BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[The Batman]

I'm still tryting to think of a good idea for a bat movie...

But I'll tell you this much: It wont be like begins, spending an hour on how Batman got everything. Sure, the origin, and the training will still be there, but how he built the batmobile, found the cave, etc. The thing i liked about the 1989 movie was how mysterious Batman was, and begins kinda demystified the character. Also, I feel both Batman and Superman are so ingrained in our culture that we dont need hour long origin tales.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm still tryting to think of a good idea for a bat movie...

But I'll tell you this much: It wont be like begins, spending an hour on how Batman got everything. Sure, the origin, and the training will still be there, but how he built the batmobile, found the cave, etc. The thing i liked about the 1989 movie was how mysterious Batman was, and begins kinda demystified the character. Also, I feel both Batman and Superman are so ingrained in our culture that we dont need hour long origin tales.

I know what you mean about 'demystifying' the character.

The collaboration Zaphod and I are working on would, as you probably know, spend a big chunk of time on Bruce's origin and reveal some details, but it wouldn't make a big deal over the discovery of the cave (he already knows it's there from when he was a kid, and all he needs to say is "I have wealth. The family manor rests above a huge cave that will be the perfect headquarters... even a bulter with training in combat medicine," straight from 'Year One,' of course), wouldn't show Bruce finding an already-put-together bodysuit at WayneTech (he'd order or otherwise acquire and custom-tailor all the separate components for a large stockpile of lightly armored, cloth, faithful-looking Batsuits, and wouldn't have the Batmobile handed to him on a silver platter (he'd use an luxury car as the base-- some fancy model of Infinity that my mother got recently, with GPS, keyless entry, and other cool features that befit a crimefighter-- and supe it up himself). The gas cannisters and some other gear will come from a company warehouse that ships equipment to the military.

The main differences between our story and 'Begins' is that ours would show him acquiring most of his prominent skills (not just physical combat and how to handle yourself while on hallucinogens), feature the real Carmine Falcone (not that laughable parody from 'Begins') and the extent of his relationship to the GCPD, and focuses heavily on the psychology of Bruce Wayne ('Begins' did not do this in a serious fashion at all). When I say 'focus on psychology,' I don't mean putting out some pretentious, boring crap like Ang Lee's 'Hulk'; I mean show Bruce as a child actually turning into the Batman before he's even 14 years old, and showing more directly how the trauma of losing his parents catalyzed Bruce into adopting a mostly joyless, obsessive, methodical existence that will serve him well as a grim protector of the night. There's no R'as Al Ghul spouting rhetoric at him or any other profound philosophical epiphanies that change his destiny between ages 8 and 26-- it's just Bruce gets scared by bats, Mommy and Daddy get killed, Bruce fails to effectively neutralize some criminals and then sees a bat that gives him an idea for a totemic symbol. Everything in between is basically Rocky Balboa hitting the bag and running up the steps, except hopefully much, much cooler. Flip-flop the timelines a bit to keep the origin from getting stale, and it should be quite entertaining if its done correctly.

The other major difference is that the Waynes' killer is never caught, and there is no vital connection from the past between the Batman and any supervillains or major crime bosses.

By the way, Zaphod: the last scene of Movie 1 should be D.A. Harvey Dent, the newly promoted Captain James Gordon and the Batman meeting by the newly created Bat-signal and vowing to take down Carmine Falcone and the rest of the major crime bosses currently plaguing Gotham. The Joker doesn't really need an intro at the end of the first movie (maybe there will be some symbolic omen that the audience will catch, but not a calling card or threat), and if he doesn't have one, that leaves more options open for how he's introduced in the second movie.

 

[The Batman]

Also, i'd drop all this focus on realism. everyone seems to be using it as an excuse to do some real storytelling.

 

[Herr Logan]

Also, i'd drop all this focus on realism. everyone seems to be using it as an excuse to do some real storytelling.

I assume you mean "using it as an excuse not to do some real storytelling," and I agree to a certain extent.

Personally, I like it when certain aspects of the history or reoccurring elements of a superhero saga can be flavored with "realistic" interpretations, when it does not subvert or supplant those original aspects.

