BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Zev]

Hmm... Do you think the same vicarious jealousy dynamic is part of the reason why heterosexual males are so enamored with lesbians? My girlfriend asked me once why guys like watching lesbians, and all I could come up with was, "Well, guys like beautiful wimmens acting sexual, and if it's two women being sexual together, then it's only wimmens, then it's pure attraction." Still, seeing a woman doing dirty, dirty things with a man does make it easier for us to imagine ourselves doing those particular dirty, dirty things with the wimmens, so it works either way.

No, the reason guys like lesbians is because it's totally hot. We're simple that way.

Methinks you doth protest too much, Zev. Why don't you just tell her how you really feel about her like a grown-up instead of stealing her lunch box and pulling her hair during recess as an indirect way of showing that you like her.

Dude, you're stepping over the line. I'd sooner kiss a wookie. I mean, have you seen Helen Thomas? It's like some ugly bomb went off right in her face! I think she went looking for the Holy Grail, drank from the wrong one, and didn't die! She may be suffering from some sort of gypsy curse, because there's no way that much ugly can be natural! I think I may have to look at something prettier to scrub my eyes of Helen Thomas, like Kathy Bates' nude scene in About Schmidt. How can one person have that much ugly? She's like a suicide bomber, only instead of a vest full of explosives, she has that face! Good God!

 

[Herr Logan]

No, the reason guys like lesbians is because it's totally hot. We're simple that way.

Amen!

Dude, you're stepping over the line. I'd sooner kiss a wookie. I mean, have you seen Helen Thomas? It's like some ugly bomb went off right in her face! I think she went looking for the Holy Grail, drank from the wrong one, and didn't die! She may be suffering from some sort of gypsy curse, because there's no way that much ugly can be natural! I think I may have to look at something prettier to scrub my eyes of Helen Thomas, like Kathy Bates' nude scene in About Schmidt. How can one person have that much ugly? She's like a suicide bomber, only instead of a vest full of explosives, she has that face! Good God!

Kathy Bates had a nude scene in 'About Schmidt'?



*Clicks on Netflix bookmark*

 

[Zev]

Kathy Bates had a nude scene in 'About Schmidt'?



*Clicks on Netflix bookmark*

I don't think we're thinking of the same Kathy Bates.

 

[Herr Logan]

I don't think we're thinking of the same Kathy Bates.

Oh I think we are. I had dreams about Kathy Bates when I was in 6th grade.

They were of me waking up to see her hold me down and tranquilize me so I could wake up strapped to the bed, with her standing there with a sledgehammer in her hands.

Seeing her naked will take some of her power over me away.

Also, there's another movie in which she appeared nude, apparently.

 

[Zev]

Oh I think we are. I had dreams about Kathy Bates when I was in 6th grade.

They were of me waking up to see her hold me down and tranquilize me so I could wake up strapped to the bed, with her standing there with a sledgehammer in her hands.

Seeing her naked will take some of her power over me away.

Also, there's another movie in which she appeared nude, apparently.

...

You're a sick man, Herr.

 

[Zev]

Interesting. And why do you think "these girls" do that? Is it because you-- *achem* I mean they, is it because they have fantasies about seeing these characters coupling as a way of vicariously experiencing the love of either or both of the characters in question? This is a Safe place, Zev, and nobody is here to judge you. Fantasies like this are normal.

Are you suggesting I'm a homosexual?

 

[MaskedManJRK]

By the way, I figured out a way to have a romance in a Batman movie which will pull in a TON of female viewers, while not introducing a completely unnecessary female to the plot (*cough* Vicki Vale *cough cough* Chase Meridian *cough cough* Rachel Dawes *cough cough* Okay, Michelle Phfeiffer was really hot *cough cough*).

up:

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Alright, damn you, I'll admit it! I cried at the end of Brokeback Mountain! It was just so beautiful and no one could take their love away and... and...

Actually, the real reason slashers do it is that, psychologically speaking, they'd feel that another woman in a pairing would be threatening, so they conjure up a man to take their place. And for some reason, they're unable to distinguish any emotion (from friendship to blind and unreasoning hatred) from sexual attraction, so if they see two pretty men who get along well, they're smush them together even if, say, the two men are friendly because they're brothers.

I have actually seen this happen. Not pretty. Would you believe that some people actually are convinced that Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are soulmates. Draco's a racist, elitist little brat who would dance on Harry's parents' grave and Harry wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire, but apparently this is code for "wants to have underage buttsex". It's krazy!

Although I will go gay a long time before I have sex with Helen Thomas. Have you seen that woman? It's like Jason Voorhees under the hockey mask! I think Allah came up with the burqa when he saw that one day Helen Thomas would be running around. She must've fallen off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the wall down. I mean, I know it's wrong to judge people based on their appearance, but holy mackeral! I think you could use a picture of her as a murder weapon! It's like some sort of Lovecraftian horror. You can't really describe it because it chokes all that is good and beautiful out of your brain. Those sites that run pictures of suicide victims and car accidents should also show Helen Thomas, because it's the same damn category. They say that inside every ugly person is a beautiful person waiting to get out, but I think that all Helen Thomas has is three or four young girls chained to her furnace. I think she must live inside a house made of candy. In fact, I think she was the one who started all those rumors in Salem, she's old enough. Jesus Christ, what a kisser! Helen Thomas' face is proof that God has a sense of humor! She looks like she got flicked on the nose by a couple hundred pounds of nuclear radiation. Her daily facial must involve sulfuric acid. There must be life after death, because Helen Thomas looks like a walking corpse!

Yeah, I've seen some kooky slash fics in my day.

 

[Herr Logan]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

 

[Nightwing92]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

hahaha.... you seem very pissed.....

 

[Herr Logan]

hahaha.... you seem very pissed.....

Yes, that's hilarious. Do you have anything relevent to say that conforms to the House Rules?

If yes, then post it.

