BATMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Zev]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")

 

[Herr Logan]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")

Go back and find the exact part where I said "innocent," Zev. Do it right now. Oh, I didn't say that? Well, golly, I guess when I said "funny" I must have been talking about something that would appeal to a sick sense of humor (go back and find the exact part where I said "sick senses of humor"... do it right now).

The only thing from the Golden Age I'd use for the Joker is his habit of brazenly announcing his upcoming kills on TV, which is something that's followed him all the way through the "light-hearted" days and into stories like the Laughing Fish one (it wasn't actually entitled that in the comics, but you know the one I mean). I'm talking about Jack Nicholson's Joker and Mark Hammil's from 'Mask of the Phantasm" and 'The New Batman/Superman Adventures.'

Go take your sarcastic bullsh1t elsewhere, Zev. Nobody's impressed at your ability to make weak straw man arguments.

 

[Zev]

Chill, it was a joke. It's not like I'd need straw man arguments to beat down a man who thinks Count Nefaria and the Ani-Men should be the main villains in an X-Men movie.

I think Joker is a tricky thing to adapt. Too "funny" and you get Jim Carrey's Riddler, too serious and he isn't the Joker. On the Freddy Krueger scale of funny villains, I'd rather he scale more towards the early movies, where he made a few wisecracks, but not to the first movie where he was a silent killer or the later movies where he was a clown. But for a while there, he was pulling people's tendons out and using them as puppet strings and making jokes about it.

So in conclusion, as long as he's making jokes about killing people and not, say, going on a rant about supermarket prices or stealing balloons, people will take him seriously. He shouldn't be Family Guy, is what I'm saying.

 

[Herr Logan]

Chill, it was a joke.

No, it was a deliberate attempt to undermine me, and you put words in my mouth to do it, which is unacceptable.

I think Joker is a tricky thing to adapt. Too "funny" and you get Jim Carrey's Riddler, too serious and he isn't the Joker. On the Freddy Krueger scale of funny villains, I'd rather he scale more towards the early movies, where he made a few wisecracks, but not to the first movie where he was a silent killer or the later movies where he was a clown. But for a while there, he was pulling people's tendons out and using them as puppet strings and making jokes about it.

So in conclusion, as long as he's making jokes about killing people and not, say, going on a rant about supermarket prices or stealing balloons, people will take him seriously. He shouldn't be Family Guy, is what I'm saying.

I think the Joker is probably the easiest Batman villain to "adapt" for a movie, if you mean in terms of choosing how much of which elements go into the character and the basic character design. There's already at least two perfect models of how to adapt him correctly. What's difficult is writing him well. The jokes have to be funny to the right people. Choosing what he wears, what he looks like (generally speaking, not taking into account which actor they have to build the prosthetics for), and his basic M.O. shouldn't be all that hard. Again, it's been done already, and I feel no need to reinvent the Joker just to try and look clever. That's just about the most insecure thing I can think of (someone trying to do that), and believe me, I know from insecure.

 

[Cullen]

Man, I hope Joker is innocent and funny, like back in the Golden Age.

Errr... yeah, they might wanna update a few things...

("Hey kid, wanna see my crowbar?")

When they warned me not to takecandy from strangers, they were thinking of this moment....

 

[Zev]

When they warned me not to takecandy from strangers, they were thinking of this moment....

See? He gets it.

While it may be easy to throw white facepaint on a guy and stick him in a purple tuxedo, actually gauging the audience's reaction to him is another thing entirely. Once again, if he's too "jokey" (see: every villain Akiva Goldsman has ever written), the audience can't take him seriously, but why even do the Joker if you're not going to have him be funny? It's a tough line to walk.

 

[Herr Logan]

See? He gets it.

While it may be easy to throw white facepaint on a guy and stick him in a purple tuxedo, actually gauging the audience's reaction to him is another thing entirely. Once again, if he's too "jokey" (see: every villain Akiva Goldsman has ever written), the audience can't take him seriously, but why even do the Joker if you're not going to have him be funny? It's a tough line to walk.

I'm sorry, are we now debating whether the Joker would have bleached-white skin and a purple suit (not tuxedo, unless it's a very special occasion) in a faithful Batman movie? I'm being paranoid even thinking that's a possibility, right?

 

[Zaphod]

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...

 

[JLBats]

There are ways to do Joker and have him look like the comic without needing a purple tuxedo. There isn't a way to do faithful Joker without the white face and green hair.

 

[Herr Logan]

There are ways to do Joker and have him look like the comic without needing a purple tuxedo. There isn't a way to do faithful Joker without the white face and green hair.

Suit! Purple suit, not tuxedo!!

I'll concede that it's true that you could do it without the purple suit, but only is there is another outfit he can wear that is both classy (as in well-tailored in its design) and absurd (the coloring/pattern). The Joker dresses well and he dresses weird. That much is never up for debate.