I'm in favor of the design of Movie!Ock's new tentacle harness in 'Spider-Man 2' (not the inhibitor chip bull$hit, but the rest of it) and the explanation for the existence of the Goblin Formula and some of Osborn's gear in 'Spider-Man,' because those alterations make sense and don't detract from the fantastic nature of the story. I'm okay with Daredevil having a "sonar sense" instead of a "radar sense." Those are probably the only "updates for the sake of realism" I actually like about recent comic book movies. Pretty much everything else is complete bull$hit.

Many people seem to hold the opinion that the Batman is the most "realistic" popular superhero, "because anybody could be him." That's not even the least bit true. It's not "anybody" who could be the Batman, and even if someone fit the right profile, he still couldn't keep it going as long as the Batman has and succeed as many times. Sam Spade is a "realistic" protagonist. Batman isn't. There's no reason to strip the story of all fantastic elements. Oh, wait, there is a reason. These simpering cowards who dare call themselves "fans" are shamed that they're into costumed superheroes, and the further from "spandex" these franchises go, the less the cowards feel ashamed. Maybe they should find a new genre for which to claim "fanhood."

I think that some realism is important to a modern Batman story, but it's a specific kind of realism-- criminology and psychology. I want to hear some stuff that actually sounds like the writers know what they're talking about. In 'Batman Begins,' Bruce travelled the world, hanging out with criminals to learn about how they think. In the comics, the Batman learned from some real scumbags, but he also formally studied criminology. I want a Batman story that deals with some real psychology, not the kind of fluffy crap we got in 'Hulk' where repressed trauma and emotional reserve somehow = Hulk. I don't even remember if they mentioned multiple personality disorder, but they sure as hell didn't mention that David Banner was regularly abusive to his wife and son, so that's a huge piece that's missing right there. Anyway, I think you know what I'm saying. I want to see some real theories being tossed around, not bland hearsay passed off as "deep, psychological drama" or bull$hit pseudoscience being passed off as "realism."

 

[The Batman]

Exactly.

Man, i want the Gotham City of the comics. I want an old school Batmobile, not a tank. I want the things that make Batman...welll, Batman

The funny part is, i bet the general audience dosent give that much of a damn about realism

 

[kame-sennin]

How many times in a lifetime do you think a person comes along who is as fastidious and persnickety as I am? Is it wrong to treasure what's right in front of me?!

*achem* Pardon my outburst.

Pardoned

Ra's didn't train the Batman, he sought him out when he was already trained and established as a paragon of human potential. It's a much better story decision to have Ra's seek out Bruce as a potential heir than to have him training Bruce, as there are other characters who can be shown training Bruce.

That bumed me out the most about Begins Ra's.

I guess that could be called "glib." I never really knew what to make of that, other than a reason for the villain to die without the Batman being made an "executioner."

I was fumbling for the right word, but basically you're right. It's the filmmakers sitting on the fence between giving the audience the mindless cathartacism they've come to expect from an action film, and not completley betraying a character who is obviously against killing.

 

[kame-sennin]

Many people seem to hold the opinion that the Batman is the most "realistic" popular superhero, "because anybody could be him." That's not even the least bit true.

This pisses me off so much. Half the actors who've played Batman and probably all of the directors (Nolan included) keep pawning off this non-sense about Batman being an "every-man", or someone anyone can work hard to be. Bull****. Bruce Wayne, were he real, would be one of the most exceptional human beings to ever walk the earth. His combination of genius-level intellect, the potential for an amazing physique (not everybody is 6,2 with broad shoulders), and a slightly warped phsycology that makes for a perfectly obssesed personality, seperates him from most of humanity. And that's not even counting his wealth. Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

 

[Herr Logan]

Pardoned

*stops holding breath*

Oh, thank God!

That bumed me out the most about Begins Ra's.

Me, too. I feel like he was wasted as a villain, even though Liam Neeson was excellent in the role written for him. Like I said, Jim Carey's performance in 'Batman Forever' was excellent as well, but only in the context of a character who isn't really the Riddler.

I was fumbling for the right word, but basically you're right. It's the filmmakers sitting on the fence between giving the audience the mindless cathartacism they've come to expect from an action film, and not completley betraying a character who is obviously against killing.