If not, then stay out or get reported immediately. I don't tolerate spam from new people who haven't posted valid content, and the moderators don't take take kindly to newbies who misbehave, either.

 

[Cullen]

That's enough spam, God dammit!

Yeah! No more spam! Bloody Vikings!

And that's what passes for wit from me today.

And now for something completely different: A comment more or less on topic.

I'm going to talk about why I wouldn't use Robin in a movie/T.V. series/bookseries. It's real simple; it's his costume. Specifically the mask. I can accept a lot of things, but maintaining a secert identity with that whatsit on your face... I just can't.

It's the same with the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet (although more with the first than the second; the Lone Ranger's real id is supposed to be dead, after all). Someone has to make the connection. Between voice and the majority of his face being seen, there wouldn't be a game to give away.

Now I know there are tricks that could be used around it (Robin doesn't speak around strangers, say, or some sort of voice modulator). But why bother setting that up? If a companion role is needed, why not use, say Catwoman? Granted, Catwoman wouldn't be as altruistic as Robin, but that's a part of what makes her interesting. Fact of the matter is, I'd rather deal with her than a little Batman varient any day.

No, better put the "Robin days" in the future some place, if at all. Call the movie world Earth-C, or Earth-NR.

Now I'm babbling.

I might have said this before on the original Safe Haven thread. If so, I apologize for the redundancy. I'm writing tired right now. Muy, muy tired.

It was just a combination of not contributing to this thread again after making such a producution the first time, on it being six days without a post. Made me feel a little guilty.

 

[Zaphod]

Yeah! No more spam! Bloody Vikings!

And that's what passes for wit from me today.

And now for something completely different: A comment more or less on topic.

I'm going to talk about why I wouldn't use Robin in a movie/T.V. series/bookseries. It's real simple; it's his costume. Specifically the mask. I can accept a lot of things, but maintaining a secert identity with that whatsit on your face... I just can't.

It's the same with the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet (although more with the first than the second; the Lone Ranger's real id is supposed to be dead, after all). Someone has to make the connection. Between voice and the majority of his face being seen, there wouldn't be a game to give away.

Now I know there are tricks that could be used around it (Robin doesn't speak around strangers, say, or some sort of voice modulator). But why bother setting that up? If a companion role is needed, why not use, say Catwoman? Granted, Catwoman wouldn't be as altruistic as Robin, but that's a part of what makes her interesting. Fact of the matter is, I'd rather deal with her than a little Batman varient any day.

No, better put the "Robin days" in the future some place, if at all. Call the movie world Earth-C, or Earth-NR.

Now I'm babbling.

I might have said this before on the original Safe Haven thread. If so, I apologize for the redundancy. I'm writing tired right now. Muy, muy tired.

It was just a combination of not contributing to this thread again after making such a producution the first time, on it being six days without a post. Made me feel a little guilty.

Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.

 

[Herr Logan]

Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?

You tell him, Zaphod!

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them.

The colors can also be an appropriately dark color; dark enough not to appear too flashy (except for the yellow inside lining of the cape, perhaps... I'm sure that will be at least somewhat noticeable no matter what when the cape flares out, but then again, that's what all the top-rate tactical and combat training is for...), but not so dark that you can't tell that the colors are red and green when close up.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.

I think I said recently in the X-Men Safe Haven that I'd have my rendition of Wolverine answer Movie!Cyclops' snotty remark in a couple of different ways. When Wolverine makes some comments about how he can slip past anyone unnoticed or the like, another X-Man will ask why he doesn't wear all black if he puts so much value on stealth (he'll be wearing the design of his original costume, with a deep orange and black replacing yellow and blue), and he'll respond that he doesn't need to wear all black; when you're as good as he is, you don't depend on coloring, you depend on your body movement.
I would have him wear a suit that has a noticable amount of yellow and blue in it when he first appears, when he's at Department H and first meets Xavier. It would be leather, too, and when he gets a new uniform at the Xavier Institute, he comments that he much prefers the specially-made material they use in their costumes, as leather is extremely impractical when they have space-age fabrics that are durable, fireproof and breathable at their disposal.

 

[Zev]

Well, ummm... if leather is out, than shouldn't capes be too? Because I think The Incredibles kinda blasted that concept out of the water. At least Batman Begins gave Batman's cape some functionality beyond "looking really scary," but Superman's is still just... how does he even keep that thing hidden under his clothes? Seriously?

Not that I'd want anyone to get rid of Superman's cape, because he'd just look naked without it (to say nothing of Martian Manhunter, who'd pretty much BE naked without it), but you can't really apply the "it isn't realistic, even if it does look cool!" rationale to leather without applying it to capes.

Now, if you wanna say that leather costumes are a bad idea because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs, they're not faithful to the comics (did anyone hear how they wanted to give Superman a black, capeless outfit? And have him kung-fu fighting? God!), or that they're not distinctive enough, that's fine.

 

[Herr Logan]

Well, ummm... if leather is out, than shouldn't capes be too? Because I think The Incredibles kinda blasted that concept out of the water. At least Batman Begins gave Batman's cape some functionality beyond "looking really scary," but Superman's is still just... how does he even keep that thing hidden under his clothes? Seriously?

Not that I'd want anyone to get rid of Superman's cape, because he'd just look naked without it (to say nothing of Martian Manhunter, who'd pretty much BE naked without it), but you can't really apply the "it isn't realistic, even if it does look cool!" rationale to leather without applying it to capes.

Now, if you wanna say that leather costumes are a bad idea because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs, they're not faithful to the comics (did anyone hear how they wanted to give Superman a black, capeless outfit? And have him kung-fu fighting? God!), or that they're not distinctive enough, that's fine.

I'm not taking away Superman's cape for reasons I shouldn't ever have to explain. I'm not taking the Batman's cape away because not only is it functional in several different ways (without the memory-fabric gliding feature even factoring into it), but he's the Goddamn Batman, and the Goddamn Batman wears a Goddamn cape, always, no matter what.

