Are the films now the definitive versions of these characters?

[jmc]

Where did it indicate he travelled the world learning from different people in different aspects? All we know is he went somewhere in Asia and was a thief. Then ended up with the League of Shadows and Ra's.

What detective work did he do?

Also i never really got the sense he was obsessed or that determined outside of Begins. After that all he wants to do is retire as Batman, finding someone else to take up his mantle. One of those guys in Harvey Dent. So Bruce wants Harvey to become the White Knight of Gotham so he can retire. And he is actively trying to win over his girl, Rachel Dawes. Nice one Bruce. What an *******. Very noble.

The other guy he wants to take up his mantle is an untrained (in terms of you know, being Batman) rookie detective who figured out Bruce was Batman because he could see anger behind his smile... the entire Batman legend is left in his hands whilst Bruce pisses off to Italy with some girl he barely even knows and who isn't exactly trustworthy. What a totally Batman thing to do! Oh wait... him sticking around after faking his death to train Blake would have been what the definitive Batman would do. And also, thematically interesting because it does bring it all full circle, with Bruce taking on the role of Ra's. There is a whole fatherhood theme there too.

What exactly did Nolan do better or different to the comics when it comes to Batman's existence being necessary? Gotham has always been portrayed as corrupt and a city of sin in the comics. With cops, judges and politicians on the take. Mob wars. Nolan didn't bring anything new to the table there. Although he did tell a really great story in TDK featuring those aspects. Most definitely.

You can't just pick and choose all aspects of the characters. Otherwise it doesn't really become that character. The comics should always be respected because like i said, at the end of the day, it's the comics and their characters and the rich histories that inspire the film makers in the first place.

I'm not saying 100% accuracy to the comics. I totally understand some things don't work in films. I totally get that Nolan's version is a valid interpretation. And don't get me wrong... i think TDK is amazing. Begins is also great.

But a Batman who is frankly, a ***** hole who is constantly looking for a way out of his crusade because of females... is definitely not the definitive Batman.

Doctor Octopus more or less summed up what I would have said in response, however I'll add something. Whether someone likes how Nolan interpreted Batman is entirely up to them, but if the thing someone took away from the series was that Batman was a weak coward looking to bail then I've got to seriously question whether said person paid attention to the movie. Honestly, I can't see how any self respecting fan of the character can come to that conclusion.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Batman -- I don't think Burton or Nolan quite nailed the character in the way I imagine Batman to be. Burton got the darkness out of the way so that future iterations could flourish. Nolan got the brooding and the realism down, among other things. But if anything, The Arkham games or the 90s cartoons understood Batman more than those two film series.

Spider-Man -- To most audiences, Tobey Maguire is probably Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Which is sad to me because his Peter is unlikable and their Spider-Man is nothing like the character. Andrew's Spidey is amazing (heh) and I hope he goes on to become substantially more definitive than the first two films would suggest.

Superman -- Obviously Reeve's Supes IS Super-Man. He's timeless and classic. Hell even Routh was basically cast and forced to imitate Reeve. But apparently I personally don't want a classic Superman on screen because I actually preferred Cavill's.

Thor/Iron Man -- Both Hemsworth and Downey Jr have brought new personality and intrigue to these characters. Removing Donald Blake from the equation and making Stark a quick-witted bastard you love to love have redefined the characters (imo) for the better. People didn't seem to care much about them before the MCU.

Loki -- Just as definitive as Downey Jr's Stark.

Captain America -- Slighly less so than his fellow Avengers, Evans does embody Cap. But until Winter Soldier he didnt seem to have a lot of respect. He was who he was but the Russo's made him a badass and extremely likeable character.

Hulk -- sigh... What an odd one. I guess the cool thing about Hulk is that he doesn't need a signature definitive actor or character. Lou Ferigno obviously makes a decent voice, but CGI manages to do the rest just fine. I've liked both the "irradiated powerhouse" version seen in The Incredible Hulk as well as the "gamma ape" seen in The Avengers. Each Bana, Norton and Ruffalo played a very decent Banner. Definitive? idk. At this point, they are all equally memorable. Though I'm sure Ruffalo will go on to impress us.

Black Widow -- Has certainly redefined the character.

