joker, he vanished in mid fight in the Hong Kong sequence and then appears again to attack them.

It's like some people watch these movies with their eyes closed and miss the obvious.

Schumacher's feel more like the 60's Batman and Burton's movies just feel like Burton movies with characters that have Batman character names in them.

I can understand that stance for Returns because it really did re-shape Penguin and Catwoman. But not for Batman '89, even with the liberties it took with the Batman/Joker relationship.

Let's not be kidding, you could hav taken batman out of the dark knight and it would have still worked as a great film. He was the least significant entity in it.

How do you even rationalize such a false statement as being true? If you took Batman out of the equation the movie would have fallen to pieces. He is the glue that ties all the characters.

Many of the characters can even be metaphorically viewed as Bruce's sons: the copycats, the Joker and Harvey. The copycats and the Joker are Batman's undesired sons, his rejected creations; Harvey is the good son gone bad.
The copycats are flawed yet admire and mimic Batman, trying to win his approval. The Joker is overtly established as a reaction to Batman's presence in Gotham and Bruce loathes the very idea of being the responsible of spawning such creature, thus a father-son relationship. He does not want to acknowledge that he and the Joker are the same, as the Joker says, and wants to repress him. The Joker behaves like the reckless rebel son that wants to prove something to his father and the movie pits him against some authority/father figures to underscore that, like Gordon or det. Stephens (a beating father).

The Joker, the bad son, rebels against his father, but still "loves" him in the end. "You and I are destined to do this forever." Never will the father and the son agree, nor will they ever forge some sort of bond. Although not as overt as Burton's characterization, elements of Batman "making" the Joker are subtly hinted at. "You complete me..." Like I said, Batman doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that he spawned such a creature. Interestingly, the only scene in which he finally cracks and reveals his disgust is after Rachel is killed. He spits the lines of hate at Alfred, verbally voicing his distaste for the Joker for the first time in an isolated, personal setting.

Harvey, on the other hand, is the 'good son', the one that Bruce sees as an improved version of himself, a fighter for justice that doesn't need to hide. Bruce wants to pass his legacy to Harvey, the inheritance of a better Gotham, so Harvey can continue and finish his work, while Bruce retires... which is, again, something a father does. At several points Batman scolds Dent, publicly congratulates him in admiration or saves him from trouble, like a father to a son. They also love the same woman, in an overt Oedipal fashion.

With Harvey, we get just as compelling of a story, rooted in tragedy. What I find interesting is that, as we've established, Harvey is Batman's loyal son; the only one he loves. In this regard, I look at the film as a story of a father coping with the fall of his only hope, his good son, the one who was supposed to carry on the family legacy. To be honest, one of the scenes that caught me off-guard the most in TDK was the conversation between Bruce, Rachel, Harvey and the dancer at the dinner table. It was moving along more or less in the direction I expected, and then this really stirring shot of Bruce hits the screen. Lasting for a few seconds, we watch as his eyes glisten while he listens to Harvey. I can't quite explain why, but this moment hit me on my first viewing. It's such a simple shot, but Bale completely sells the look. Some great, albeit quick, non-verbal work from him there. The look is one of admiration, hope, and pride. It is, in many ways, the look of a proud father. Bruce genuinely likes and respects Harvey, and although he sees him as an out, he knows that Gotham will be in good hands; he completely trusts Harvey, which is especially powerful, considering that Batman doesn't trust a whole lot of people.

Unfortunately, this sets him up for his biggest challenge and problem yet. As the bad son twists and turns the good son over, Bruce has to cope with losing Harvey, and watching his hopes and dreams die in the form of a shattered and broken man. Under this light, it is interesting to revisit the final scene between Batman, Gordon and Harvey. After Harvey asks why he was the only one who lost everything, Batman takes a considerable pause, and says, "It wasn't." The obvious and natural implication of this is that Batman is referring to Rachel. As I said though, let's try to look at it under the lens of the father/son dynamic. As Batman pauses, he stares for a short amount of time at his all but dead son. He looks his most prided creation right in the eye, and fully realizes what he has become. The Harvey Dent that Bruce stared at with such transfixion across the dinner table is dead, and with an equally as intense stare, he honestly tells this Harvey, "It wasn't." He lost Rachel, he lost hope, and above all, he lost his son. Perhaps that was the biggest blow of all.

To me, this adds some new meaning to the line, and once again, Bale's eye acting completely sells the emotion. Harvey is too demented to even realize what Batman is saying, which is particularly sad, as the father emotionally looks on at his son, eyes filled with pain. And so, Bruce purges himself (inadvertently or not is another issue for another time) of having to deal with his fallen son. With Harvey's death, Bruce has the chance to conceal the man's downfall. Just as with the Joker, Batman does not want to be acknowledge nor accept the responsibility of spawning such offspring, and so he lets Harvey live on through the legacy he initially envisioned for him. The father takes the fall for his son, and is hunted as an outlaw.