Yes, the primary reason for not giving the X-Men black leather costumes is because they're lazy Matrix rip-offs that are not faithful to the comics. Also, they don't look cool. Not next to the real items, anyway. They're uninspired, uncreative designs that don't distinguish them from any other characters. Maybe Movie!Storm's was a good enough facsimile for her comics costume, but Wolverine wearing black leather, not wearing his distinctive mask and being 6'2" just looks idiotic. If he's not short, he can't possibly be Wolverine, and if he's wearing black leather, he doesn't look like Wolverine, period. I could handle Cyclops wearing a black leather suit if it was necessary, but it isn't and never will be necessary. Dark blue fabric is good enough if there's a competent costume designer, film crew and director at work. I'm supposed to lower my standards because the "general audience" is fine with inadequate people doing inadequate work and getting paid way too much for it? I don't think so.

One reason I say it's important to stay reasonably faithful to the comics in terms of costumes is because it makes a positive statement. Are we ashamed of our heroes-- the real ones, that is-- or do we stand behind them? When even true, devout fans like myself have slight reservations about certain costume elements, are we creative enough to find either moderate replacements/alterations (ex., Wolverine wearing orange and black instead of yellow and blue, but in the same exact pattern as his classic tiger-striped costume) or reasons to justify keeping things the same (ex., having the Batman's trunks be a custom-built Kelvar rapelling harness, which should also be the case in the comics for practical reasons, since every other element of the costume has both clever practical and asthetic purposes behind them), or do we take the easy and cowardly way out and just stuff a formerly colorful or distinctive-looking hero into a leather catsuit and pat ourselves on the back for being "modern" and "in touch"? Do we have the balls to tell anyone who may give a damn where we are at any given moment they we are "going to see [insert name of superhero film], and I'm damn excited to see one of my favorite superheroes truly brought to life on the screen," or do we try to save face and make flimsy excuses like, "it seems like a fun popcorn flick, and it's not too cheesy?"

I only make excuses like that when I see a film that has been watered down and tailored to suit non-fans who wouldn't admit to liking colorfully costumed superheroes. If I was off to see a true, fan-directed and fan-written Batman movie where the titular character was wearing dark gray tights instead of black rubber, harness-trunks instead of the outline of a speedo or no lines at all, had no perceivable love interest outside of maybe Catwoman, and where he was presented as a grim detective instead of a "primal, rage-filled beast" who needs to growl and slip into a Southern accent occasionally to scare his prey, I'd say I was damn excited that they finally got it right, not that "It's my duty as a critic and fan of the source material to see it so I can dissect it properly for my loyal audience," or "Well, at least it's not 'Batman & Robin.'"

I want to feel good about being of the consumers that not only helped make a given superhero property popular and profitable enough to warrant a movie franchise, but also truly gets what's unique about the characters and doesn't need the false promise of "realism" to get me in the theater. I don't want to have to yearn for something better when I know that, even with an off-beat, strange and largely inaccessible character like the Batman, a widely popular and very profitable film could be made in a serious fashion that respects both the noirish detective elements and the fantastic superhero elements could be made.

I'm not ashamed of liking these characters, even though I've grown cynical and knowledgable enough to be somewhat disassociated with certain essential aspects of them (such as the no-killing policy, which is childish and ignorant in many ways), because I know it's not just kids' fare. I know that the colorful costumes and corny themes won't ruin it if they truly capture what's intelligent or "deep" about the characters and stories (the Spider-Man franchise in particular was a tremendous opportunity for an intelligent and entertaining character study, completely wasted, and if they didn't know what they were passing over, they simply aren't adult enough to see what's mature and insightful about it). I know that these franchises (admittedly some more than others) have the potential for both great profit and truly great art, all the while honoring the source material. If people think it can't be done, that it's too difficult to pull off, that it "won't work," then not only are those people far more "negative" than even I could ever hope to be, but they truly are just plain childish and/or ignorant and/or stupid. You can't tell me what can't be done and have credibility when you haven't put the thought into tit. Perhaps it's a doomed situation when the source material for several of the franchise I've been lobbying for were written and plotted by members of society with superior intelligence and artistic skill, since the vast majority of people aren't all that bright or thoughtful, but I think it's still worth it to try. If 'The Simpsons' can be one of the most popular sitcoms of all time while working on many different intellectual levels, so can superhero franchises.

Christ, I don't even know how I had that in me... I've been pretty unmotivated when it comes to this subject matter lately. Oh well. Thanks to Zaphod for tellin' it like it is and stoking the fire once again.

 

[Cullen]

Cullen, by definition of your arguement, Superman shouldn't be adapted into a movie/TV sereis/booksereis either, since the likeness to his secret-identity Clark Kent is nigh on picture perfect if not for the glasses, and they only cover the same amount of face but to an even lesser extent?

First off, this is only my reason for not using Robin. Me as a creator. Anyone else who has no problem with writing for the character? I'm envious of.

On the Clark Kent front, I actually have no problem with his duality. By all appearances, Superman isn't hiding anything. He's not wearing a mask, hiding his voice, or really doing much to obscure his existance. He has all the appearance of having nothing to hide. Why would anyone assume that he has a secret identity? Why would he want one?

And if he did, why Clark Kent, of all people?

There's other points I could go into, but that's neither here nor there. For whatever reasons, be then legit or not, I can accepted Superman/Kent quicker than Robin/Dick.

Of course, it probably helps that I like Superman more than Robin.

Have you read my post on Robin and my explaining of the costume, including the mask, and how it could be reconciled for a movie to appear to make more sense? I'll dig it up and post a link to it here sometime later, but I basically took the costume and worked in a fleshed out reasoning for why Dick Grayson would wear a costume such as he does. The mask, aswell as the colours are explainable, it only takes some imagination to validate them.

Sounds interesting to me. Like I said, if you can rationalize it enough so it works for you, that's fine. Might even work for me, too.