 

[Zaphod]

Herr, I'm cooking up alot of Batman material which I plan to post here or PM you. I'll probaly PM you with a concept of mine first which I want to run by you. I will say that it drastically alters alot of the structure which we have scatter brained so far, the structure, not the content, so keep that in mind. I still want to go with 'The Man Who Falls' for an origin, and a movie which hinges on many elements from 'Year One' as it's story inspiration, however I have a new idea on how to do this, one that I think is a marked improvement. I'll see if I can PM you a rundown of the concept tonight.

 

[Herr Logan]

Herr, I'm cooking up alot of Batman material which I plan to post here or PM you. I'll probaly PM you with a concept of mine first which I want to run by you. I will say that it drastically alters alot of the structure which we have scatter brained so far, the structure, not the content, so keep that in mind. I still want to go with 'The Man Who Falls' for an origin, and a movie which hinges on many elements from 'Year One' as it's story inspiration, however I have a new idea on how to do this, one that I think is a marked improvement. I'll see if I can PM you a rundown of the concept tonight.

Cool. I look forward to it.

I intend to comment on what you said about the Riddler soon and also your response earlier today. I wanted to wait until I would be more cogent and insightful, since you deserve that, but that may never actually happen. I'll respond soon either way, since I'm defiintely not ignoring you.

 

[Zev]

I'm sorry, are we now debating whether the Joker would have bleached-white skin and a purple suit (not tuxedo, unless it's a very special occasion) in a faithful Batman movie? I'm being paranoid even thinking that's a possibility, right?

No, we're talking about how the Joker should act.

 

[Cullen]

I'm sure to be corrected if I get the story title wrong...

"Night of the Laughing Fish." The Joker uses his chemicals to create a fish that has his features (all in the Gotham River, naturally). He then tries to patent the Joker-fish in order to earn money whenever someone sells his fish. Never mind the fish is now inedible and wouldn't sell anyway.

That doesn't strike me as zany or wacky. It's darkly humorous, gallows humor.

The Joker might think he's zany, a laugh-a-minute, but I don't think anyone else should.

But that's just me.

 

[The Batman]

The Batman’s Movie Concepts for Batman

Batverse I see Batman the way it was captured on B:TAS, Hush, The 70’s Batman comics, etc. I prefer the more classic Batman elements from the early golden age and Bronze Age. Gotham should be a pulpy city with crime noir elements. The skyscrapers are gothic and something otherworldly. I see Gotham as a city with a serious crime problem, not necessarily a city where everyone and everything is evil and there’s no hope what so ever of bringing things back to a decent level of peace like most post crisis comics would like to portray it. I feel Gotham brings out interesting characters, and my Batman movies would reflect that. We see the rich snobby elite, the GCPD, and the common people of Gotham. I want Gotham to come alive, really.

The Main Man:I think Batman should be mysterious as possible. I don’t really wanna know how he found the batcave, how he made the batarang, or how he made his suit. That’s what I liked about Burtons Batman. He was so damn mysterious, and shadow like. He was cool, and calculated. Bales Batman, IMO, is a little too emotional. I think Batman is a guy who knows damn well what he’s doing, and I would show that onscreen. I think there are three sides to Batman:

Playboy Bruce Wayne: I see playboy Bruce Wayne as a mix of Howard Hughes, and an American version of James Bond. I don’t necessarily see him as an idiot or an airhead. He’s a known womanizer, and his exploits are in the Gotham Gazette every week. No one would think this guy is The Batman. This is probably where most of the humor in this movie comes from.

The Batman: The Dark Side of Bruce Wayne. This is where he channels his anger. As Batman, he’s all about action, and not much talking unless he has too. He’s very much a “to the point” kind of guy. The whole presentation of Batman is about intimidation, which I may have to explain more in my costume description.

The Real Bruce: The real Bruce is the guy who talks to Alfred or Leslie Thompkins. He has a black and sarcastic sense of humor, and is very idealistic. He Believes in Gotham, and he believes he can make it better, and does so anyway he can.

Batskills:We see a variety of skills in my films, mainly his detective skills, vast intelligence, Fighting skills, and his knack for disguises. I see Batman as very methodical, and to him, at the end of the day, its about brains. This will show the general audience that batman isn’t dependant on gadgets or only cares about ninja skills. This man is a genius, plain and simple. And the fight scenes wouldn’t suck like they did in Nolan’s flicks.

Love Interest?!?!?!?!:

 

[kame-sennin]

Now there's people (The Official Batman Begins Sequel Plot Details Thread) saying they don't care if the Joker looks like the Joker. Like, at all. These are the same people who are okay with the Joker not being "zany," and yet they say that, "as long as the character is the Joker," and, "It seems the Joker will be the Joker when it counts: in characterisation and in terms of attitude and most importantly in terms of being a dark sadistic criminal."