X-Men -- As a team, no way. I have yet to see a team up that defines what I love about the action seen in the comics. Last Stand and First Class came closest.

As individuals?
Wolverine - Has redefined the character, but not nearly for the better. Too emotional, gentle and polite.
Magneto/Professor X - In my opinion, each Mcavoy, Stewart, Mckellan and Fassbender are the epitome of these characters. Always a pleasure to watch on screen.
Cyclops - No
Jean Grey - No
Storm - No
Beast/Nightcrawler - Grammer and Cumming come close eh?

Blade - Wesley Snipes for sure.

Hawkeye - Unfortunately no.
Doc Ock - No.
Green Goblin - Three attempts and still no.
Venom - Absolutely not.
Daredevil - No
Ghost Rider - No
Fantastic Four - No
Dr. Doom/Galactus - Hell no.

 

[Shikamaru]

Doctor Octopus more or less summed up what I would have said in response, however I'll add something. Whether someone likes how Nolan interpreted Batman is entirely up to them, but if the thing someone took away from the series was that Batman was a weak coward looking to bail then I've got to seriously question whether said person paid attention to the movie. Honestly, I can't see how any self respecting fan of the character can come to that conclusion.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a "weak coward", but it did take away from one of the most admirable aspects of the character IMO, which is his will to keep going for the sake of Gotham/others.

Spider-Man -- To most audiences, Tobey Maguire is probably Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Which is sad to me because his Peter is unlikable and their Spider-Man is nothing like the character. Andrew's Spidey is amazing (heh) and I hope he goes on to become substantially more definitive than the first two films would suggest.

I don't think this is entirely true. Even the most negative reviews have praised Andrew Garfield's performance and the way Spidey moves/talks.

 

[jmc]

I wouldn't go as far as to say he was a "weak coward", but it did take away from one of the most admirable aspects of the character IMO, which is his will to keep going for the sake of Gotham/others.

But you're dealing with a finite universe, that's the difference that I feel gets overlooked with these films. It's essentially the first time we've had a completed story for Bruce Wayne, and you can't complete that story with him still being Batman at the end of it. You can however continue Batman and his place in Gotham which is what was done at the end. So even though there is a full stop on Bruce's story there isn't one after Batman's, which is exactly how it is in the comics and other medium. It's just a different interpretation of what continuing Batman actually means.

 

[The Endless]

Yea but it's poorly done. The ending of Rises is terrible. He pisses off to Italy with Selina. And leaves his entire empire to Blake. Who can't subdue two nobodies without shooting them.

Like i said, a better ending would be Bruce's Batman faking his death, but sticking around to train Blake, taking up Ra's role.

Plus you know, Bruce Wayne isn't abandoning his city when it's still in a state of ruin after Bane's occupation.

And none of you addressed the fact that Bruce wanted Dent to take up his mantle... but also tried to steal his girl. This isn't the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman for me. Never in a billion years.

 

[DACrowe]

Co-signed

I am going to enjoy this moment then.



Feels good.

 

[DACrowe]

I just don't see how anyone can read the comics, the good ones anyway, and watch Nolan's films and say Nolan's is the definitive Batman.

I love Begins and TDK as films. But Batman himself is pretty ****ing lame, especially in TDK. It's a stripped down bare bones Batman. There is so much missing from that portrayal, in terms of key character traits and abilities. Bruce Wayne shouldn't need the equivalent of a Q creating his gadgets and developing anti-dotes to poisons, for example.

I never got the sense that Nolan's Bruce Wayne could hold a complex conversation with a nuclear physicist or could solve an unsolvable murder mystery. I never got the sense he was a master martial artist who had travelled the world learning different styles and techniques from different mentors. I never got the sense that he had honed his body and mind into the peak of human capability over years and years of hard work, driven by sheer obsession and determination.

Nolan's Batman was constantly looking for a way out. That is not Batman to me.

I have been down this rabbit hole before--ever increasingly more the closer Batfleck approaches, it would seem--but I will say this.

Attempting to add consequence to Batman's actions (not merely or necessarily "realism" or "reality") means that his body would age and grow more feeble over the years. In such a scenario, there has to be an endgame or he just dies doing it one day. In fact, that is the problem Rises confronts head on. It leaves a bad taste in some fans' mouth, but it is a bold choice that I applaud, even if I think having him take an eight year hiatus (maybe a little less as it is vague why he rebuilt the Batcave or how he injured his leg) was a bit excessive in building to that point.