This is what filmmakers should have been doing from the very beggining, rather than coming up with excuses as to why particular costumes are un-realistic for screen, or apologist excuses for having them drastically altered. Take the 'X Men' movie sereis as a prime example: The costumes the X-Men wore in the comics are drastically altered, beyond recognition, into identical looking leather outfits for each team, presumably under the pretense that it looks "cooler" and more "realistic" than having the heroes go around in their brightly coloured uniforms like they did in the comics. Except of course for the fact that leather is a completely inhibiting, ridiculously impractical material for wearing in combat, and in performing the sheer number of bodily feats that the X-Men do. Herr has pointed this out many times before, but it is still a very valid arguement which all should take heed of, especially these filmmakers.

So called 'fans' thought is was clever when Cyclops made the "yellow-spandex" gag in X Men, but in all honesty, it takes far more talent, imagination and general respect for the source material, to adapt the original comic-book costumes and develop on them a reasoning for their use, rather than doing away with them all together in a show of laziness on the filmmakers part and coming up with a cheap gag to justify such a choice.

Absolutely. While the changes made don't bother me nearly as much as they do Herr, most of them are needless.

 

[Herr Logan]

First off, this is only my reason for not using Robin. Me as a creator. Anyone else who has no problem with writing for the character? I'm envious of.

On the Clark Kent front, I actually have no problem with his duality. By all appearances, Superman isn't hiding anything. He's not wearing a mask, hiding his voice, or really doing much to obscure his existance. He has all the appearance of having nothing to hide. Why would anyone assume that he has a secret identity? Why would he want one?

I think it's a reasonable argument, the idea that Superman appears not to have a dual identity.
As for why he'd want one, I'd think it would be obvious. It's exactly what Jor-El said in the first Superman movie-- if people knew the civilian identity that he probably set up for himself (he couldn't know for sure, since he was dead by the time Kal-El reached Earth, obviously), he'd never have a moment for himself, as people would become dependent on his assistance and never let him rest.

And if he did, why Clark Kent, of all people?

Oh, come on, Cullen, that's also obvious. Why would Superman be a reporter? Because that's one of the quickest ways to stay on top of events.

There's other points I could go into, but that's neither here nor there. For whatever reasons, be then legit or not, I can accepted Superman/Kent quicker than Robin/Dick.

Of course, it probably helps that I like Superman more than Robin.

Sounds interesting to me. Like I said, if you can rationalize it enough so it works for you, that's fine. Might even work for me, too.

Absolutely. While the changes made don't bother me nearly as much as they do Herr, most of them are needless.

You don't have to be bothered as much as me. You just have to make suggestions about how to make more faithful movies (that you truly believe in) if you're going to echo the kind of arguments that professional non-fans like Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have been making.

 

[Cullen]

Oh, come on, Cullen, that's also obvious. Why would Superman be a reporter? Because that's one of the quickest ways to stay on top of events.

I'm not arguing his reasoning for being Clark. Just why people wouldn't suspect Clark of being Superman. (All though in this age of instant news, he could pick Cable News and get his info as quick)

You don't have to be bothered as much as me. You just have to make suggestions about how to make more faithful movies (that you truly believe in) if you're going to echo the kind of arguments that professional non-fans like Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale have been making.

Which was, I hope, all that I was doing.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm not arguing his reasoning for being Clark. Just why people wouldn't suspect Clark of being Superman. (All though in this age of instant news, he could pick Cable News and get his info as quick)

I really couldn't say how much sooner you can get information from being in a professional newsroom than from checking the Internet, but considering how fast Superman moves, I think it makes all the difference if he can get to the scene of a catastrophe or crime a few minutes or seconds sooner. I know there's a difference between hearing "There's a doin's a-transpirin'! Little Billy done fell in the well again!" and actually reading a paragraph or more full of cogent sentences laying out a confirmed situation. I somehow doubt the likelihood of Superman signing onto his Yahoo account to check his non-work e-mail (so he can tell his mother he'll be stopping by Smallville, Kansas in a couple of hours to pick up the cookies she's made, or something... you wouldn't want to say anything like that on a work e-mail, because even reporters can't travel that distance commercially that quickly, and they could be monitoring the e-mails, as businesses sometimes do) and seeing a news blurb on the homepage that says "Bank Robbery in Progress, High-Tech Weapons Used." He could see "High-Tech Weapons Used in Robbery Lead to Casualties" after the fact, but obviously that wouldn't be as useful.

Which was, I hope, all that I was doing.

This time...

 

[Beelze]

If Clark worked anywhere else, he would have to go out of his way to check the news. You can't be a pizza delivery boy and watch TV, surf the internet, etc., during work. However, if you're a journalist, you can do so, and no one would think it weird. And if he didn't have any job, he'd have a hard time establishing a realistic alter ego, or at least one with a good network of contacts and some manner of social life. It helps him do his crime fighting, just like being a rich playboy makes it possible for Bruce to not have to work, and instead spend his time fighting and investigating crime, all the while still having the necessary funds to keep him going.

 

[Zaphod]

This is pretty much all the ground I would deem completely neccesary to cover in Bruce's training abroad in 'The Batman':

• Bruce at the FBI: Bruce practicing with firearms, aiming only for disabling shots (this would be highlighted somehow), Bruce practicing criminologist techniques, forensic sciences. Bruce becoming disenchanted with the impracticalities of the system and resigning from the FBI.
• Bruce at Kirigi's monastery: Bruce ascends a mountain edge, travels through the Paektusan mountains and valleys -- voiceover narrates the majority of this sequence, filling in the blanks of how Bruce travelled to more unasvoury locations after leaving Washington and learned from the denizens of the streets. Flashbacks to other similar training in small snippets. Bruce comes to Kirigi's mansions, meditates in the lobby (which would initiate a flashback to Bruce in Gotham) and then practices under Kirigi. Performs chores before learning much of what he did under Ra's in 'Begins' (shruiken, ninjitsu, explosive powders, invisibility etc) and also more, before leaving.
• Bruce with Shaman/Dogget: Bruce awakes from unconciousness and finds himself in an Alaskan Shaman village. He enquires with the leader of the tribe how he came to be there and the tribal leader tells him to go and meditate on his thoughts to discover for himself. Bruce does so, and we cut to a flashback of Bruce with Dogget. Straight translation of TMWF with Bruce and Dogget as partners tracking a fugitive, Dogget is killed and the only difference would be that Bruce refuses to do the same to the killer, who would still die through accident in a struggle, in which Bruce also falls unconcious and is later discovered by the Shaman. When Bruce snaps out of the flashback, he spends time with the Shaman and learns totemy.