The Joker ultimately corrupts Harvey and kills the good part in him... much like a bad brother spoils a good one. That hospital conversation between them had a simple, iconic quality that doesn't strike me as Abel-Cain as much as Eva and the Serpent, yet comparisons can be drawn with the two brothers.

In the end, Bruce has to pay for what went wrong with his sons, his 'failed creations'. He kills Harvey and abandons the support of the public, perhaps hoping that he won't spawn any more misguided 'sons'. Metaphorically, he tries to sterilize himself. We know it won't work.

So to call Batman the least significant element in it is a total falsity. He is the most significant element in it.

EDIT: Got a lot of that from the Batman character thread.

is it a batman film though, nay.

I despair for some of the Batman fan base sometimes. I really do.
 
Last edited:
apart from batman being batman and getting the ball rolling, there are no actions he performs that drives the plot forward.

harvey, the commisioner, rachel and the joker are all proactive in this film. Even lucious fox is proactive. Batman simply reacted to the situation around him.

I've watched the film, you dont have to explain it.

and simply because he is a catalyst to drive the events doesn't make him the most important character in teh narrative. That's like saying the maguffin in pulp fiction of the briefcase is the most important part of the whole film.

the only thing i can give credit to is batman taking responsibility for harvey's death but that again could be seen as a catalyst to set the next film going.

the batman in begins is completely different to the one in the dark knight. either way, none of them are my cup of tea.

less essays please, i'm a recovering post-aholic on this place with over 40k posts, most of which are essays. I don't want to be drawn back to the good life :)
 
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.

Is there a man wearing a mask that has ears and fights crime in a city called Gotham and goes by the name Batman? If so, its a real Batman movie.

Even the Adam West movie in 1966 was a Batman movie. Why? See the 1st sentence above.
 
LOL, sorry, November Rain, didn't mean to burn your brain out with such a long post. I was just being thorough.

But Batman is a reactive character. A villain strikes, he reacts. The whole point of TDK is to show the escalation caused because of Batman's presence in Gotham. That's even hinted at in the end of Batman Begins. That's why he's different in Begins. Begins was about establishing Batman, TDK looks at the effects of Batman on Gotham. He's got the criminals scared, the mob having their meetings in day time and he's attracted a 'freak' criminal like the Joker who sees in Batman some kind of fellow freak "Like me" to have fun with.

He has to deal with the can of worms he's opened. He caused all of this by attracting the Joker to Gotham, shutting down the mob's money by nabbing Lau and making the mob desperate by turning to Joker for help. He also inadvertently sets Harvey Dent up for a fall by working with him to help bring down Gotham's criminal element by bringing him Lau and causing Harvey to lock up half of the city's criminals.

It's a similar situation in Batman 1989. Batman created the Joker and now it's up to him to deal with the monster he's created. That is a common theme in the comics. It being alluded to that Batman's presence in Gotham is the reason there's so many 'freak' criminals like the Joker. He inadvertently attracts them.

Whether you like your Batman that way is your own choice. But it's a valid and common interpretation of the character.
 
Is there a man wearing a mask that has ears and fights crime in a city called Gotham and goes by the name Batman? If so, its a real Batman movie.

Even the Adam West movie in 1966 was a Batman movie. Why? See the 1st sentence above.
so the tv made nick fury film with the Hoff was nick fury jumping off the comic pages onto the small screen?

answer this with a straight face, and you'll book your place in surtur.
 
LOL, sorry, November Rain, didn't mean to burn your brain out with such a long post. I was just being thorough.

But Batman is a reactive character. A villain strikes, he reacts. The whole point of TDK is to show the escalation caused because of Batman's presence in Gotham. That's even hinted at in the end of Batman Begins. That's why he's different in Begins. Begins was about establishing Batman, TDK looks at the effects of Batman on Gotham. He's got the criminals scared, the mob having their meetings in day time and he's attracted a 'freak' criminal like the Joker who sees in Batman some kind of fellow freak "Like me" to have fun with.

He has to deal with the can of worms he's opened. He caused all of this by attracting the Joker to Gotham, shutting down the mob's money by nabbing Lau and making the mob desperate by turning to Joker for help. He also inadvertently sets Harvey Dent up for a fall by working with him to help bring down Gotham's criminal element by bringing him Lau and causing Harvey to lock up half of the city's criminals.

