BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

Herr Logan · May 19, 2006

Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More
From
BATMAN

This thread is a spin-off of the original Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More from the Misc. Comics Films forum. That thread was open to the discussion of all superhero properties, and I have branched out into several property-specific ones so we can better keep track of peoples posts and have more linear and organized discussions about each superhero property.

Listed below are several posts links from the original Haven that pertain to the subject of this particular thread. It is not a complete list, and anyone who wants to link or re-post something they thought was interesting is welcome to do so.
I recommend reading these posts before posting your own ideas, but its not a requirement.
I ask that while people can respectfully point it out, they not act harshly when a user makes a new post that contains material that is similar to what has already been posted in either the original Haven or this particular thread.

This thread, like its predecessor, is dedicated to the brainstorming and discussion of ideas pertaining to how faithful and optimally entertaining superhero movie adaptations could have, or still could, be made. This is also a place for analyzing what has come before and how that could be a basis for ideal film adaptations of the various superhero properties we know and love, more closely based on the source material. The topic of this thread is the Batman.

I think certain movies already made could be taken as a basis for fully faithful adaptations, as in a large portion of a particular movie could be left mostly the way it is with specific alterations to what held that movie back from being better. Even some of the obvious changes to the various mythos could be used to enhance the story or execution of an adaptation that could still be considered faithful by discriminating, analytical and demanding fans. If there hasnt been a movie made of the superhero(es) discussed in this thread, then ignore the last two sentences.
I want to discuss the theoretical possibilities present in both the original source material and the existing adaptations, and how those could be put into new productions that completely nail both the "spirit" and the essential details of these mythologies. Plots, script, character traits, costumes, even casting decisions are open for discussion. This is ultimately for the purpose of creative discussions for their own sake, although I would be delighted if it inspired high-quality, faithful fan scripts beings written (Dragon has written some excellent Spider-Man screenplays, for example).

All other non-comics media are valid topics as well (live action and animated TV series, video games, etc.). Again, it's fine to use ideas from existing products (casting, plot elements, dialogue, props/effects, etc.) as a basis or part of an idea for a "new" product if the new product would be significantly more faithful, even though it would be implausible for a rebooted franchise (a la "Batman Begins") to include these same elements in reality; reality is mostly irrelevant here.
It is unlikely that these ideas will lead to a better movie being made; not unless one of the thread participants ends up being a big-time producer or someone important in the business reads this thread. This is for us, the fans. We spend a good deal of time on the Hype, and it really doesn't accomplish much in terms of tangible results anyway. That's okay, since the point of this forum, presumably, is for the purpose of imparting information, critiquing superhero products, and discussing ideas. This is for people who are intelligent, imaginative, and passionate and have ideas to share conforming to the stated topic.

Ground Rules:

If you believe that the movie adaptations already made are perfect or good enough and do not need revision or analysis, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so be on your way and dont intrude where you have nothing to offer. Do not waste our time with conformist platitudes. Do not come in here and defend film decisions that are considered flaws by contributing posters, unless you have another aspect in mind that does need changing and post an equal or greater portion of text discussing a criticism or suggesting an idea for an existing or hypothetical product that is very faithful to the source material.

Were here to talk amongst ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with the spirit of this thread is in no way obligated to read any of the content herein or reply. Any of the behavior I described above that occurs here is trolling, pure and simple. This thread isnt about argument and hostility. The only personal criticism that should occur is that which is directed toward the producers (meaning anyone involved in the production in any way) of preexisting superhero products, and even that should be kept reasonably limited, since everyone who truly belongs in this thread is assumed to have some level of disagreement with said producers, sometimes to the point of resentment. We need not spend excessive time on blaming them for their failings, but dont hold back your true feelings on those screw-ups either. Disagreement between rule-abiding posters is fine. Just keep it civil and within the guidelines. Or else.
Nobody is allowed to use terms like fanboy, nerd, purist, hater, or anything like that in a derogatory manner toward other posters or comic fans in general in this thread. The word "whining" and the like-- unless used with regard to a character in a movie, comic book or TV show (ex. Spider-Man was quite the whiner...)is forbidden, as is nitpicking, and anything else intended to bully anyone into complacency and acceptance of existing products. The phrase impossible standards and anything to the effect of movies and comics are different mediums, so there have to be changes, the general audience will not accept the same things comics fans will, and people want to see realism, if not accompanied by a massive amount of faithful and potentially marketable ideas meant to compensate or work around these alleged facts, are also strictly forbidden.

It is okay to suggest minor deviations from the source material for this topic, as long as the majority of the ideas you put forthor are simply replying to and agree withare consistent with the source material and/or significantly more faithful than previous existing adaptations.

Do not belittle classic superhero or villain costumes. Do not use the word "panties" to describe those shorts that some heroes wear over their tights. It's fine to describe a costume as "tights" as long as they actually are and you aren't belittling anything. It's not okay to use the word "Spandex" to describe a costume from the comics that is not actually made of it, unless you're suggesting that Spandex, Lycra, etc. be used in the production of the movie, or maybe suggesting Neoprene or something else over it. Using the term "gay" in any derogatory sense whatsoever in this thread will result in an immediate report to a moderator, without warning, whether or not you've read this.

Again, its okay to disagree with a persons criticism of a movie if you have another one to share, but do not post remarks about an existing or real-life upcoming film if you have no significant complaints about any of the productions being discussed.

I hope the guidelines are clear. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment, as long as they follow the rules and dont make any criticisms that are not relevant to the thread. You either belong here or you dont, and that choice is up to you , so have respect enough to let the environment herein reflect the title of this thread.
Anyone who violates the rules or causes trouble will be promptly reported.

Thank you for your cooperation.

