Discussion in 'DC Comics Films' started by MessiahDecoy123, Sep 30, 2012.
I always thought the Kevin Conroy's voice was the best. Bale's bat-voice was pretty damn silly.
WHERE'SSSSS THAAAA TRIGGGGGERRRRRR?!?!? TELL ME WHERE THAAAA TRIGGERR ISSS!??
LOL. I love it!
Was never a huge fan of Conroys approach. Sometimes it works extremely well when he's talking to Alfred, or people who know his identity. I love that. Superman, Robin, etc. That's what i want in the reboot. But any other time i can't stand the Conroy approach. Like when he's talking to Gordon or his enemies. It needs to be a disguise and deeper. I wouldn't mind a return to the Keaton approach when he's talking to those characters, even though i understood & loved why Bale did the growl.
It was called Batman: Gotham Knight.
Closer to the comics and farther away from Nolan THE BETTER.
The voice may make me laugh, but I could at least understand him, so that cancels out it making me laugh. Hell, I can even laugh at someone doing Bane's voice while playing Slender, but it's still an epic voice as well.
Year One, The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke, Knightfall, Legacy, Bane of the Demon, No Man's Land, The Dark Knight Returns...they don't count as being close to the comics?
Yeah, i understand the whole "it could be closer to the comics than Nolan" or "i want it to feel like the comics are coming to life 100 %". I dont like that approach usually, but i get it. But for a lot of people who act like Nolan ventured sooooo far away from the comics....you guys are nuts. You're trying so hard not to like the trilogy that it sounds like ur making **** up.
Listen to Domini. Year One, The Man Who Falls, Long Halloween, Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, No Man's Land, Bane Of The Demon, Legacy, The Cult....C'MON PEOPLE!
This trilogy is the closest thing Batman has gotten to the damn comics. More than the TV series in the 60's, more than Burtons (especially Batman Returns), more than Shumacher. People are never happy.
I'm excited for a visual experience (for the reboot) that's closer to Burtons 89' Batman or the Arkham games. But somebody brought up a good point the other day. Will the quality of the writing or the casting be as top-notch as Nolans?? It's going to be hard. It might be more Gothamy stylistically the next time around, but how good will the material be? That's what i care about most.
I'm down if the reboot is more about..taking inspiration from animation. It's a different approach. I have a feeling it's going to follow that rather than specific comics. I think Nolan did that justice, when looking to the 80s and 90s graphic novels.
oops the "O" is close to the "I" LOL!
If you're talking about BTAS, then I wholeheartedly agree.
I love Nolan's interpretation. But now I want to see a more fantastical dark approach, where Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Killer Croc etc. could fit in without losing the mature character-oriented touch.
Batman fought more like a brawler than the Batman we all know and love from the comics. Gutting the gothic inspiration also made it feel less like Batman.
Modern Batman comics depict Gotham as a modern city. You should check this list of references:
Yep. In a world where those villains can exist? Sure. But i dont think we'll be seeing Killer Croc or Clayface for a very long time. I've never been a big fan of them anyhow so it doesn't bother me...but that kind of approach is definately what i mean. I don't think those 2 can really sell a movie, so they may have to be smaller characters within the story. I would also hold off on them since there may be too many similarities to Lizard and Sandman (of the last 2 Spidey movies).
Freeze? I'm looking forward to it. But WB won't be so open-minded right away. I bet Batman & Robin and that Freeze still gives them nightmares. So hopefully, a few films away, we'll get dark/serious Victor Fries.
Sure, but like i said..visually they can always get closer. The characters can get closer to the comics as well, but what i said was TDK Trilogy has been the closest the Batman franchise has gotten to the source material (talking about the writing here). Like it or not.
Oh and Gotham hasn't always been gothic looking. If i'm not mistaken the original intention was for Gotham City to look like New York City.
There ya go. Thanks for this.
What exactly is dark imagination? Like Sin City?