I'm thinking we can skip Ducard and his story, or at the very least show it in one of the minor flashbacks mentioned in the second part of Bruce's journey. Thoughts?

 

[Herr Logan]

This is pretty much all the ground I would deem completely neccesary to cover in Bruce's training abroad in 'The Batman':

• Bruce at the FBI: Bruce practicing with firearms, aiming only for disabling shots (this would be highlighted somehow), Bruce practicing criminologist techniques, forensic sciences. Bruce becoming disenchanted with the impracticalities of the system and resigning from the FBI.
• Bruce at Kirigi's monastery: Bruce ascends a mountain edge, travels through the Paektusan mountains and valleys -- voiceover narrates the majority of this sequence, filling in the blanks of how Bruce travelled to more unasvoury locations after leaving Washington and learned from the denizens of the streets. Flashbacks to other similar training in small snippets. Bruce comes to Kirigi's mansions, meditates in the lobby (which would initiate a flashback to Bruce in Gotham) and then practices under Kirigi. Performs chores before learning much of what he did under Ra's in 'Begins' (shruiken, ninjitsu, explosive powders, invisibility etc) and also more, before leaving.
• Bruce with Shaman/Dogget: Bruce awakes from unconciousness and finds himself in an Alaskan Shaman village. He enquires with the leader of the tribe how he came to be there and the tribal leader tells him to go and meditate on his thoughts to discover for himself. Bruce does so, and we cut to a flashback of Bruce with Dogget. Straight translation of TMWF with Bruce and Dogget as partners tracking a fugitive, Dogget is killed and the only difference would be that Bruce refuses to do the same to the killer, who would still die through accident in a struggle, in which Bruce also falls unconcious and is later discovered by the Shaman. When Bruce snaps out of the flashback, he spends time with the Shaman and learns totemy.

I'm thinking we can skip Ducard and his story, or at the very least show it in one of the minor flashbacks mentioned in the second part of Bruce's journey. Thoughts?

I think I've mentioned that I don't want to spend too much time with the FBI, or with Dogget. I guess I don't want to make a solid plot with Ducard, either, but I think it's important that he be featured, since at least one very key scene in the movie (straight from 'Year One') is in line with the lessons Ducard taught him. I never saw a fleshed out story with Dogget, but it was said in TMWF that he was a gentle soul, whereas we know that Henri Ducard was a brutal, self-serving but also brilliant detective (of sorts) and that he taught Bruce the value of brutality and coercion when dealing with other men. Ninjas and mystics can teach Bruce a lot about becoming a "terrible thought" and a creature of the night, but there's something to be said for a man strong-arming what he wants out of people, especially since this Batman adaptation is supposed to have a very strong noirish, hardboiled quality. It would be interesting to see how the Batman deals with different criminals, balancing and/or switching tactics, depending on whom he's dealing with. He can convince thuggish, arrogant and/or intoxicated people (like Jefferson Skeevers) that he's an invincible monster with visual tricks and physical prowess, he can impress more intelligent and well-established criminals with his cunning and single-mindedness (Carmine Falcone, the Penguin), and he can scare people who don't like pain too much by the fact that he's large, strong, not very nice and knows how to fight.

What the hell was my point again?

Yeah, anyway, the more I think about it, the more I'd prefer to keep the origin relatively confined so that it doesn't detract from everything else. I don't want it to seem like he had a lot invested in the FBI when he joined, since I'm pretty sure he was skeptical about the usefulness of that venture going in. Granted, he was still pretty young when he joined, but he studied a lot of other varied skills before he even attempted to join. I don't want it to seem like he lost faith in the legal system at age 20. I want him to have lost faith before he ever had any real faith or understanding of the system. At the same time, I think it's important that it be clear later on that he does respect the system, which is why he's willing to go to great lengths to cooperate with the agents of the system who are willing to put the work in to do the right thing. One theme I've always had in mind here was Alfred and Leslie Thompkins worrying about Bruce's extreme behavior throughout his life and how dangerous he could be if he simply decided not to restrain himself. It will be clear in the first movie that, while he lives on the edge (of safety, humanity and sanity), he has not fallen into the abyss. He has not gotten "lost." While he lacked focus earlier on, he didn't lack motivation and he he's more in control of his life than others believe. He will not cross certain lines. But yes, he knows early on that he has to work outside the system even to assist it. He's always had to have his own way, which is why he's seen driving extremely fast cars and flying around the globe unattended as a young teenager.

I don't want the audience getting attached to characters like Willie Dogget, especially since neither you nor I know much about him anyway. I'd be fine with having Dogget die during a case as long as it's not too highly emphasized in an emotional manner. The same should go with Ducard repulsing Bruce. These segments should be brief, informative and somewhat spread out so they don't seem like a string of half-hearted attempts at storytelling. The meat of the story should be in Gotham City and at the Wayne Estate.
A lot of this is probably review, I know. I just feel we haven't talked about this in a long time and I forgot where we've left things.