It is recommended, but not strictly required, that you supply a unique title at the beginning of each new post, especially when it isnt a reply to anothers post. This will help in identifying the topic of each new post at a glance and finding specific posts with the Hypes search engine. You can resend older posts in the appropriate thread and add titles to them.

Examples:

Hunter Riders Iron Man concept #1
Herr Logans Batman: Dark Knight Detective video game,
Everymans Captain America movie series concept #1
Zevs Daredevil TV Show concept
Logan & Zaphods Batman movie series concept.

Bathead · May 19, 2006

I'm glad this thread was started. I can't help but feel that live-media producers seem to want to put their own stamp on Superhero properties, to make them "Theirs", sometimes to the detriment of the character. I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it. All I ever see is (specifically in these batman forums) comments like "No Undies, the Dead-End or any other 'faithful to the comics suit', looks silly, no fantastic villians like Clayface or Freeze,The Joker should wear make-up ,and wear a black trenchcoat", and any other number of change and complaints about the source material, make me wince. I see absolutely *NO* reason you couldn't make a movie that isn't faithful and yet still be a compelling story, although I don't mind minor changes.
For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the Batsuit for the sequel be a mix of the suit as seen in Begins and as it is in the comics, but it seems that for some there is no compromise at all. I don't know. It can be quite frustrating.

Herr Logan · May 20, 2006

Bathead said:
I'm glad this thread was started. I can't help but feel that live-media producers seem to want to put their own stamp on Superhero properties, to make them "Theirs", sometimes to the detriment of the character. I can never understand this contention that "the movies and comics are two different mediums" and I have yet to see any convincing arguments to prove it. All I ever see is (specifically in these batman forums) comments like "No Undies, the Dead-End or any other 'faithful to the comics suit', looks silly, no fantastic villians like Clayface or Freeze,The Joker should wear make-up ,and wear a black trenchcoat", and any other number of change and complaints about the source material, make me wince. I see absolutely *NO* reason you couldn't make a movie that isn't faithful and yet still be a compelling story, although I don't mind minor changes.
For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the Batsuit for the sequel be a mix of the suit as seen in Begins and as it is in the comics, but it seems that for some there is no compromise at all. I don't know. It can be quite frustrating.

Welcome to the Haven, Bathead.

About that "no undies" thing, I have a fairly airtight (and trademarked, dammit!) argument for why there not only could but should be trunks included in a movie Batman costume. It would be a garment that has a rappelling harness sewn into it, making it just like a webbing harness but easier to take on and off without any tangling and such.
Also, the "shorts" part of it is extra Kevlar armor protection. There's a lot of stuff to protect in that area of the body-- it's a hub for major blood vessels, it's where the hipbones are, and of course the Wayne family "jewels."
You absolutely cannot hook a grapnel gun to a belt and have that belt safely, much less comfortably, support a 240 lb. man's weight while he's hanging from a jumpline. You'd tear his freakin' torso in two pieces eventually. You need to add support, and that's where the harness comes in. Police officers have a trouser belt that loops through their pants and a utility belt that attaches to the trouser belt with snap-on straps called "keepers." This is also basically how the Batman's trunks-harness would attach to his utility belt (assuming the belt was the pouched version, although I'm sure there's a way to modify the ultra high-tech aluminum version featured in 'Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight' so it works there, too), with the "trouser belt" type strap running through a thick waistband on the harness.

Nobody has ever made an intelligent argument against my proposal (the one time somebody did attempt to refute it, he said, "No, undies are stupid")
The only argument I can imagine being the least bit valid here is that there isn't a practical need for the trunks to be black while the bodysuit is gray. This could be refuted with some explanation that the bodysuit is a one-of-a-kind prototype and he can only color that dark, but no. The Batman doesn't use a one-of-a-kind prototype, and certainly would never do so in my ideal movie. The Batman creates multiple suits so he has plenty when he uses them up one by one. They are all fireproof and lightly armored. Frankly, I don't care whether people protest against using dark gray and black instead of all black, because those people are just ashamed that they like superheroes. To hell with them and their unforgivable cowardice. Dark gray can be stealthy, and anyone who thinks that the Batman isn't trying to be seen is a useless, pathetic simpleton. You don't dress like the Batman does unless you want attention, period. If that was the case, there would be no bat-ears, no cape, no gimmicks. This is what the Batman is, and people should either accept it like grown-ups or stop lying about being fans.

Okay, gettin' a little ranty there (that happens a lot). Anyway, I'm actually really surprised that they haven't used the trunks-harness idea in the comics already, much less a movie that has tasteless lies about "realism" (yeah, that microwave emmitter was so "realistic," the way it didn't dehydrate the people in its vicinity or even make the steam it created hot enough to scald anyone). Everything else in the Batman's costume has a practical use (the bodysuit is armored and fireproof, the ears have directional microphone antennae, the mask has nightvision and thermal vision lenses, the tips of the cape scallops have small lead weights for offensive maneuvers, etc.), so why not the trunks?

I also had an idea for the yellow ellipse behind the bat-insignia. It could be a hard armored plate that looks dark gray like the rest of the bodysuit but lights up brightly when activated. This could be used to draw attention, and then it promptly switches off and there's darkness again. It could possibly even blind enemies. Just a thought. I would use this in the third movie or later, probably, of the hypothetical series I've been discussing in the original Safe Haven thread.