I swear to God, this is getting out of control in the worst way. The outside world is getting more and more hostile. The center cannot hold!

The Joker thing has been out of contol for about a year now, but I agree, some things have gotten worse. I usually avoid those debates if I can because I don't see an entry point for actually logic. Thanks for the compliments, btw.

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...

It all boils down to insecurity and lack of creativity. It's sad, but a lot of Batman "fans" are really only interested in the general idea of Batman, i.e. a dark, dangerous, and mysterious vigilante. Everything else is sort of irrellevant. They just want to see a cool movie, not a cool Batman movie. That's why they refuse to understand the simple fact that an insane man can dress any way he pleases, and that realism doesn't really apply when dealing with this kind of character and his motivations. I mean, have these people ever been to New York city? I've seen a lot stranger things than purple pin stripe suits.

Also, adding insult to injury, both the fans and filmmakers act as if there were no possible way to properly translate these comic book costumes because they lack the will to imagine it.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'm sure to be corrected if I get the story title wrong...

"Night of the Laughing Fish." The Joker uses his chemicals to create a fish that has his features (all in the Gotham River, naturally). He then tries to patent the Joker-fish in order to earn money whenever someone sells his fish. Never mind the fish is now inedible and wouldn't sell anyway.

That doesn't strike me as zany or wacky. It's darkly humorous, gallows humor.

The Joker might think he's zany, a laugh-a-minute, but I don't think anyone else should.

But that's just me.

Zany means "Ludicrously comical" and "clownish."

I'm not arguing about this word anymore. I'm saying that the Joker acts in a very outlandish and often frantic, comical manner. If he does not do this for a good chunk of his screentime in a Batman movie, he is not the Joker. Period.

 

[Herr Logan]

The Batman’s Movie Concepts for Batman

Batverse I see Batman the way it was captured on B:TAS, Hush, The 70’s Batman comics, etc. I prefer the more classic Batman elements from the early golden age and Bronze Age. Gotham should be a pulpy city with crime noir elements. The skyscrapers are gothic and something otherworldly. I see Gotham as a city with a serious crime problem, not necessarily a city where everyone and everything is evil and there’s no hope what so ever of bringing things back to a decent level of peace like most post crisis comics would like to portray it. I feel Gotham brings out interesting characters, and my Batman movies would reflect that. We see the rich snobby elite, the GCPD, and the common people of Gotham. I want Gotham to come alive, really.

The Main Man:I think Batman should be mysterious as possible. I don’t really wanna know how he found the batcave, how he made the batarang, or how he made his suit. That’s what I liked about Burtons Batman. He was so damn mysterious, and shadow like. He was cool, and calculated. Bales Batman, IMO, is a little too emotional. I think Batman is a guy who knows damn well what he’s doing, and I would show that onscreen. I think there are three sides to Batman:

Playboy Bruce Wayne: I see playboy Bruce Wayne as a mix of Howard Hughes, and an American version of James Bond. I don’t necessarily see him as an idiot or an airhead. He’s a known womanizer, and his exploits are in the Gotham Gazette every week. No one would think this guy is The Batman. This is probably where most of the humor in this movie comes from.

The Batman: The Dark Side of Bruce Wayne. This is where he channels his anger. As Batman, he’s all about action, and not much talking unless he has too. He’s very much a “to the point” kind of guy. The whole presentation of Batman is about intimidation, which I may have to explain more in my costume description.

The Real Bruce: The real Bruce is the guy who talks to Alfred or Leslie Thompkins. He has a black and sarcastic sense of humor, and is very idealistic. He Believes in Gotham, and he believes he can make it better, and does so anyway he can.

Batskills:We see a variety of skills in my films, mainly his detective skills, vast intelligence, Fighting skills, and his knack for disguises. I see Batman as very methodical, and to him, at the end of the day, its about brains. This will show the general audience that batman isn’t dependant on gadgets or only cares about ninja skills. This man is a genius, plain and simple. And the fight scenes wouldn’t suck like they did in Nolan’s flicks.

Love Interest?!?!?!?!:

As long as that last colon isn't followed up by anyone but Catwoman, Silver St. Cloud or Talia Head, I say... PERFECT!!

I, personally, would like to have the Batman explain, only to Alfred, how his gear works, and to show how he built it up bit by bit, just he and his faithful valet, but it's a perfectly valid to leave all of that stuff in the dark as well, as long as the costume and certain gear is faithful to the comics.

Good stuff.