In addition to having Bruce voiceover that he's learned from the "denizens of the streets," it should also be made clear that he's studied directly under known murderers. There's plenty to name on that front (David Cain, Lady Shiva, some ex-con or escaped convict on a beach in Borneo, etc.). This sets him up as ready to learn and adapt from people like the Penguin when they hit him in unexpected ways once he returns to Gotham. This lends weight to Alfred's concerns about Bruce, when he learns the kinds of things he'd been doing throughout those 12 years abroad. While I don't want it to seem that the Batman is unstable and a complete loose cannon, I want it made clear he's grown "comfortable" walking on the dark side of life and, while he still retains a very strong moral code, he can see the value in learning from criminals and adapting tactics, so long as he's got the control over what happens because of it.

A suggestion for Bruce's encounter with the Shaman:
This Shaman said something similar to what Kirigi said about Bruce being marked by violence. I'd like for it to sound as if he might be willing and/or able to offer Bruce methods of ridding himself of this, but before he ever makes an offer, Bruce asks him if he can further teach him to use that darkness. Bruce will notice the tometic bat mask in his dwelling, and while his instinct is to leave and not subject himself to further flashbacks to the traumatic incidents of his life, he asks the Shaman why he has the mask, and then if he would show him the mental transformation the mask brings. Perhaps there could be an almost hallucinogenic moment where the Shaman wears the mask, gets "in character" and actually visually transforms in Bruce's mind, terrifying him. It's basically Bruce subjecting himself to an indirect form of "immersion therapy." This is what helps speed his journey home. Another theme I've got in mind is that Bruce spent so long outside of Gotham because he's actually afraid to go back. By exposing himself to more and more danger and darkness, he's sort of inocculating himself, or building up a tolerance, so home doesn't seem quite so scary. Or it could be seen as "soaking up" the darkness, so that when he does home to what is widely known as the crime capital of the world and to a house that sits on top of thousands of shrieking, winged horrors that haunt his dreams every night, he'll have something to fight it with. The psychological/horror themes will alternate, if not blend, with the strategic/detective themes once he's settled into his new identity. A lot of this sounds very abstract, I realize. I'm kind of scatter-brained at the moment, so I apologize.

If I sounded overly critical earlier, it was not my intent. I guess the more I think about the flaws of 'Batman Begins' (not to say it still isn't one of the better superhero adaptations out there, for whatever that's worth), and especially when I see some hardcore anti-source material Hype member say things like how he doesn't want to see the Batman being a full-on detective in the 'Begins' sequel (it's so offensive, I can't bring myself to link or quote it, but I saw it recently in a thread and I've been trembling with rage and horror ever since) because it's still too early in the game, the more I want to move away from a detailed globe-trotting origin and more towards a Batman movie that gets down to business and actually takes the mythos seriously. The origin is important, but the intricacies of the plots that occurred outside of Gotham are not as important as the Batman looking out for his city and being well on his way to being the World's Greatest Detective.



On a somewhat random note, I've been thinking lately that in our second Batman film, I do want to play up the fact that the Joker truly likes having the Batman in his life and starts taking the Batman's interference into consideration for all his big plans and enjoying it to a significant degree. This wouldn't be any blatant sexual vibe like some of the immature psychological thriller wannabes keep clammering for. Well, some of them are just really zealous Miller fans, I guess, but while I'm insistent that we feature much of the core elements of 'Batman: Year One' and I'm also strongly in favor of the movie actually sharing that title (but I'm not demanding it, so don't worry), it's more clear now than ever that Miller isn't a good role model for Batman writers (see 'All Star Batman & Robin' for proof). Anyway, it wouldn't be a sexual thing as much as a "Mommy, I made a really cool new friend at school today" thing. The Joker feels more "complete" now that he's caught the attention of the Batman and can torment him with every victim he harms. The Batman takes him seriously (although not strictly as a performer, which is the Joker's claim to fame) and will now be there for every performance he possibly can. That's kind of reminiscent of "I don't keep track of my victims (but you do, don't you, and I love you for it)." The Riddler has a similar dynamic, but it's not as strong, since having the Batman outsmarting him is often more trouble than it's worth, but the Joker doesn't need to put a lot of effort into being rational and cognitively superior.
Anyway, I'm thinking that the Joker may actually surrender to the Batman at the end of the movie when he's about to be taken by force, rather than fight to the last breath (he'll still fight, of course, just not in a "live free or die" kind of way). He realizes that if he dies, there's no more fun to be had, and if he kills the Batman somehow without killing them both, he'll miss their encounters, so he lets himself be taken instead. That doesn't mean he'll never try to kill the Batman, just that once in a while (usually toward the end of a movie, or at the end of his part in it) he'll pass up the opportunity if he doesn't think it's as dramatic an opportunity as it could be.

 

[Herr Logan]

I honestly don't remember if I've said this before, but if there was any justice in this cold, cruel world, not only could Zaphod and I make a multi-film live action Batman franchise that honors the character as faithfully as (if not more than) the animated series (the good one, not the recent one), but we (or just I, if Zaphod wasn't interested) could make a Batman/Superman movie and give it its proper title: World's Finest. If it was necessary to add their names to the title, that's fine ('World's Finest: Batman and Superman,' or 'Batman and Superman: World's Finest'), but it should never, ever be called 'Batman vs. Superman.' How much of any full length movie would really feature the Batman actually fighting against Superman? They'd have their little spat, realize (or remember, depending on the context) that they want the same things out of life (to protect people) and then team up for the duration. It's not an appropriate title. I don't give a rat's ass if people somehow think putting a "vs." in there will put more asses in the seats; if the preceding Batman film franchise was done properly, and possibly a new and worthy Superman franchise as well, the asses would find their way into the seats just fine. No, that doesn't preclude a Superman/Batman fight or conflict, but I damn sure wouldn't want to see a large portion of the film devoted to a battle. Yes, they differ greatly in their respective personalities, but if you consider the full spectrum of human values and behavior, Superman and the Batman are extremely similar. They risk their lives to save people, they won't kill, and they go to great lengths to keep their secrets from the world.