Yes, there is absolutely no reason why you can't make a superhero movie that is both faithful and compelling. Not if you actually wanted to. The idea that the Joker can't act like the Joker is just plain disgusting. He either is flamboyant, wisecracking and over-the-top, or he is not the Joker. There is no compromise there. The Joker has always been an attention ****e, and he has never been a serial killer. Anyone who thinks he is a serial killer doesn't know the definition. The closest definition there is for the kind of criminal the Joker is is some combination of spree killer and mass murderer. He does not stab people in back alleys and sneak around like a mysterious ghost. Not as a rule. When he attacks or torments people, he is almost always in the spotlight, in front of lots of people and in an extravagant style. Anyone who says different either has solid proof that there are a large number of examples that contradict this, or they are liars, plain and simple. I'm not even an expert on the Batman mythos and I know this is true. I know enough about the Batman and the Joker and criminology to know that this "realism" nonsense these anti-source material, pro-studio apologists keep spouting is absolute bull$hit. There's nothing unrealistic about the Joker. Why? Because one, it's a fantasy universe, and two, he's insane. Period. The only things that are unrealistic about him are the logistical issues like how he continually aquires enough money to pull off the things he does and how he keeps cheating death. But if anyone has an argument against those, they better damn well openly condemn the microwave emmiter in 'Batman Begins,' Magneto's mutant-making machine in 'X-Men' and everything related to Movie!Ock's fusion machine in 'Spider-Man 2.' If you're not harshly critical of those things, then you have no grounds to call anything "unrealistic." That's me not even getting into the fact that superhero stories in any medium don't need to be overly "realistic." That's not even relevant, especially not in a thread where that fact is assumed.

Anyway, that's my rant for tonight. I apologize for how long-winded it was. I was just waiting all day for someone to post, and it all came spilling out.

Thanks again for posting. :up:

Bathead · May 20, 2006

Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names. And I kinda wished Nolan had used a word other than "realistic" when trying to explain his approach to "Begins", it's allowed too many to use that as an excuse to change things to suit their taste.
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.
And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.
Just to clarify one more time, I'm not totally against minor variations, as long as they don't change fundamental aspects of the mythos. Although I would prefer a more "comics-correct" costume, the One in Begins was just fine, but for the next movies I would like to see it evolve into a form closer to the comics. Same goes for the Batmobile , as cool as that was. I would just like to see the Batman that I've been reading for about 44 years to be brought to the screen the way I've known him. What's the harm in that?

Herr Logan · May 20, 2006

Bathead said:
Yah, I know how you feel. I can't help but feel that if all the changes some people want were to be done, the only things that would remain familiar would be the names. And I kinda wished Nolan had used a word other than "realistic" when trying to explain his approach to "Begins", it's allowed too many to use that as an excuse to change things to suit their taste.
Too many people want to change too much that is integral to the character of Batman and his world. Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film.
And as far as these forums on the Hype goes, I feel that some folk just don't get Batman and could give a crap about the comics, which, in my estimation, is just worng. That's where Batman was "born" and to ignore them is to disrespect the charcters and their creators.
Just to clarify one more time, I'm not totally against minor variations, as long as they don't change fundamental aspects of the mythos. Although I would prefer a more "comics-correct" costume, the One in Begins was just fine, but for the next movies I would like to see it evolve into a form closer to the comics. Same goes for the Batmobile , as cool as that was. I would just like to see the Batman that I've been reading for about 44 years to be brought to the screen the way I've known him. What's the harm in that?

44 years? Jeez, how old are you?? You know, other than "older than [me]."

I'm also amenable to certain minor changes, and I find it far more interesting to find ways to support the presence of details from the source material with practical uses (bring out the "realism," as some call it), than to reject them for something much more bland, or just alien to the mythos. In terms of creativity, I was almost lucky they didn't explain those shorts the Batman wears, because everything else he uses has been explained as having some sort of practical purpose.

Going to what you said about a more faithful Batmobile, even the bat-fins on his car serve a purpose. They let people know whose car it is, as well as the fact that he's not in this as a hobby; he makes every piece of equipment look bat-line because he's dedicated his life to fighting criminals in the guise of a bat, and whether jaded fans think that's silly or whatever, what it means to criminals in the Batman's reality is that he's an absolute fanatic and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Another poster here and I have been sort of informally collaborating on a series of Batman movies that would start with an origin (a blend of 'The Man Who Falls' and 'Year One') and would "replace" the current actual franchise. There's no way they're going to do a "Year One" type story now, but this is all imagination anyway.
I liked 'Batman Begins' a good deal, but it could have been better. Moreover, the basic attitude behind the franchise is wrong. Jonathan Crane almost didn't even wear a mask at all in the movie, all because of this hypocritical and artificial fixation on "realism." Hell, I'm very much in favor of making superhero stories more plausible, as long as it doesn't weaken the core elements of the mythos, and by "core elements," I'm including all the various details that stand out. The Batman is a relatively unique character in any capacity, but other superheroes especially have been watered down so much in movies in recent years (Spider-Man and Wolverine as blatant examples). If you strip away the details, mannerisms and distinctive clothing of a character, you destroy that character and replace it with an archetype, and that's simply not right. Not on an artistic level, anyway. Wolverine is awesome, but a generic badass archetype without the distinctive speech and movement patterns is a dime a dozen. Spider-Man is amazing, but a humorless, mute, childish, romantic idiot in a Spider-Man costume is an embarrassment to the superhero genre. The Batman is a truly awe-inspiring character, but an aspiring hero who yearns to live a normal life, isn't interested in random street crimes at all and doesn't wear his costume for most of his screentime (after the costume is first used, anyway) simply is not the Batman.