Indeed. Well, at least they came up with something, rather than just have the Batman kill. That's not much, but if they had gone the other way, I wouldn't have seen 'Batman Begins' at least four times in the theaters (I forget if I went a fifth time).

Let me say that I've never seen a superhero movie that many times in the theaters before, and I probably never will again. When I criticize this movie, I want people to realize that I liked it very much and thought it was good. The more I analyze it and imagine something more faithful, 'Batman Begins' looks worse, but I don't think my opinion of it will fall below "mediocre," like the Spider-Man movies. Anyway, this is why I have no qualms about insulting the integrity and/or intelligence of rabid Hollywood apologists who tell me (they dare to tell me!!) that I "hate" these movies, or "hate everything." I don't hate 'Begins,' I just know it could have been much, much better and much more representative of its source material.

This pisses me off so much. Half the actors who've played Batman and probably all of the directors (Nolan included) keep pawning off this non-sense about Batman being an "every-man", or someone anyone can work hard to be. Bull****. Bruce Wayne, were he real, would be one of the most exceptional human beings to ever walk the earth. His combination of genius-level intellect, the potential for an amazing physique (not everybody is 6,2 with broad shoulders), and a slightly warped phsycology that makes for a perfectly obssesed personality, seperates him from most of humanity. And that's not even counting his wealth. Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

I don't remember actually seeing Nolan or anyone attached to a Batman film declare Batman an "everyman" character, but then again I have an unreliable memory and haven't doggedly pursued interviews and so forth. I'll take your word for it.
I was actually talking about the plebeians on these boards who use the Batman's non-metahuman status as an excuse to demand "realism," but if directors and actors in Batman films think he's an everyman, then that just disgusts me to no end. The Batman is unique for the reasons you've stated and many more. As far as we know, there aren't real-life Batmen out there, for whatever reason, people who go through what young Bruce Wayne went through don't adopt a costumed identity and fight crime; again, at least as far as we know at this point.

Hell, even one of my psychology professors (or whomever designed his PowerPoint lecture presentations) knows that Batman is removed from most of society, and I have no idea if he ever picked up a comic in his life. The slides he shows us usually have pictures that somehow reflect the current topic (usually something that provokes an amused reaction), and when he talked to the class briefly about schizoid personality disorder, there was a picture of Christian Bale as Batman from the scene in which he's walking down the hall at Arkham Asylum. No one said anything about the picture, but it made perfect sense to me and I decided to include that term as a possible partial diagnosis of Bruce Wayne in Zaphod's and my Batman movie concept. Schizoid disorder causes people to show very little interest in social interaction or close relationships, and a low sex drive. The Batman may or may not fit the description, and it's hard to tell, since he's very good at faking social aptitude. Either way, he does show symptoms of those kind of highly avoidant behavior patterns, and that in itself makes him removed from the majority of society. Sure, anybody with some good genetic advantages can try to push their skills to the limits and be all they can be, but they still wouldn't be truly similar to the Batman, unless they experienced the exact same kind of trauma and reacted in the exact same kind of way. The Batman is a real a$$hole when it comes to his peers, and that's not considered far and wide an "everyman" quality, even if people like myself know that most people are a$$holes in one way or another.

Anyway, long rant cut short, people who think that are full of $hit. Hell, I already proved in another thread that Peter Parker wasn't an "everyman" archetype. I honestly can't believe someone would actually use that term and attribute it to the Batman.

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't think I've heard anyone specifically use the term "everyman", but I destinctly remeber Christopher Nolan state that:

"Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups"

when he was explaining to the interviewer how Batman differs from Superman and other heroes. That quote alone shows Nolan's servere mis-understanding of the character.

 

[Herr Logan]

I don't think I've heard anyone specifically use the term "everyman", but I destinctly remeber Christopher Nolan state that:

"Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups"

when he was explaining to the interviewer how Batman differs from Superman and other heroes. That quote alone shows Nolan's servere mis-understanding of the character.