I could go with a story where they meet for the first time, but I do not want to do it like John Byrne wrote it for Post-Crisis, or at least not with the same villain. Magpie?! Oh, there's a worthy foe for the greatest heroes of the DC Universe! It should probably be a very large-scale threat. In fact, this may be the right movie to bring in R'as Al Ghul (the real one) and his daughter, Talia. R'as is a global threat, so he definitely warrants Superman's attention.

There would of course be no serious love triangle, involving Lois Lane or anyone else, unlike in the animated 'World's Finest' movie. I'd be okay with Bruce Wayne dating Lois briefly as maybe an entrance path to the two heroes taking an interest in each other ("Why are you following me?" "Why were you planting wire taps in the Daily Planet building?"), but not with there being real feelings outside of lust (on Lois' part, mainly), and Lois certainly shouldn't learn his secret identity. I don't know whether or not it would make any sense to put Talia in a love triangle between the two heroes (R'as could certainly see the benefit in making such a powerful man his disciple and heir), but it ain't gonna happen, period. That would be crass and stupid, like any love triangle created for a superhero adaptation that wasn't in the comics.

I definitely would want either hero's own franchise to be made in such a way that there's no reasonable grounds for claiming they couldn't plausibly co-exist in the same world. Anyone who saw or read about my Batman franchise and said, "It's grounded in reality, it wouldn't work to have him interacting with a superpowered alien" would be firmly commanded to go stand in the corner and never come out. Yes, it's largely free of actual superpowers, but that doesn't mean they don't or can't exist. I just happen to prefer the non-powered villains to the ones with powers when it comes to putting them in Batman movies. A character like Clayface or the Man-Bat or any other scientific freak of nature cannot simply be a marginal villain without making it seem like a cheap throw-in for lip service. A character like that should be front and center, with some decent science-fiction surrounding their origin. However, I don't consider Clayface and the Man-Bat as worthy of a star villain spot in a movie as the Joker, Riddler, Two-Face, the Scarecrow, and Scarface. Wait... oh yeah, I'd want Mr. Freeze as a primary villain, so that's a major sci-fi foe right there. Also, I'd consider Poison Ivy. Again, it's not at all about "realism," it's about who's best for the movie format for an optimum viewing experience for both hardcore fans and casual viewers.
When it comes to the Batman's universe, superpowered beings are optional, since he has more than enough "normal " (biologically speaking) humans gunning for him. In Superman's universe, at this point, he requires a superpowered foe, even in the first movie of a new franchise (and yes, I would definitely start over... I'm not willing to try and clean up Brian Singer's "chick flick" mess and try to force a lame horse to walk in the mud, but I'm willing to shoot that horse out of mercy and get a new one that I'd treat a hell of a lot better than Singer would), period. Yes, it's all well and good to show Lex Luthor flex his brain and bank account muscles and give Superman a rough time without any real physical power, but that's not enough. While he'll always have a special place in my heart for being the hook that got me into superheroes for life, I don't hesitate in saying that in comparison to other superhero characters that have risen since his first appearance, Superman isn't a character who I think can go without a serious physical threat from a superbeing in a movie and not have it be seen by even true fans as a huge wasted opportunity. First and foremost, he's an action hero. He's not dumb, he's not utterly bland, but he's not complex and interesting enough to carry a movie on just his personality or personal life without leaving a discerning viewer feeling cheated. Remember, I said not complex and interesting enough-- I'm not saying he isn't those things at all.

Anyway, I think the Batman is the perfect foil for Superman, and vice versa. Superman can actually appear quite smart even alongside the World's Greatest Detective, even though he'll never be as sharp as the Batman (because no one is). If he can just get the Batman to give him a small nod of approval while talking strategy, that tells the audience "this guy isn't just a muscle-head, he's a thinking hero that only looks inferior next to the best."
One of the best things about having the Batman work with other heroes is that it can show off the Batman's arrogance and borderline behavior with regard to his would-be peers. You don't get that as much when he's solo or working only with agents of the law.

Anyway, gotta go. Just some thoughts on this subject. Again, although each character's stories shown seperately would be largely different in tone, it would never be so drastically different that they couldn't appear together and have them retain their own qualities and most of their habits.

 

[Herr Logan]

You know what happens when you guys don't respond or propose or discuss anything? I start clicking on the "New Posts" link. Know what happens then?

I end up seeing threads that speculate about Nolan's Movie!Two-Face where multiple people say horrible, senseless things like how it would be "unrealistic" and "gimmicky" for Two-Face to wear a suit that's two different colors, split down the middle!!

If I hear anything like that in here from anyone, they'll get one final warning before they're cast out forever. I am so incredibly sick and tired of hearing these useless, mindless sheep bleat out these ridiculous statements. Unrealistic? I'm sorry, was I mistaken when I got the impressions (that were re-confirmed, over and over for several years) that 1) Two-Face is insane, and 2) the Batman universe is nothing but "gimmicky." Seriously, there is no possible way to spin it in such a way that the entire basis of the Batman character, his entire rogues gallery and the entire mythos isn't completely devoted to a network of several distinctive, blatantly stated gimmicks. He dresses up like a bat. He uses bat-themed equipment and vehicles. He is called "Batman," and has never not been know as that. Every single one of his most prominent villains are inextricably bound to a pervasive, overt gimmick.