It's a similar situation in Batman 1989. Batman created the Joker and now it's up to him to deal with the monster he's created. That is a common theme in the comics. It being alluded to that Batman's presence in Gotham is the reason there's so many 'freak' criminals like the Joker. He inadvertently attracts them.

Whether you like your Batman that way is your own choice. But it's a valid and common interpretation of the character.

Batman is one of the most proactive characters in the comic world.

the phrase 'prep-time' has only one character resonating in your brain when you say it.

bats.

bats simply wasn't prepared for any of the predicaments he found himself in and therefore he coasted throughout the film process.

joker did though...

how can they be equals in that respect?

bat's was like the joker's pet. In the same way the goblin toys with spiderman. That's not their dynamic.

it's like selina kyle bruce, batman and catwoman not having a four way relationship. It probably wouldn't hurt the narrative in the slightest but that's just not them.

just judging the joker, why would someone as sinister as that, arise from bale's portrayal of bats, it's pure overkill for me, they dont amount to equal an opposite to me.

i don't mind if you dont agree though, if you enjoyed it, who am i to take that away from you. And it's not like a few words from you is suddenly going to wash away these issues to me.

like i said, i have mask of the phantasm. You watch those films and the clarity of the way both characters relate to each other is as clear as day.
 
Batman is one of the most proactive characters in the comic world.

the phrase 'prep-time' has only one character resonating in your brain when you say it.

bats.

LOL the prep time usually stems from fanboys arguing who would beat who in a fight. Batman would always win because of the "prep-time". It's a gross exaggeration.

bats simply wasn't prepared for any of the predicaments he found himself in and therefore he coasted throughout the film process.

I think you totally missed the point, mate. Batman had never encountered a criminal like Joker before. "Criminals aren't complicated. I just need to figure out what he's after". This is Batman in the early stage of his career. He's never met a villain like Joker who'll go and steal the money and then burn the lot of it as a statement. How do you anticipate the actions of a villain who thinks like that when you've never seen the likes of him before?

It was a learning curve for Batman. He was the only one in the end who anticipated Joker's plan with the ferries. "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is". He was the only one who believed the people on the ferries wouldn't kill each other.

This time Batman was a step ahead of Joker.

joker did though...

how can they be equals in that respect?

See above.

bat's was like the joker's pet. In the same way the goblin toys with spiderman. That's not their dynamic.

That is exactly their dynamic. The Joker is disappointed when Batman doesn't show up and give him attention and challenge him. Joker craves it. He will even go out of his way to seek out Batman just to challenge him.

BaneJoker1.jpg


Perfect.jpg


just judging the joker, why would someone as sinister as that, arise from bale's portrayal of bats, it's pure overkill for me, they dont amount to equal an opposite to me.

What do you mean why? A guy dressed up as a BAT shows up and scares the bejesus out of Gotham's underworld and you wonder why a psychopath like Joker might pop up in reaction to someone like this?

i don't mind if you dont agree though, if you enjoyed it, who am i to take that away from you. And it's not like a few words from you is suddenly going to wash away these issues to me.

I'm not trying to wash away your issues with it, mate. Just addressing why I think you're completely wrong about them.
 
Last edited:
apart from batman being batman and getting the ball rolling, there are no actions he performs that drives the plot forward.

He also goes behind Lucius' back to create the giant sonar/cell net that eventually leads to the Joker's capture...which I believe he started before the Joker was deemed a major threat (and a move that put his identity in serious jeopardy from the accountant that double-checked the numbers Proactive in an Orwellian way, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
so the tv made nick fury film with the Hoff was nick fury jumping off the comic pages onto the small screen?

answer this with a straight face, and you'll book your place in surtur.

Of course not. Difference? Batman '66 was a theatrical release, the Hoff Nick Fury film was not.
 
Of course not. Difference? Batman '66 was a theatrical release, the Hoff Nick Fury film was not.

well according to this
raybia said:
Is there a man wearing a mask that has ears and fights crime in a city called Gotham and goes by the name Batman? If so, its a real Batman movie.
the scale of the release is somewhat irrelevant, a film is a film regardless of whether it ends up in the cinemas or not. Unless you are trying to say all direct-to-dvd or tv films aren't 'films'. and extrapolating, there was a man dressed in blue with an eye patch working for sheild and goes by the name nick fury. so you can't state one without the other.
 
He also goes behind Lucius' back to create the giant sonar/cell net that eventually leads to the Joker's capture...which I believe he started before the Joker was deemed a major threat (and a move that put his identity in serious jeopardy from the accountant that double-checked the numbers Proactive in an Orwellian way, I suppose.

this act in itself only leads to the capture of the joker, it doesnt drive the plot and can only be described as being a plot device at the best of times. and there's nothing wrong with that as it is, it's just not a story driving element. take this, if it was taken out of the film and replaced with another scheme, it would have no impact on the narrative.
 