I actually blame Frank Miller in part for making it so easy for writers today to stray from the Batman's core methods. He made him far more political in nature and far less of a hardboiled detective. Yes, the Batman is a political symbol of sorts, but he isn't primarily about inspiring good people to do good things (that's what the Bruce Wayne persona is for, and that's a complex issue, considering Bruce Wayne is widely seen as a somewhat useless person, despite his philanthropy). He's about inspiring criminals not to leave the house if they've got evil on their minds, because even if they commit a crime and get away from the scene, he'll find out what they did, track them to where they're hiding, and exact a revenge on them that they can't avoid. Yes, "dark and gritty" are good traits for the Batman, but so many people seem to have no clue as to what kind of darkness suits the Batman, as opposed to other characters. Some figure to make him as violent as possible, lots of people think the Joker should be someone who kills with every breath he takes and that there needs to be a personal vendetta between the two to make it poignant. I say that the real "darkness" is in the psychology of the Batman and his enemies. This is something that Tim Burton attempted to capitalize on and did so rather well in some ways. While the scene between Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale in the Batcave wasn't very riveting, it did get the point across, why Bruce does what he does. "This is how it is. It's not a perfect world." That needs further development, I think, but that's a succinct summary of his character. He's a resigned, obsessive control freak who can't change his "destiny " (as he sees it, anyway) even if he wanted to. He isn't like other people, and anyone who thinks he needs to have another loved on killed for him to dedicate himself to taking down a criminal (but not kill them, dammit, because he doesn't do that, and no, Movie!R'as dying at the end of 'Begins' doesn't count as intentional or unintentional homicide by any legal definition whatsoever) simply doesn't know the character. It doesn't matter who the victim is, what matters is that people are getting hurt, the Batman won't stand for it, and he's going to use his brains to resolve the situation as best he can.

One thing that makes it difficult to judge what is "faithful" and what isn't is that the Batman is one of the characters who have changed the most over the decades (in terms of being the same person, not several people holding one title, such as the Green Lantern Corps or the various Flashes). Still, there's one thing that has never changed-- the Batman is a detective who dresses in an outlandish bat motif to inspire fear in criminals. Even the campy versions of the Batman were heavily focused on detection as the most valuable weapon against crime (which is admittedly very reactive, but I suppose they're operating on the assumption that deterrence is an effective strategy). Frank Miller and those who follow his lead didn't ruin the Batman, but he didn't put nearly as much emphasis on the detective work as they should have. In 'Year One,' the only one who seems to do detective work is James Gordon. At least he got the whole theatrical thing down, though, with floodlights, pyrotechnics and cryptic speeches whispered at criminals.

Oy, more ranting. What a week it's been. Thanks for this quote, by the way: "Any talented filmmaker worth his salt would be able to stick close to the source material and still make an excellent film." It's goin' in my signature.

Herr Logan · May 21, 2006

Bathead · May 21, 2006

Well, Logan, real quick, I'm 52, been reading Batman since I was about 7 or 8, (pre-Adam West).
And thanks for the sig quote, it's the first (and probably only) time that's happened to me!

Herr Logan · May 21, 2006

Bathead said:
Well, Logan, real quick, I'm 52, been reading Batman since I was about 7 or 8, (pre-Adam West).
And thanks for the sig quote, it's the first (and probably only) time that's happened to me!

52? No wonder you're so learned and wise. Guess I don't have to school you on anything Batman-related.

As for the quote, what can I say-- it was extremely sig-worthy. I'm not very succinct, usually, so when someone makes a brief statement that speaks volumes about something I'm likely to talk about again, I try to use it. :up:

Some questions:

What "versions" of the Batman do you prefer the most (as in either/both comics incarnations through the years and/or non-comics media)?

Which villains would you use in a Batman film franchise?

Would you use Robin, and if so, how would you implement that?

Thanks for posting.

:wolverine

Bathead · May 21, 2006

Well, let's see...
No one particular Batman version, but even though I started on and enjoyed the more kid-friendly Batman of the early 60's (which frankly, to me as an 8-year old boy, the stories weren't as silly as a lot of modern fans think), I much prefer the modern more serious take, as even back in the 60's I used to think he could be a really cool serious character. As far as other media than the comics, I would say Begins is the Batman movie I've been waiting for for over forty years, surpassing my previous fave, Batman '89. It, along with BTAS, are what I consider the most faithful renditions of the character, and I'm kinda liking The Batman cartoon too, not as good as BTAS , but neither is it as bad as some think.
Villians? Well, pretty much any of the well-known rogue's gallery (except Bane, not a fan). And I'm not opposed to seeing some of the more fantastic villians like Man-bat , Clayface and the like. This whole slavishness to the rather vague concept of "realism", is perhaps keeping us from some really good stories. I think Nolan could do any of them justice. I'm especially looking forward to see his version of the Joker.
As far as Robin goes ... well, sorry but I've never liked the character even when I was a kid. Even back then I knew Robin was strictly a gimmick to give it's young readers someone to identify with, basically saying "Wouldn't it be cool if *you* were Robin and got to hang around with Batman?" I never bought into that because my response to that would have been "No, it would be *much* cooler if I was Batman himself." I could do without Robin.

Herr Logan · May 21, 2006

Personally, I wouldn't use Clayface or the Man-Bat, only because I don't feel they're important enough to the mythos (or cool enough) to warrant a spot in the movies, since there's limited room for major characters in the movie format. It's got nothing to do with "realism" or whatever.

I would try to keep the overall tone of my ideal Batman franchise somewhat "down to earth," but only to create a noirish/hardboiled detective/gritty crime drama atmosphere that can be frequently elevated by the more outlandish occurences of the Batman universe.
I would never water down a major villain just to appease people who are ashamed to be so-called "fans" of sci-fi/fantasty superhero themes. My version of the Joker would be very much like Jack Nicholson's rendition in 'BATMAN,' except without the pre-clownface mob history; Mark Hammil's animated incarnation would actually be the model for behavior.
The Penguin, although not personally involved in armed robberies when first introduced in the first movie, would utilize weapons disguised as umbrellas and trained birds. He just isn't the Penguin without the umbrellas, period. Also, I think the whole hidden firearms thing should be a subplot in itself, considering how useful that could be for former convicted felons who aren't legally allowed to carry guns.
The Riddler, while not as flamboyant and inexplicably giddy as some past incarnations, would wear a green suit with prominent question marks, a bowler hat and carry a question-mark cane (possibly with hidden firearm or cutting blade, courtesy of the Penguin's supplier... it's a small world afterall).
Two-Face would damn well wear a suit that has two separate designs on each side, regardless of what studio apologists think of that.