Further, Nolan's Batman by dealing with consequences looks at the big picture. He kind of turns Gotham from 1920s circa Chicago into mid-2000s Manhattan in the course of three films. His methods are at times dubious and questioned by the filmmakers, but it actually tackles the often fair criticism of Batman: that he's a rich man who spends his wealth through feeding his neuroses by beating up poor people instead of using it to help the city. Nolan considers the consequences of this image of the rich man who only uses his resources to tackle symptoms, which can have complicated results (i.e. the escalation of the Joker) and provides a more expansive and high-minded goal for the hero. One that gets results.

It may not be comic book accurate, but it is an interesting and very smart rendering of the character. One that I am glad exists.

 

[jmc]

Yea but it's poorly done. The ending of Rises is terrible. He pisses off to Italy with Selina. And leaves his entire empire to Blake. Who can't subdue two nobodies without shooting them.

Like i said, a better ending would be Bruce's Batman faking his death, but sticking around to train Blake, taking up Ra's role.

Plus you know, Bruce Wayne isn't abandoning his city when it's still in a state of ruin after Bane's occupation.

And none of you addressed the fact that Bruce wanted Dent to take up his mantle... but also tried to steal his girl. This isn't the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman for me. Never in a billion years.

Bruce would still be Batman in that case like he is in Batman Beyond, that's not a proper ending for Bruce Wayne. What we got, and probably for the first time ever, has a happy ending for the character. Bruce Wayne's story is one of tragedy that's only ever been given small rays of light in the 75 years of his existence, and each and every time the light is extinguished. This is the first completed arc for Bruce Wayne, the first time he can live his life. I feel as if you're not taking into account the lens this film series is being presented in because it sounds to me you're mixing up two different Batman interpretations - the one that we got and the one you have in your head. Just because what you want isn't there doesn't make this interpretation of the character invalid.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

Bane is Tom Hardy's version with the English accent

Actually it's based on Bartley Gorman...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDmX-sU6O-I

Whereas Ledger's Joker is Tom Waits....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSc6E4yG9s

 

[Green Goblin]

Nolan's Batman is pretty defenitive for me.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Nolan's Batman is pretty definitive for me.

Likewise.

 

[Victarion]

Yea but it's poorly done. The ending of Rises is terrible. He pisses off to Italy with Selina. And leaves his entire empire to Blake. Who can't subdue two nobodies without shooting them.

Like i said, a better ending would be Bruce's Batman faking his death, but sticking around to train Blake, taking up Ra's role.

Plus you know, Bruce Wayne isn't abandoning his city when it's still in a state of ruin after Bane's occupation.

And none of you addressed the fact that Bruce wanted Dent to take up his mantle... but also tried to steal his girl. This isn't the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman for me. Never in a billion years.

This would go against the whole theme of Rises, Bruce training Blake in a Ra's role. The movie was about letting go of the past, moving on from the past to a better future.

It was really ambiguous as to how things would unfold in Bruce's absence. Blake could don the suit, and you could take the rebuilt bat signal as an indication of it. On the other hand, Blake could've had the bat signal rebuilt for the symbolism of it. He could have turned the bat cave's technology over to Gordon, or played the role of an in-the-field Oracle. Someone inspired by Batman, but not being fool enough to put on some hockey pads and take on organized crime. This interpretation is pretty close to Bruce's intention to inspire others to stand up to Gotham's rampant crime.

Bruce trying to steal Dent's girl is sad and pathetic. Which is what makes it compelling. Here's someone with a larger than life mission, even noble, doing something pretty scummy. I always thought this was Bruce's way of trying to recapture some of his childhood innocence, being that Rachel was his childhood friend and all. You can, of course, interpret it however you will.

So I stand by my opinion that this is the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman. For me, of course. Debate on the merits of this version of Batman versus someone else's version are the lifeblood of these forums.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Definitive is done to an individual's strive for an explanation of character, only the orginator of the character can be the definitive of any given individual, it becomes a case of who's vision is best testament to that original concept.