LOL the prep time usually stems from fanboys arguing who would beat who in a fight. Batman would always win because of the "prep-time". It's a gross exaggeration.



I think you totally missed the point, mate. Batman had never encountered a criminal like Joker before. "Criminals aren't complicated. I just need to figure out what he's after". This is Batman in the early stage of his career. He's never met a villain like Joker who'll go and steal the money and then burn the lot of it as a statement. How do you anticipate the actions of a villain who thinks like that when you've never seen the likes of him before?

It was a learning curve for Batman. He was the only one in the end who anticipated Joker's plan with the ferries. "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is". He was the only one who believed the people on the ferries wouldn't kill each other.

This time Batman was a step ahead of Joker.



See above.



That is exactly their dynamic. The Joker is disappointed when Batman doesn't show up and give him attention and challenge him. Joker craves it. He will even go out of his way to seek out Batman just to challenge him.

BaneJoker1.jpg


Perfect.jpg




What do you mean why? A guy dressed up as a BAT shows up and scares the bejesus out of Gotham's underworld and you wonder why a psychopath like Joker might pop up in reaction to someone like this?



I'm not trying to wash away your issues with it, mate. Just addressing why I think you're completely wrong about them.

The reason bats always wins because of prep time is because that is what batman is famous for. He literally overcompensates for most scenarios, whether that's due to a lack of powers or that bruce is a control freak. It's a part of his nature and appeal. I mean why spend all that time learning criminology, psychology, and investing in all that gear just to be behind? he'd never encountered the joker in 89 either but they were far closer to being equals than in this predicament. bat's passive approach to the ferry rescue was a massive cop out. Still though, it still remains that plan wasn't foiled by bats but by the people of gotham, which in a sense undermines their joint relationship. Again, had bats not been around, the same outcome would have occurred. bats played a passive role in that aspect of the film. i don't see bats as the joker's pet personally. More like an annoying best friend. or lover. Pet's are replaceable and offer no sense of competition. When was the last time your pet beat you at poke, or offered any sense of rival based satisfaction in beating them? In all their scenes together, the joker had batman wrapped around his little finger, every one, jail scene, the phone call, bruce's party, the ending. I'm not talking about batman, i'm talking about bale's batman. If bale's portrayal of batman is so good, how come no one outside of the fandom raves about it, heck even in the fandom, he was vastly overlooked by joker's, gordans and dent's characterisation, IN HIS OWN FILM. The only time bats stood out was when he wasn't directly having anything to do with the joker. and good luck on that one. Gone are the days when you can express an opinion freely in here in a thread dedicated to said opinion. Oh well...
 
bat's passive approach to the ferry rescue was a massive cop out. Still though, it still remains that plan wasn't foiled by bats but by the people of gotham, which in a sense undermines their joint relationship. Again, had bats not been around, the same outcome would have occurred. bats played a passive role in that aspect of the film.

Actually, at the time of the ferries, he was busying rescuing the bus load of people that Joker had dressed up in clown gear, who the swat team would have killed if it were not for BM figuring out the Joker's deception in that regard and going in there physically to save them.

The reason bats always wins because of prep time is because that is what batman is famous for. He literally overcompensates for most scenarios, whether that's due to a lack of powers or that bruce is a control freak. It's a part of his nature and appeal. I mean why spend all that time learning criminology, psychology, and investing in all that gear just to be behind? he'd never encountered the joker in 89 either but they were far closer to being equals than in this predicament.

You can study criminoglogy all you want but sometimes it just isn't of any use at all, any FBI profiler will tell you this... it's the completely random ones who you do not want to run into, the ones who have no pattern, method of operation or usual criminal wants, they are the ones whose crimes are most likely to remain unsolved.

edit: The Joker of 89 explained his plan to Batman so openly that it was easy to solve, he was poisoning the beauty products, all he had to do was put 2 and 2 together to find out how that was happening....Oh smell...
 
Last edited:
well according to this the scale of the release is somewhat irrelevant, a film is a film regardless of whether it ends up in the cinemas or not. Unless you are trying to say all direct-to-dvd or tv films aren't 'films'. and extrapolating, there was a man dressed in blue with an eye patch working for sheild and goes by the name nick fury. so you can't state one without the other.

It has nothing to so with scale and everything to do with Hollywood theatrical movies that are deemed eligible by the academy for lack of a better way to describe it.
 