In terms of the villains that many so-called "fans" on here deem "unrealistic," I think Mr. Freeze is definitely one I'd want to use (and do it properly). I didn't realize until recently that it was the Animated Series that created the current incarnation used in the comics, but however it happened, that character would be great in a movie.

Herr Logan · May 22, 2006

I'd actually have the third film sort of "redo" 'Batman Forever,' just in terms of which characters are prominent. I'd have Two-Face and the Riddler be the primary supervillains, and introduce Robin. I think the concept of Robin could be very useful and provide a vehicle for exploring other facets of the Batman's personality having to do with his views on his mortality, his views on grief and purpose, etc. It would also continue the theme of the Batman exploring his ability to connect to other human beings for real instead of as an act in the Bruce Wayne facade. In the first movie, the Batman would learn to work with others (Harvey Dent and James Gordon). In the second movie, he'd experiment with a real romantic relationship as opposed to his usual womanizing public facade (with both the Selena Kyle and Catwoman personas). In the third movie, he'd take it upon himself to guide another person in similar circumstances as himself and try to keep him from becoming as emotionally disassociated as himself. Perhaps the missing piece there would be that Dick Grayson will have Alfred Pennyworth from whom to learn how humans should act, and the Batman from whom to learn how to channel one's grief-inspired antisocial tendencies into something constructive. That balance leaves him more human than Bruce Wayne, who couldnt relate to other humans on an emotional level beyond a certain degree, all the way through adulthood.

I should make it clear, if I haven't already, that Dick Grayson would be a teenager when his parents die, not a college-age punk with an attitude like in 'Batman Forever.' He'll be taken in because he's not of legal age to be independent and social services would prefer he have a home that isn't the circus.

I'm really into the psychological aspects of these characters and I think there's a lot of themes to explore in a movie series. Unfortunately, real movies are made by people who somehow think that a superfluous romance and precious few moments in costume actually develop an interesting character. They do not. The Batman should be in costume for more than half of his screentime from the moment he first dons it. The Bruce Wayne persona isn't all the interesting in and of itself, and I would show the audience more or less definitively that he isn't capable of existing independently of the Batman by the end of the second movie. Yeah, I'd have Bruce and Selena Kyle make an earnest attempt at a relationship, but that's not the same as throwing in a half-assed, tacked on love interest like Rachel Dawes or whatever. Bruce would discover that Selena is Catwoman, and while each corresponding indentity between the two people have chemistry with each other (Bruce with Selena, Batman with Catwoman), the Batman's code of ethics stands between them and through his judgements, ends up chasing Catwoman-- and thus Selena-- away. So it's basically an interrupted process, yielding no certain results, but rather than attempt to fix things with Catwoman, he decides it's too much work and therefore too much of a distraction from what is really important in his life-- fighting crime, saving lives, and generally being perpetually prepared for every potential tactical situation.

Man, that went all over the place, didn't it?

I also wanted to clarify that when I said I wanted to keep an overall "down to earth tone" overall, that only refers to most of the non-vigilante and non-villain characters. That sets up a contrast between the different types of characters, making the Batman and his supervillains seem even more impressive. I would not inhibit physical or creative aspects of the characters to satisfy the ignorant masses of anti-fans' banal desire to see a "realistic" Batman story. If it was realistic, it wouldn't be Batman, plain and simple.

Also, Bathead, I'd be glad to hear your ideas for how you'd implement Clayface and the Man-Bat or whoever else you'd want to see in a movie. I was just stating my personal preference earlier, which wasn't meant to get in your way.
My preference also differs from yours in that I do like Bane. He's impressive to me because he's smarter than a lot of the Batman's other villains.

Bathead · May 22, 2006

Well, Clayface and Man-Bat were only examples of the more fanastic members of the Rogue's gallery, I probably wouldn't use them for the same reasons you state. As to other villians, I pretty much agree with your ideas. I was watching Batman Beyond : Return of the Joker, I think that would be a good direction to go in, That Joker came across very creepy and evil. I still like the idea of Penguin being a high-society wannabe, who commits bird themed crimes to finance his climb up the social ladder, using of course his trademark trick umbrellas. Riddler, I always looked at as a real intellectual challenge for Bats, unfortunately I don't feel any of the incarnations presented in any movies or TV shows have gotten that right yet. Two-Face can be a nicely tragic character if done right. I'll be interested in how Nolan treats him.
I hate to end with a simple "me too", but pretty much everything else you've said as to how Batman should be brought to the screen jibes with my feelings.

Herr Logan · May 22, 2006

Bathead said:
Well, Clayface and Man-Bat were only examples of the more fanastic members of the Rogue's gallery, I probably wouldn't use them for the same reasons you state. As to other villians, I pretty much agree with your ideas. I was watching Batman Beyond : Return of the Joker, I think that would be a good direction to go in, That Joker came across very creepy and evil. I still like the idea of Penguin being a high-society wannabe, who commits bird themed crimes to finance his climb up the social ladder, using of course his trademark trick umbrellas. Riddler, I always looked at as a real intellectual challenge for Bats, unfortunately I don't feel any of the incarnations presented in any movies or TV shows have gotten that right yet. Two-Face can be a nicely tragic character if done right. I'll be interested in how Nolan treats him.
I hate to end with a simple "me too", but pretty much everything else you've said as to how Batman should be brought to the screen jibes with my feelings.

A "me too" is okay if you're agreeing with me. Being right is gratifying, isn't it?