Just a dark but stylized, fantastical look. Could mean like Burtons, the animated series coming to life, sin city, arkham asylum/city, bladerunner, the crow.
More like the Burton's Batman movies.
'89 Batman is fine dark imagination; Batman Returns, however, is not.
You're right Returns is more like campy and dark at the same time. I just think taht Sin City was realy overly dark that it crossed self-parody territory. I personally wouldn't like Batman movies like that.
Campy and dark, exactly what Returns was. I wouldn't like the Sin City approach either. Not my cup of tea.
It's quite funny how, when you just sit down and think, the Burton/Schumacher series didn't really become campy once Schumacher took over, lol.
However, the first several episodes of that show did closely adapt actual stories from the magazines.
When comic stories were adapted, they were taken first and foremost from the mid-60s…and ergo accurately represent Batman as he existed at the time.
HI DIDDLE RIDDLE/SMACK IN THE MIDDLE is an adaptation of The Remarkable Ruse of the Riddler, May 1965.
FINE FEATHERED FINKS/PENGUIN’S A JINX was based on Partners in Plunder, April 1965.
DEATH IN SLOW MOTION/THE RIDDLER’S FALSE NOTION from The Joker’s Comedy Capers, July 1965 (Joker changed to Riddler).
ZELDA THE GREAT/A DEATH WORSE THAN FATE from The Inescapable Doom Trap, December 1965.
Only three stories, one Joker, one Mr. Freeze and one Mad Hatter, were taken from the 50s. [False Face, as well.] One Riddler and one Joker (changed to Riddler in the show) story originated in the 40s.
I should note that people often lay the blame for the Adam West version on the 1950′s.
I really don’t get people who around the time the Nolan movies came out claimed that Nolan’s Batman was taking Batman “back to his roots” and correcting “misconceptions” about the world of Batman comics that were supposedly created by the 60s TV show. The 60s TV show was far more loyal to the actual comics than Nolan’s movies were! Many of the first season episodes were specifically adapted from scripts from the comics! Written by Batman’s co-creator to boot.
More from Count Karnstein:
This is why Batman ’66 was the pinnacle of superhero movies. It didn’t worry about audiences being jaded.
It didn’t say “Oh god, one more long white beard and we’ve hit the Arbitrary Audience Limit and it’ll tank!”.
It didn’t say “Oh, we need ‘realistic’ (if you’re a BMX biker) costumes because people will break into peals of malicious, derogatory laughter if we put them in spandex!”
It didn’t say “Oh good gosh, we need to tone down those bright colors!”
It didn’t say “Oh, that’s just not a believable origin/power/story. We need to alter it so that jaded adults will ‘buy’ it.”
It didn’t say “Nope, no blond villains because the villain will overshadow the good guys, since blonds are always heroes!”
No. None of that stupid nonsense. It said “Let’s take Batman out of the comics and put him on the screen.”
And finally, it’s not a matter of opinion that the Batman movie got it right and got it “more right” than any other superhero movie. Every other superhero movie since, including Superman ’79 [sic] and all the more recent ones have changed the costumes, the origins, and the characters, have warped events from how they occurred in the comics, have changed the essence of most of the characters, etc.
Like it or not, Batman 1966 is the only superhero movie that had the balls to literally take the comic book and put it on the big screen without having to tamper with it or fuss over whether Joe Simpleton (not a slight at you, Joe, that’s my alternate name for the great masses of stupid audiences, formerly known as Joe Sixpack, as you probably remember) could “understand” it. It unashamedly, unapologetically put the real Batman on the big screen and said “This is Batman as he is in the comics. If you don’t like it, tough ****.”
Batman 1966 did not:
Change the characters’ names to “avoid alliteration”
Change the characters’ costumes to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ origins to be more “sophisticated”
Change the characters’ powers to be more “realistic”
Change the characters’ natures in order to fit some dip**** director’s “vision”
So yeah, there can be no denying it. Batman 1966 was by far the most faithful and most literal comic book adaptation ever put on film.