I can forgive that if he's just making a hyperbolic simplification (is that an oxymoron?) about how the Batman acquired his physical prowess, but if that's supposed to sum up the entirety of the Batman's preparation for crime-fighting, then he's a God damn idiot. If he'd said that he "does a lot of push-ups and reads a lot of text books" or something to that effect, I could take that in stride and possibly not too literally, but after hearing that the second movie is going to emphasize how Bruce Wayne is the dominant persona and that the Joker's role will be "small and mysterious," I don't trust him to understand any of these character at all.

 

[Zev]

Christopher Nolan actually said that Batman is just a guy who does a lot of push-ups, it's absolute rubbish.

I think that was Conan O'Brien.

 

[Zaphod]

I'm pretty sure I sent you a PM saying that I thought we would need to see the "present-day" Batman in full costume early on and several times in between the origin sequences to better keep the audience's rapt attention, and you're accomodating that nicely. While I didn't want to make such an obvious rhythm of having an alternating order of present and past scenes that showed Bruce/Batman doing very similar things in both timelines, after reading the quoted section above, it occurred to me that we could use both the techniques he learned in his journeys and the means by which he came to learn them.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all, but bear with me. What came to my mind when you mentioned the mountain climbing was a present-day scene where the costumed Batman is ascending buildings in Gotham City as part of his patrol or even a pursuit of a specific target or targets. He would much more quickly and easily ascend buildings as the Batman than as Bruce Wayne, since he has his grapnel with retracting cable, those ninja claw thingies to put over his gloves and overall a costume built with climbing in mind (as well as many other things, of course). By using a variety of relationships between the present and past images, it comes off as slightly less formulaic. Also, there is a broader range of freedom if the flashbacks do not reflect the Batman's current thought processes; he is not remembering these things based on what he sees now, necessarily, but if the image from one moment of the present seen by the camera mirrors one moment of the past, the camera uses that as a seque to go back in time to show the audience the life of Bruce Wayne. The transition would happen very abruptly, with a distinctive effect that wipes the screen.

Some examples that immediately spring to mind:

• Batman ascends by retracting the cable running from the grapnel clipped to his streamlined trunks-harness / Bruce scales mountain using ropes and various gear to reach Kirigi's monastery

• Batman watches a car speed through the streets of Gotham City / Bruce at age 13 or 14 drives around a track in a race car

• Batman spots some bullet shell casings on a rooftop or pavement in an alley / Bruce Wayne accompanies a member of a CSI unit and learns about obtaining forensic evidence at the crime scene and then criminalistics techniques in a crime lab

I'm open to this idea if it makes the movie an overall more enjoyable and accesible experience, however, how are we to adapt it? As I understand it, there are already two interweaving timeline's, like in the 'Begins', with Bruce travelling the world training, and a younger, teenage Bruce growing up in Gotham up until he's "around-the-world" sojourn. To introduce a third, with Bruce as Batman paralelling the training sequences, wont this make things far to complicated? In fact, I'm fairly sure it would be near incoherent to the audience to have three seperate timelines going on at the same time, even if it is only for the first hour. There is the option of getting condensing one, as you previously suggested, having the training sequences as a sereis of 'hit-and-miss' scenes, but I really do not like this idea.

I have a question about this part:
"Bruce would come to a point in his present journey where all the passage ahead is shrouded in bush and overgrown, with path no longer visible."
Where would he be during this, exactly? Is this in Korea, where Bruce is trying to reach Kirigi?

Yes.

Do those two paragraphs occur consecutively?

Yes, switching back and forth between both particular scenarios.

Okay, I'm torn here. I like this a lot, but I don't know if it's a better idea to do this than translate 'The Man Who Falls' directly.
The major differences between the two are these:

In TMWF, Bruce doesn't venture past the lobby/foyier/entrance and instead waits for Kirigi-- whose presence he can sense-- to bid him welcome. The voiceover narration would tell, "I waited for one week, then another, then another," and with each week being mentioned, Bruce grows more beard stubble and eventually a decent beard. Your version has the camera cutting out and fading back to an indeterminate amount of time.

Keep in mind though, that between the camera cutting from Bruce sitting down to wait in the foyier for the first time, to when we next see him fully bearded, we'd see scenes of young Bruce in Gotham.