So you didn't think the Riddler from the Batman Animated Series got it right? I agree that it needed improvement, but I would say that's the best non-comics version I've seen so far. John Glover was a great choice for voice-acting, and I would use the same sort of calm, smug demeanor for him in a movie.

Honestly, I don't expect Nolan to get anything right this next time around, after hearing that one major theme of the movie is that Bruce Wayne is the dominant persona instead of the Batman (wrong!), and that the Joker will have a "small and mysterious" part in the movie. That's completely off base, and anyone who says that the Joker should ever be portrayed as a shadowy spectre instead of a spectacular, flamboyant histrionic simply doesn't know the character at all. The Joker doesn't do "small and mysterious," period. He's mysterious as far as his original identity and a few of his more exceptional methods (aquiring weaponry, cheating death), but never in his M.O. He doesn't lurk in the shadows much of the time or stab people randomly, and again, anyone who thinks otherwise is full of $hit. We're talking about a hideous blend of personality disorders (narcissistic, histrionic and antisocial, for starters) that do not lend him to subtle or stealthy behavior. He's an entertainer in his own mind, and you don't entertain people by hiding. Then again, you don't usually entertain people by killing them, but that's beside the point.

I don't know what they're doing with Two-Face. I just know that one big reason they're going to have the Joker throw acid in his face instead of Sal Maroni is that Goyer and Nolan obviously either had no ability or no desire to present a plausible and well-constructed organized crime plot. A real Mafia boss would never be caught at the scene of a drug smuggling operation, and especially not Carmine Falcone. If they can't get Falcone right, they sure as hell aren't going to set up an even remotely complex underworld structure with rival bosses, much less lead the story to where Maroni would be maneuvered into testifying against Falcone and then attacking Dent in court. No, they chose to make Falcone inherently stupid and extremely unrealistic and then make him insane.
In my Batman movie concept, there's a real organized crime structure in Gotham and Harvey Dent is fighting it from the very first movie. None of this Rachel Dawes crap or unspeakably weak Mafia bosses that personally oversee serious felonies in progress.

:wolverine

Bathead · May 23, 2006

I wouldn't worry yet Logan, All these reports about the Joker's screen time and the rest about the sequel are mere rumors at this point.

Herr Logan · May 23, 2006

Bathead said:
I wouldn't worry yet Logan, All these reports about the Joker's screen time and the rest about the sequel are mere rumors at this point.

Only the Power of Negative Thinking can help make the next Batman movie decent (or at least as decent as the previous one).

You see, the Universe seeks to disappoint me, but also to prove me wrong, and if I assume the worst, I can't be disappointed and proving me wrong would mean yielding a happy surprise. It's a good system.

Seriously, when these people perpetually mouth off about "realism" and such nonsense, I can only assume that they'll act on their wrong-headed desires to strip the mythos of its fantastic elements, even if the result isn't acually realistic at all (Carmine Falcone; the microwave emmitter).

:wolverine

Bathead · May 23, 2006

Well, I heard they wanted to do a take on a 1957 Batman Comics story where Batman and Robin travel to a distant planet where Batman becomes the alien's king, entitled "King Batman the First."
Of course I'm kidding. BTW, that's an actual story.

Herr Logan · May 23, 2006

Bathead said:
Well, I heard they wanted to do a take on a 1957 Batman Comics story where Batman and Robin travel to a distant planet where Batman becomes the alien's king, entitled "King Batman the First."
Of course I'm kidding. BTW, that's an actual story.

The question is, was the Joker in that 1957 planet-hopping story, and if so, was his role "small and mysterious."

Herr Logan · May 24, 2006

Okay, so I'm waiting for Zaphod's classes and exams to finish so I can get new material concerning the Batman's origin for our hypothetical movie 'The Batman.'

In the meantime, I'll outline some of the aspects that are included in this concept. Many of these sections are subject to change, and this is not complete.

Know that there will be a voiceover dialogue, from Bruce Wayne and the Batman, running over the course of the movie; if I mention story elements that "tell" the viewer information instead of "showing" it, it's because the monologue is filling in the blanks. I realize there's a general preference for "showing, not telling" in fiction, but this is a story based on comics books, and comic books have word bubbles and narrative captions, and I feel it would be remiss to neglect that. Comic books allow us to get into the heads of characters, and that's what I want in a superhero movie as well.