Last edited:
I'm one of the, I think, very few people that utterly despises Batman Returns: blood vomiting penguin!

But you're right: Inception, Memento, The Prestige, Doodlebug, Following & Insomnia aren't really "Batman" movies.

:woot:
 
It has nothing to so with scale and everything to do with Hollywood theatrical movies that are deemed eligible by the academy for lack of a better way to describe it.

you've completely lost me and have backtracked on your original point

you said dress a man in a batman suit and have him roaming around gotham fighting crime and you have a batman film.

where's all this hidden print stuff come from.

either discard the original comment or defend what you said with what you said, not this 'it's not a film because of scale stuff'.

so i guess ryan reynolds running around as a comedic hal jordan was a correct hal jordan depiction as well, since he was green and had a ring right?
:o
 
To me, Nolan's films are not just Batman films, but also crime dramas, detective suspense thrillers, and overall great movies starring Batman. The "heightened reality" aspect creates a nice blend of the real world with the elements of Batman comics, like Batman, Joker, et cetera. They are just as much Batman films as either of Tim Burton's Batman films, but of a different variety.
 
Actually, at the time of the ferries, he was busying rescuing the bus load of people that Joker had dressed up in clown gear, who the swat team would have killed if it were not for BM figuring out the Joker's deception in that regard and going in there physically to save them.



You can study criminoglogy all you want but sometimes it just isn't of any use at all, any FBI profiler will tell you this... it's the completely random ones who you do not want to run into, the ones who have no pattern, method of operation or usual criminal wants, they are the ones whose crimes are most likely to remain unsolved.

edit: The Joker of 89 explained his plan to Batman so openly that it was easy to solve, he was poisoning the beauty products, all he had to do was put 2 and 2 together to find out how that was happening....Oh smell...
The boat load had already decided to not kill themselves at that point. and on the scale of things, the boat incident could have been seen as a higher priority incident rather than trying to catch the joker (But that's a swings and roundabout thing and i can see both sides of that so i won't argue it).

bats had already managed to manufacture a anti-toxin by that stage in the film if i recall (hence him being proactive), plus he dealt with the issues of the people first before going after the joker (while in the dark knight, bats let the people fend for themselves and takes on the joker 'hoping' they do the right thing).

but this isn't a compare and contrast exercise, i'm not happy with 89 either, infact my favourite film with batman is batman returns but that has little resemblance to a 'batman film' either, that's a 'burton film with batman in it'. And I accept it. Like i said, phantasm is the only one that hits the mark for me.

again, the key is this, you could take all the characters 90% of the characters out of the flim, replace them with others, and no one would be any wiser that it was a batman film.

it could have easily been another crime flick.

it's like when they do modern day retellings of greek mythology, you can see the influences of the source material in the updated work (i.e. dances with wolves and pocahontas translates beautifully into avatar). It pretends it's new and modern but the root remains.

the root of the tale of the dark knight isnt planted in a batman story.

and the same way burton's characters always make their way into his story, his route is in the burtonverse (you could almost imagine edward scissors hands being part of the circus gang etc).

there's nothing wrong with it, I'm just willing to acknowledge it.

If you got the script and edited out the names of the characters and symbolic references got changed (two face's coin, batcave etc), and gave it to an average person to read (or even a film buff), i doubt the majority would point out it was a 'batman' story. But then again, thats one of the reasons it did so well in my eyes at the box office.
 
you've completely lost me and have backtracked on your original point

you said dress a man in a batman suit and have him roaming around gotham fighting crime and you have a batman film.

where's all this hidden print stuff come from.

either discard the original comment or defend what you said with what you said, not this 'it's not a film because of scale stuff'.

so i guess ryan reynolds running around as a comedic hal jordan was a correct hal jordan depiction as well, since he was green and had a ring right?
:o

No, I haven't backtracked at all but obviously I should have been more specific that my original statement excludes T.V. movies and while its open to debate whether Ryan Reynolds' GL is the correct depiction but the movie was definitely a GL movie.
 
but isn't the whole point of the thread whether somewhat incorrect character depiction validates a movie to a specific set of characters (in this case, the lead character).

and your comment concludes it doesn't matter unless distributors don't want to buy a film and it goes straight to tv or dvd, in that case it does matter.

in that case, they can go down the wanted route and have a story completely different from the source material (from the first act onwards) and have that called a 'wanted' movie. That didn't only have a largely different character portrayals but plot as well. But you are saying that's legitimate.

if you are saying that, then where do you draw your line on requiring sufficient source material to justify having its affiliation with a source?

edit: heck, I haven't even brought up bane from batman and robin yet, i'm too scared to whip that out.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"