It amazes me when people make that claim while the proof is undeniable and un-contestable. Batman the movie and the tv show was totally faithful to the comics of the day and to the comics as they were for a decade before and after. That’s historical fact that only a pathological denier could refuse to believe. Compare the dates on the comics with the tv show. It is beyond question that I am right on that. [The TV show adapted stories published in 1965, the year before.]
Compares 1966 film to antecedent comics
Like I said before, Batman 1966 is the single most accurate comic book movie ever made. If you look at all the changes other movies made to the characters’ origins, powers, costumes, etc, only the 1966 Batman comes close to a literal translation on screen. Every other movie is merely derivative.
Did Dozier just hate the Batman character and have a vendetta against him? What, he loved the Green Hornet, so he created a serious show for him, while he had nothing but contempt for Batman, so it was “ridicule city” in that matter? Please! Dozier was bringing the characters to the screen in the manner in which they had been portrayed in the comics. Was there ever a silly, absurd, ridiculous Green Hornet comic book? If so, it’s escaped my attention for the better part of 40 years. Did we ever see a Caveman Green Hornet or a Green Hornet in a rainbox/zebra/dayglo red suit? Did we ever see Green Hornet being drowned in a giant gravy boat or being chased by aliens and dinosaurs? Was there ever an Ace the Green Hornet Dog? How about a Hornet-Mite?
No? I didn’t think so. There’s your answer. It’s literally that simple. Dozier was taking characters and putting them on the screen. Green Hornet was always played straight and serious in the comics/strips/radio, so he was done that way for tv [just as Joe Friday from Dragnet appeared on a deadpan radio show and then transitioned to television]. Batman was as absurd, silly, goofy, and ridiculous as anything else that has ever appeared in comics, and so that’s how he appeared on-screen.
Mr. Derek Crabbe has a video detailing this situation:
Good post. A lot of people under estimate just how loyal to the comics the 1966 Batman show was.
I love that show. A cult classic.
Yes the show was true to some comics at the time but the tone wasn't the true original depiction of Batman. So it's a weird thing. The silver-age is one thing but that kind of goofiness we got on the show was a far cry from the first few years of his inception. And a far cry to what became of the Bat when the 70's/80's rolled around. So it might be a lot more loyal to its era of comics while Batman Returns wasn't loyal to anything really...but at least 1992's version was a dark depiction which should be the first thing any Batman fan would ask for.
There's a lot of goofy stuff in the 50s and 60s and if Adam Wests take on Batman took from those stories...fine....but those goofy stories weren't the original intention of the character. Neither were the sci-fi stories and team-ups with various superheroes. It all happened and it's cool but Batman was meant to be a dark, tragic, serious character who battles dark criminals in Gotham City. That's why people ignore the fact that West might have been close to certain comics. They may see the source material as ridiculous.
True. Batman Returns was just as campy as Batman Forever but it was like a really dark comedy. I think the change in look is what threw people off when Forever came around, but the material was no different. People exaggerated too much.
Unpopular opinion; but I think there was better Batman material in Batman Forever than there was in Returns. All that stuff with Bruce struggling with the nightmares of his parents death, the giant bat coming at him in the cave, how he connected with Dick and related their tragedies, the scenes with Chase and how he explains how conflicted he is etc.
I thought all of this was good stuff and more material than Keaton had to work with in Returns.
The key difference being that in BR Bruce's arc had some real payoff while in BF it really didn't. That may be no fault of Schumacher himself but the fault of the studio because they mandated that key scenes be removed yet the fact still remains the same.
Bruce Wayne's internal struggle in BF is pretty ineffective because it comes across as an afterthought in the movie due to how shoddily explored it all is in the final cut. In Burton's movie it at least feels more like there is a beginning, middle and end to his internal struggle because the exploration of it all is much more dominant in the film.