This movie will include an origin story that focuses on--

Bruce Wayne's childhood and early teen years, starting from the day he fell through some rotted boards covering up a hole that leads into the massive cave beneath Wayne Manor. Bruce is attacked by bats, first just one (the "omen-bat", then hundreds rush in and swirl around him. Bruce develops bat-phobia because of this. This is at age 6.
When Bruce is 8, Thomas (a philanthropist and renowned surgeon) and Martha (a social worker and activist) Wayne are murdered outside of a Park Row theater playing a special showing of 'The Mark of Zorro,' which Bruce insisted upon seeing with his parents. They were murdered at precisely 10:47pm, and Bruce remembers this.
During this length of time, Bruce is consumed with his mission to be "the best" at everything that may help him prevent, stop and avenge violent crimes like that which took his parents from him. He will train his mind and body to a great extent between the ages of 8 and 14, the only limit being those set on the basis of safety by family friend, Dr. Leslie Thompkins, and his legal guardian, Alfred Pennyworth. He becomes a young athlete and tests extremely highly on intelligence tests. During all this, he has practically no friends and spends very little time doing anything other than building his wealth of knowledge and physical skills (ex. gymnastics, martial arts).
At school, Bruce violently intervenes when one fellow student extorts another for money.
Throughout all his early life sequences, there is a strong focus on the psychology of Bruce. This raises questions in Leslie and Alfred about just how damaged Bruce became when his parents died, and how he hasn't healed from it nearly at all. Psychologists suggest the possibility that Bruce may have a schizoid personality disorder (a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings) that surfaced much earlier in life than is usual. This diagnosis is left somewhat ambiguous, but the criteria will be listed, and viewers who are paying attention may remember and identify those behaviors in the Batman when Bruce is grown. It is supposed to be ambiguous, because the Batman is anything but passive during stressful situations, and Bruce Wayne is extremely adept at faking social skills and empathy.
Bruce shows a little bit of unambiguous enjoyment when driving fast cars and motorcycles (illegally, as he's not of legal age to drive at this point).
Bruce attends college courses during his early teens, studying many subjects, including criminology, law, and various physical sciences.
"At age 14 he travelled to Europe, and spent time at Cambridge University, the Sorbonne in Paris, Berlin School of Science and a dozen other places. He spent time with the denizens of the street, learning less savoury skills. At age 20 he entered the FBI and stayed for six weeks before realizing that shuffling papers was no way to fight crime. He then travelled to the East to learn further skills.
"He learnt karate and other martials art forms from an ascended master in the Paektusan mountains of Korea. From the ninjas he learned how to use the shadows, how to use psychology to win the battle before it's even fought, the precautions to take when you make yourself a target, and how to use fear.
"He learned savate from a convicted killer living as a beach bum on an island off Borneo.He discovered the value of judo and ju-jitsu during six months in a Japanese hermitage, and learned the secrets of the tao from an old Chinese woman. He mastered a dozen disciplines, and merged them all into a style which was uniquely his."
"In Africa he learned how to read the environment for the signs of human passage - how to follow a trail to which ordinary men were blind."*
Bruce encountered a Native American tribal chief in Alaska who used wooden totem masks to empower him. He favors a bat mask, and
although it hardly looks like a real bat, the psychological transformation of the chief is powerful enough to frighten Bruce, who still suffers from bat-phobia and nightmares about being attacked by bats in the underground cave back home.
Bruce studies under renowned detectives to hone his ability to follow clues in more urban environments and use technology to aid in detection.
After 12 years of training, Bruce, now age 26, comes back to Wayne Manor in secret. He tells Alfred of his time spent abroad and about the mission that he will now actively tend to. Bruce gathers an assortment of Less-than-Lethal tactical gear (gas grenades; plastic, hollow bolas with retracting wire; grappling hooks; et all), other weaponry (shuriken, boomerang) and detection equipment (high-grade, miniaturized crime scene investigator's forensics kit), disguises his face with movie-grade makeup, puts on a bullet-proof vest and heads into Gotham City, spoiling for a fight to test his abilities. He witnesses a hooker being struck by her pimp (this is subject to change) and intervenes. An all-out brawl breaks out and drags on long enough for trigger-happy GCPD officers to arrive and get involved. Bruce is stabbed by one of the hookers (defending her scumbag pimp for some stupid reason) and shot by a cop; he is forced to retreat.
When Bruce arrives back at home, he is losing a good amount of blood and utterly despondent. In his father's study, continuing to bleed, he ponders what it is that he failed to do, failed to learn, failed to be. He cannot bear to "wait" any longer to pursue his righteous cause and he refuses to activate the intercom to summon Alfred (a trained military field medic) to patch him up until he has his answers. He recognizes that the one thing that could have tipped the scales in his favor was a more frightening presence, as "criminals tend to be a cowardly and superstitious lot." He was dressed like a man, moved like a man (albeit a highly trained one) and did not catch his adversaries off-guard with his appearance. Bruce asks his dead parents what he should do, what he should be; as if in answer, an "omen-bat" comes crashing through the window and flies around Bruce's head, terrifying him for a moment. The bat settles on the mantle beneath a large painted portrait of Thomas and Martha Wayne and seems to stare at Bruce. "A Bat. A will become a Bat." Batman is conceived right there in that room, to be born in mere days when Bruce has created a fitting appearance and persona.

More to come. Comments are welcome!

*Quoted or paraphrased from The Dark Knight: FAQs

Herr Logan · May 25, 2006

Wrong thread.

Cullen · May 26, 2006

I started this over at the original Safe Haven, but as there is a thread devoted to it here at the Batman forum, I figured I moved it over here. So as there is no confusion (and no need for linkage) I'm reposting my original, with intro. Which is as follows:

All this is currently is detailing how I would put the Joker in a first film, as cameos. While I will be forced into talking about my ideas for the film proper, bear in mind neither the film itself nor these cameoes are "set in stone", as it were. Feel free to tear it down. I won't cry.

Too much.

Ya bunch of meanies.

I'm dividing these cameos up into seperate posts so that they're easier to comment on.

Here, then, is the original post:

One: The movie opens with the criminal mastermind Red Hood and his gang being run to ground. For reasons of their own, the gang is raiding a chemical plant when Commissioner Gordon and the Gotham PD arrive to round them up. Events seem to be shaping up quite well, but Gordon has a worry. Up until this point the Batman has played an active role in handling the gang. It is more than a little odd that he isn't here for the end of things, and even odder that he doesn't seem to be the first to arrive.

For once, it turns out that Batman is a step behind Gotham's finest, but with cause. While they were setting off after Red Hood, he was verifying a troubling lead.

According to one of his sources, the Red Hood is little more than a stooge set up for the police to focus on instead of the true mastermind behind the scheme. Several people have filled the role since the gang began, usually lowly button men. This current Red Hood appears to be a comedian being blackmailed into the part.

This information is no more than given to Gordon when things start to go wrong in the plant. A massive firefight breaks out, and Batman must race inside to turn the tide.

During this fierce battle, Batman finds himself on a catwalk high above several bubbling vats. With him are the Red Hood and what seems to be a generic thug. The two are struggling and shouting, though who is acting the heavy and who is trying to get away can't be told. The Red Hood shoves the thug away from him, and the thug goes over the rails, tumbling to the floor below.