In TMWF, Kirigi only says, "You may sweep the floor," and doesn't explain himself, and Bruce complies. The voiceover would announce the timeframe through all of this, as Kirigi comes back a month later and says "You may wash the dishes," and after two more months, "You may boil the rice." I sort of prefer the TMWF version of these events, but we should discuss it. While I'm all for lightening the dark, depressed tone of the movie every once in a while, I think that if directed properly, Kirigi saying, "You may sweep the floor," and Bruce just giving the right look could also provide a bit of levity. Good timing, Kirigi's delivery and Bruce's facial reaction could probably sell that scene as comical. Again, we should discuss all of this.

Well, sure Kirigi can say that, but I dont really think it's neccesary to show him keep coming back to Bruce at regular intervals telling him his next task. I'm not against the idea, but the montage of scenes involving Bruce doing minor errands about the monastery before he begins his training, should be very short and to the point, I wouldn't want to dwell on it.

Sounds good. I'd also add the "theatricality and deception are powerful agents" element here. The "exploding powder" basically translates to smoke bombs in the Batman's future, because when the Batman uses explosives, he's using Semtex and so forth, not units of packed gunpowder.

We should see a demonstation of Bruce throwing a small packet of exploding powder that causes a smoke screen, and he should try to disappear. It's okay to show him screwing up, if that would get a quick laugh, because in the future we will see the Batman throw a smoke grenade and disappear completely, as well as disappear without such accessories.

In terms of using fear, theatricality and deception as powerful agents in his war on crime, I was thinking of having the idea of this to come from Bruce himself later on, when he gets back to Gotham. He would have already studied and practiced psychological, offensive and meditative arts, and through his own sharp-mind (influenced in part by the realisation that he cant fight crime as a mere man when he takes a bullet in his first night out), comes up with the idea to be theatrical himself, rather than being told to by a mentor.

That's a very cool scene, but I'm not sure I understand the point of it, the way it's set up. If this is a competition, it's not valid if Bruce only has one throwing star and Kirigi has a satchel-full. If you made it a demonstration instead of a contest, that would be fine and would look great.

It was a demonstration. Eventually, Bruce will be able to do the same, and we'll show it.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm open to this idea if it makes the movie an overall more enjoyable and accesible experience, however, how are we to adapt it? As I understand it, there are already two interweaving timeline's, like in the 'Begins', with Bruce travelling the world training, and a younger, teenage Bruce growing up in Gotham up until he's "around-the-world" sojourn. To introduce a third, with Bruce as Batman paralelling the training sequences, wont this make things far to complicated? In fact, I'm fairly sure it would be near incoherent to the audience to have three seperate timelines going on at the same time, even if it is only for the first hour. There is the option of getting condensing one, as you previously suggested, having the training sequences as a sereis of 'hit-and-miss' scenes, but I really do not like this idea.

I think it's possible to make it just two timelines that switch between the past (beginning with Bruce at age 6 at his home in Gotham County-- Timeline 2) and present (Bruce at age 26, in his Batman costume, patrolling and/or hunting in Gotham City-- Timeline 1). Each timeline will be shown in chronological order, alternating with scenes of the other timeline, which is also in chronilogical order. This will allow the audience to see the Batman in all his glory (or most of his glory, if he keeps to the shadows), and also follow his history, until Timeline 2 catches up to Timeline 1, and from then on, there's only one timeline. Each scene switch will be noted with a caption that tells the location and the relative time (ex. "Gotham City, Today;" "Wayne Manor, 20 Years Ago;" "Paektu-San Mountains, Korea, 6 Years Ago," etc.).

The first time-switch would happen when the camera pans around the Batman (Timeline 1), standing among some gargoyles on a high ledge, and zooms in on the bat-insignia on his chest until the whole screen is black. The darkness is broken when young Bruce falls through some boards or just rotted ground at the top of the massive bat cave under the manor, with the camera pointing up from the floor directly below this new opening (Timeline 2). Then, when Bruce tries to get back up, one bat flies out of the darkness and perches on a rock in front of him, staring ominously. Then, hundreds of bats fly out and swarm him, and he freaks out.