I can't say for certain if Two-Face has ever been shown in the comics in something other than a two-colored or two-patterned outfit split down the middle when he had dressed himself (as opposed to being in a prison outfit, hospital gown, straight-jacket, tattered rags or deliberate disguise, etc.) and had his mental illness active and in control of his being. Maybe someone else can shed some light on that and give an example. Even if there are examples, there is no valid argument that says his appearance isn't widely known to include that kind of outfit. There is no valid argument that says it isn't every kind of possible to have such a suit made, not only by cobbling it together in an amateur style at home but to actually have it professionally or at least comptently done. There is no valid argument that says that it is unrealistic for him to dress that way considering his mental condition, which is in itself questionable in its nature. Two-Face doesn't have "multiple personality disorder," or disassociative identity disorder as it's now technically know. He has never been widely known to behave that way, even if they did use that terminology. Arnold Wesker, aka the Ventriloquist and Two-Face, are also supposed to have that disorder, and while it may also not be "realistic," it's certianly closer to the truth than Two-Face. Two-Face has some kind of psychotic disorder that makes him behave the way he does, but he doesn't have two distinct personalities that alternate control, at least not how it usually is in real life (and keep in mind that "usually" doesn't even happen very often, as true MPD/DID is very rare). I say with no hesitation that the Hulk is a more "realistic" example of a multiple personality case, psychologically speaking.

I also don't want to hear any bull$hit about the Joker's purple suit, which isn't the least bit realistic, because the Joker is not only the ultimate attention ****e, but he’s based on a clown theme, and is therefore supposed to look somewhat ridiculous. Having a suit of that style with those colors is a perfect fusion of the clown gimmick and the film noir style of the Batman universe (especially with the purple trench coat and fedora). I already explained either earlier in this thread or in the original thread (the links for which are somewhere in that list at the beginning of this thread, probably in the lower half) about how the Joker is not the “movie monster” in the Batman universe . He’s not the creature from ‘Alien’ or Hannibal Lecter, etc. First and foremost, he is not a serial killer and he does not sneak around in back alleys stabbing people.
The same goes for Scarecrow. Dr. Crane is a completely delusional maniac who wants to be seen in a scarecrow outfit. I don’t want to hear any bull$hit about how that can’t look scary onscreen, because I know for an irrefutable fact that it can. Hell, even on that idiotic show ‘Supernatual,’ there was a scarecrow-looking thing that, despite the pitiful budget and overall lack of quality of the show, looked pretty scary. While I would not want to go with the overcoat and huge shoulders of the revamped Scarecrow on ‘The New Batman/Superman Adventures,’ I’m fine with a more gruesome-looking mask and the hangman’s rope around the neck.

Hell, I’m making it just a general rule: Nobody is allowed to say in this thread that any given character’s most-used costume should be thrown out completely. There’s room for debate about whether a certain character’s costume is particularly “iconic” as opposed to something else they’ve been known to wear, and there’s room to suggest minor alterations and the exclusion of specific features within reason (ex., the Riddler’s costume can have fewer question marks and can potentially replace the domino mask with shaded glasses, but there must be at least one prominent question mark on the costume, and if the mask is replaced by sunglasses, the lenses need to be either noticeably tinted purple or green in color, because he has almost always worn a green or purple accessory over his eyes period!), but I don’t want to hear any flat-out dismissals. Yes, there’s subjectivity, but I will not tolerate people writing off essential aspects of the source material, and I do not accept that well-known costumes aren’t essential, because they absolutely are when it comes to superhero comics.

Some examples of restrictions:
The Joker most often wears a well-tailored purple suit, not tattered, blood-soaked rags, and has chalk-white skin, not a mask or removable face paint. Period!. He could even wear something more clown-themed, like an actual clown costume for a few scenes, but he needs to be established as wearing the purple suit most of the time. Yes, his suit can turn into rags through fighting, etc., but he prides himself on his look and is not some barefoot, alley-dwelling misfit who doesn’t care how people view him (even though he’s perfectly happy to have people think ill of him in terms of his values, actions, or sanity).
The Riddler wears a green outfit with question marks on it. Period! I prefer a suit to tights for him by far, but if someone says they want to see tights in a live-action movie, nobody is allowed to simply say “that’s stupid” or “unrealistic,” because it is an irrefutable fact that the Riddler has been known to wear suit an outfit in the comics, and is therefore faithful. Express your preferences, make suggestions, or debate which one is “more iconic,” but do not make blatant dismissals, and do not mock without offering constructive comments of one sort or another.
Two-Face wears a suit that is two distinct colors or patterns, split down the middle. Period! I won’t make it a rule, but I contend that whatever kind of suit he’s wearing, the jacket would most likely be double-breasted, for obvious reasons.
The Scarecrow wears a full Scarecrow costume. Period!
Catwoman wears a mask or cowl with cat ears. Period! I personally dislike the purple bodysuit and the fake tail, but if someone likes it, the same rules apply as with the previous examples. Be constructive or ignore people’s stated preference.
Victor Zsasz has tally-mark scars on the majority of the surface area of his skin, not just a few on his neck. Period!
R’as Al Ghul is an eco-terrorist (as opposed to merely having a generalized sociological agenda), is known to have lived in Arabic regions for a good chunk of his life, and has been alive for hundreds of years and has pulled that off by renewing his life in naturally-occurring wells of rare chemicals (as opposed to using modern technology, and yes, there is an essential distinction). Period! I’d accept the suggestion of artificially replicating the Lazarus Pit chemicals, but the first few times, it has to be directly from a naturally occurring, reasonably untampered-with source. I know this isn’t a costume issue, but it occurred to me as essential traits that reflect the “essence” of the character. It’s fine to have him using modern technology to carry out his twisted plans and to also have him take an interest in the politics of “justice” and martial arts, as long as everything previously mentioned is respected.
Several versions of Clayface in the comics have had superpowers, so using any of them is not “stupid” or “unrealistic.” No superpowers are “unrealistic” to the point that they automatically “don’t work” in a Batman movie. Period! The first Clayface, Basil Karlo, had no superpowers and simply wore the mask of a villain from a horror film he did once while he killed the cast and crew of a remake of that film that offended him to the extreme. It’s fine to use this version and exclude the fact that Karlo later received the shape-shifting of other Clayfaces, because that’s still faithful, but it’s not okay to attack someone for using a different Clayface.

Okay. Now that’s out of my system. Thank you for your time.