Batman calls out to the Red Hood, convinced for the moment that the man is an innocent in all of this. Whether this is true or not, the other man takes one look at the Dark Knight and runs in the other direction. Pursuit ensues.

It doesn't last long. The Red Hood discovers that he's trapped between Batman and the Gotham police. Rather than face either of them, he dives headfirst into a vat. He vanishes into the bubbling liquid and does not emerge.

I realize that, in the original story, it's Batman and Robin who corner the Red Hood. As I don't wanna deal with the Boy Wonder, I thought this would work as well.

I have hints of Alan Moore's version of things here as well, which I hope isn't too disagreeable. There's more to it than that, but for right now I thought I'd just point it out.

And no, the pun wasn't intended.

The Red Hood gang plays a large part of the story I'm considering, but the Red Hood/Joker himself does not. Next CullenBatman post expands on this. The one following that wraps up Joker's involvement in the film, as well as reveals just why I handled things like this, as well as how I think I would handle the rest of the series.

End original post. New Stuff:

I hope to get new stuff up very soon.

Herr Logan · May 26, 2006

Cullen said:
I started this over at the original Safe Haven, but as there is a thread devoted to it here at the Batman forum, I figured I moved it over here. So as there is no confusion (and no need for linkage) I'm reposting my original, with intro. Which is as follows:

All this is currently is detailing how I would put the Joker in a first film, as cameos. While I will be forced into talking about my ideas for the film proper, bear in mind neither the film itself nor these cameoes are "set in stone", as it were. Feel free to tear it down. I won't cry.

Too much.

Ya bunch of meanies.

I'm dividing these cameos up into seperate posts so that they're easier to comment on.

Here, then, is the original post:

One: The movie opens with the criminal mastermind Red Hood and his gang being run to ground. For reasons of their own, the gang is raiding a chemical plant when Commissioner Gordon and the Gotham PD arrive to round them up. Events seem to be shaping up quite well, but Gordon has a worry. Up until this point the Batman has played an active role in handling the gang. It is more than a little odd that he isn't here for the end of things, and even odder that he doesn't seem to be the first to arrive.

For once, it turns out that Batman is a step behind Gotham's finest, but with cause. While they were setting off after Red Hood, he was verifying a troubling lead.

According to one of his sources, the Red Hood is little more than a stooge set up for the police to focus on instead of the true mastermind behind the scheme. Several people have filled the role since the gang began, usually lowly button men. This current Red Hood appears to be a comedian being blackmailed into the part.

This information is no more than given to Gordon when things start to go wrong in the plant. A massive firefight breaks out, and Batman must race inside to turn the tide.

During this fierce battle, Batman finds himself on a catwalk high above several bubbling vats. With him are the Red Hood and what seems to be a generic thug. The two are struggling and shouting, though who is acting the heavy and who is trying to get away can't be told. The Red Hood shoves the thug away from him, and the thug goes over the rails, tumbling to the floor below.

Batman calls out to the Red Hood, convinced for the moment that the man is an innocent in all of this. Whether this is true or not, the other man takes one look at the Dark Knight and runs in the other direction. Pursuit ensues.

It doesn't last long. The Red Hood discovers that he's trapped between Batman and the Gotham police. Rather than face either of them, he dives headfirst into a vat. He vanishes into the bubbling liquid and does not emerge.
I realize that, in the original story, it's Batman and Robin who corner the Red Hood. As I don't wanna deal with the Boy Wonder, I thought this would work as well.

I have hints of Alan Moore's version of things here as well, which I hope isn't too disagreeable. There's more to it than that, but for right now I thought I'd just point it out.

And no, the pun wasn't intended.

The Red Hood gang plays a large part of the story I'm considering, but the Red Hood/Joker himself does not. Next CullenBatman post expands on this. The one following that wraps up Joker's involvement in the film, as well as reveals just why I handled things like this, as well as how I think I would handle the rest of the series.

End original post. New Stuff:

I hope to get new stuff up very soon.

Cullen said:

Last edited by Cullen : Today at 04:40 PM. Reason: grammarical screw up.

Click to expand...

Best go back and re-edit your editing note, Sullen.

I guess I'll have to see more from you on this before I can offer any real commentary, as I'm not seeing the big picture here, yet.

Thanks for posting and for using a post title. Hope to see more stuff from you soon. :up:

Cullen · May 26, 2006

Herr Logan said:
Best go back and re-edit your editing note, Sullen.

I guess I'll have to see more from you on this before I can offer any real commentary, as I'm not seeing the big picture here, yet.

Thanks for posting and for using a post title. Hope to see more stuff from you soon.

No, no. Let that edit remain as a monument to my inability to spell.

And here is me crawling off somewhere to die of shame.

LongDong · May 26, 2006

this is a very interesting thread!!!

Herr Logan · May 27, 2006

LongDong said:
this is a very interesting thread!!!

Thanks, LongDong.

Welcome to the Haven. :up:

MaskedManJRK · May 27, 2006

Sounds cool. I got a lot of cool ideas for these--including my version of a early-years Batman trilogy, which includes YO, TLH, DV, and other, while not exactly EARLY-years, critically acclaimed comics.

I also have an idea for an hour-long drama that is some-what my Ultimate version of Batman--and by Ultimate, I don't mean just adding swear words and fingerless gloves, I mean a massive-sprawling story featuring all the characters in a cohesive manner.

But not right now, for it is past 12 and I must sleep. Soon, my friends...soon... :batman:

BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

The Oldest Geek

Avenger

Avenger

Avenger

Sidekick

Avenger

Sidekick

Sidekick

Avenger

Superhero

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Share this page