I'm trying to think of what happens next. One option is to let Timeline 2 run for a while, moving on to Alfred or Thomas Wayne bringing Bruce out of the cave, then onto Bruce asking his parents emphatically to take him into Gotham City to see a special, late showing of 'The Mark of Zorro,' then onto what happens after the Wayne's leave the Monarch Theater, then back to Timeline 1, the visual cue being either the theater (which switches to its present, condemned condition) or a nearby alley on Park Row (switches to the present, where it's much more sketchy looking). That idea may not work, and it's not finished, but let me know what you think about all that.

Keep in mind though, that between the camera cutting from Bruce sitting down to wait in the foyier for the first time, to when we next see him fully bearded, we'd see scenes of young Bruce in Gotham.

That's an option. It doesn't have to be that way, though.

Well, sure Kirigi can say that, but I dont really think it's neccesary to show him keep coming back to Bruce at regular intervals telling him his next task. I'm not against the idea, but the montage of scenes involving Bruce doing minor errands about the monastery before he begins his training, should be very short and to the point, I wouldn't want to dwell on it.

It would take less than a minute to show the whole thing if we did it that way, probably.

In terms of using fear, theatricality and deception as powerful agents in his war on crime, I was thinking of having the idea of this to come from Bruce himself later on, when he gets back to Gotham. He would have already studied and practiced psychological, offensive and meditative arts, and through his own sharp-mind (influenced in part by the realisation that he cant fight crime as a mere man when he takes a bullet in his first night out), comes up with the idea to be theatrical himself, rather than being told to by a mentor.

Considering all he's seen and learned, I think it's a given that someone basically told him that. He doesn't have to mention who told it to him, though, and the movie doesn't have to show it.

It was a demonstration. Eventually, Bruce will be able to do the same, and we'll show it.

Ah. Okay, cool

 

[Herr Logan]

Is it wrong that I actually think I would cast David Boreanaz ('Angel')as the Batman in my movie franchise, if he could still play 20-26 when filming started?

Before you rip me to shreds, check out the first season of 'Angel.' He's so much less annoying and so much more entertaining in that show than he was on 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (except in the second season when he was evil... Angelus owns all as a wise-cracking, ruthless villain).
Angel was clearly influenced by post-Crisis Batman in many ways, which is why I think he could do it although that wasn't the sole inspiration for his behavior, of course. What I want is an actor who can act the part (although that could just as easily be an unknown... the audition is the only thing that counts, not which actors anybody has heard of beforehand) and also looks the part. He's got the right body for Batman (or he did when his show was on, even though he grew somewhat heavier as time went on, which is manageable in the movie business), and I know he can handle all the acting required, including voice (although he'd have to sound younger than he is for Bruce Wayne in his 20's) and holding a grim, stoic expression on his face for long periods of time. I'd have to do a poll to see if the majority of a large sample of females thought that he, in a picture where he's acting shallow and friendly (Angel did quite a bit of acting in the course of the show, and he's taken on behavior similar to the Public Bruce persona ), could easily look like a handsome young playboy. That's pretty much the only qualm I'd have, since that protruding brow of his makes him something other than average when it comes to pretty-boy faces.

I'll reiterate from the orignal thread: Angelina Jolie is my Catwoman. She looks perfect for the part, and we've already seen her play femme fatales that ooz sex appeal. Tell her to switch from bemused, smug and playful to angry, distrustful and violent in several scenes, and that's the perfect Catwoman.

Since this franchise starts off in Year One, I would definitely have Alfred be 50 at the oldest and black hair in the style/form it is in the comics. This would be the first live-action Alfred to actually have the right color hair from Post-Crisis Batman comics. So yeah, Michael Caine wouldn't be cast for that. The character would definitely also have an accent that is much different from Caine's, as his was a lower-class accent. I'm not saying that would bar him from being cast, as any good actor can take on a new accent, I'm just forming an image for what the character would be like.

More later.

 

[Zev]

I'm sorry, but Angel already IS Batman. And Spike is Dick Grayson. Because they were partners for a little bit, then Spike rebelled, then they both got back together to fight evil... I mean, we already know that Joss Whedon was inspired by Kitty Pryde to create Buffy, who's to say Angel isn't Batman?

And would that mean that on Angel The Series, Doyle is Alfred? And Connor is Jason Todd? Oy, somebody stop me, because this is getting freaky...

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm sorry, but Angel already IS Batman. And Spike is Dick Grayson. Because they were partners for a little bit, then Spike rebelled, then they both got back together to fight evil... I mean, we already know that Joss Whedon was inspired by Kitty Pryde to create Buffy, who's to say Angel isn't Batman?

And would that mean that on Angel The Series, Doyle is Alfred? And Connor is Jason Todd? Oy, somebody stop me, because this is getting freaky...

Zev, Spike is absolutely nothing like Dick Grayson, regardless of them splitting up and reuniting. Sometimes you take this "darken it up" thing waaay too far.
If someone portrayed Robin or Nightwing as being anything like Spike, I'd condemn it daily until I was dead.

Doyle is nothing like Alfred, either. If there had to be a match for most similarities between the two universes, Giles is Alfred's analogue.
Instead of Doyle, it was supposed to be that annoying little twerp named Whistler who showed up on Buffy at some point just to briefly piss me off with cryptic bull***** and his stupid hat. For whatever reason (possibly because they couldn't get that actor at the time), Whistler wasn't on Angel so they filled the position with Becky Connor's husband as Doyle.
I'm not even going to go into the Jason Todd thing. *shakes head*

Buffy must have been vaguely based on Kitty Pryde, since Kitty was never as annoying as Buffy. I was going to say she was closer to Willow, but that's only in terms of her skills (with computers), not her personality.

In the commentary, Joss Whedon described a particular move or gesture in the pilot episode of 'Angel' as Batman-like. It might have been where he uses a grappling hook.

In any Batman adaptation, the Batman persona should only be similar to Angel in the scenes where he's solemn, brooding, and when he's intimidating someone, except when he's with Alfred alone. And superior fighting skills, of course. Angel's deadpan humor sometimes seems like it would be appropriate for the Batman, and when Angel pretends to be someone else, it's often a goofy, friendly person he's portraying. The first thing we see on 'Angel' is the titular character pretending to be drunk off his ass, and in an instant, when he sees a vampire (or several... I forget) escort a woman out of the bar, he drops the facade and gets down to business.

I certainly wouldn't base a large amount of content in a Batman franchise on Whedon's trademark style. Except some of the villains, but still, I wouldn't replicate other characters under a different name, I'd be adapting the characters for which all of them are named, respectively. Maybe some
of Angel's "undercover" personas for Bruce Wayne, but not for the most part.

And no, before you say it, I would not make Catwoman act like Faith, and I wouldn't even want Eliza Dushku playing the part. She's all manner of attractive, but she doesn't strike me as the right choice.


Jeez... you mention one actor who plays a character in a well-known and completely different fictional universe, and it just snowballs out of control...

 

[Zev]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

 

[LongDong]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

lol. nice avatar dude

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm just saying the relationship between Spike and Angel is kinda this weird, mirror universe, goateed version of Bruce and Dick's partnership, plus or minus a couple hundred years, a love triangle or two, and lots of raping and pillaging. But other than that...

Spike only seemed like he was following Angel. Spike followed Drusilla, whom followed Angel. Spike couldn't have cared less about him.

Dick Grayson was taken in by Bruce Wayne, with no parent figure in between, and respected him, regardless of his eventual departure from the Batcave.

In other words, they're absolutely nothing alike.

 

[Cullen]

Sigh. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

 

[Herr Logan]

Sigh. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

What the hell does that mean, exactly?

 

[Cullen]

What the hell does that mean, exactly?

It means that God has spared you from another bit of Cullen's "wit". Be thankful that only I have to deal with it on a full time basis...

 

[Herr Logan]

It means that God has spared you from another bit of Cullen's "wit". Be thankful that only I have to deal with it on a full time basis...

Are you saying you attempted a contribution to the thread and then aborted it?

 

[Zev]

And no, before you say it, I would not make Catwoman act like Faith, and I wouldn't even want Eliza Dushku playing the part. She's all manner of attractive, but she doesn't strike me as the right choice.

Of course not! Don't be silly!

Faith is obviously Huntress.

 

[Herr Logan]

Of course not! Don't be silly!

Faith is obviously Huntress.

Touche'