 

[Herr Logan]

What I find absoloutley astonishing is how people, the so called 'fans' who clog up the Batman forums, or the filmmakers themselves, seem to feel that having the villain in his/her faithful costume for a movie adaptation 'wouldn't translate well' or 'fit in with Nolans tone'. For the 'Batman Begins' sequel this is shaping up into being a particularly bad problem, one that may well seriously undermine the movie as a whole should they go through with altering the Joker's costume etc. The argument is of course completely redundant; for one thing, you have the main protagonist of the movie, Christian Bale as the Batman, running around in a 'bat suit'. A 'bat-suit'! That means Nolan, that we have the central character masquerading as a bat-creature, so how in gods name can you say that the same, or similar costumed antics (i.e, the Joker as a clown type) cannot be adapted (albeit, he has never actually claimed this, but we all know the general consensus amongst these filmmakers). I know what they'd say in return, that the Batman's identity is used by Bruce as a form of psychological warfare and has practical purposes, which doesn't apply to villains in the same way. This of course is not a valid counter-argument in the slightest, since; The Batman villains, or the majority of, are psychopathic and insane, meaning that their actions, dress sense and general manner should in no way come accross as even remotely relatable, except in terms of known psychological traits!!. Why is this so hard to grasp? Do these filmmakers seriously think that we really want to see the Joker with no white skin and greenhair, and instead, a regular business suit like we had Scarecrow in during 'Begins'?

Filmmakers seem to beleive that in order to make the films 'dark', 'gritty' and dare I say it, 'realistic', they have to trim down or entirely do away with otherwise essential and colourful elements which have made the comic-books so rich for so long, and replace it with plain looking replacements or black leather (that seems to be the trend now doesn't it? Thank you Matrix...). Instead, why not focus on brining the thematic elements to the front if you want to go deep into realism, that way you can keep the colourful elements and still make a 'dark' and 'serious' movie (the former applies only to the appropriate source material in this case, i.e 'Batman'). Filmmakers should be doing this anyway, but, here we are...

There's not much to say about this that you haven't covered. You're absolutely right about all of this.

One thing I can say is that I've always strived to work with what you've described in that last paragraph. There are all sorts of ways to leave in and promote the classic thematic elements (instead of watering them down) and still enhance the story with "realistic" elements. Using real life psychological terms will not always be helpful with all Batman villains, but for some they are, and even when it isn't making an absolute declaration, it shows that you're thinking about it in the context of what this would be in real life (ex., what I said about Alfred telling Bruce Wayne that the psychiatrists that evaluated him as a child said that he might be at risk for schizoid disorder if his behavior doesn't show progress in his teen years... this isn't a diagnosis, since that can't be diagnosed in a child, but it's a real-life psychological phenomenon that isn't too far off from some of the Batman's adult behavior). The same way that the Batman has said in the comics that Victor Zsasz isn't a serial killer, since there is no pattern to his choice of victims, the same could be said of the Joker (and I know everyone reading this knows the Joker isn't a serial killer, right?). The Batman should be shown as well-read in psychological profiling (but not dependent on it, since it's a very small margin where that kind of profiling gets results in everyday crimefighting, and while the Batman has been shown writing off possibilities because of profiling-type though patterns, he's also very much like Sherlock Holmes much of the time, which means he doesn't discount anything until it's deemed impossible), and now he's documenting what seems to be a new trend in serial offending patterns. He, or someone else (possibly someone who studied or worked at Arkham Asylum, or someone from an earlier decade) could even come up with a tentative term for the trend of adopting an identity and behavior patterns based on gimmmicks (supposing there isn't one in real life now). That's the kind of "realism" I'm going for, not this ridiculous and offensive trend of simply making things more boring. Are we here to see superheroes and supervillains, or not?

Feck "Nolan's realistic approach."... it's completely, 100% worthless. Yeah, he did a lot of things pretty well, but it had barely anything to do with "realism," and there's no reason why anyone else who was looking at the situation from a different viewpoint that didn't include a "realistic" focus couldn't have done just as well and better.

The Joker thing has been out of contol for about a year now, but I agree, some things have gotten worse. I usually avoid those debates if I can because I don't see an entry point for actually logic. Thanks for the compliments, btw.



It all boils down to insecurity and lack of creativity. It's sad, but a lot of Batman "fans" are really only interested in the general idea of Batman, i.e. a dark, dangerous, and mysterious vigilante. Everything else is sort of irrellevant. They just want to see a cool movie, not a cool Batman movie. That's why they refuse to understand the simple fact that an insane man can dress any way he pleases, and that realism doesn't really apply when dealing with this kind of character and his motivations. I mean, have these people ever been to New York city? I've seen a lot stranger things than purple pin stripe suits.

Also, adding insult to injury, both the fans and filmmakers act as if there were no possible way to properly translate these comic book costumes because they lack the will to imagine it.

You, also, are 100% right about this. It digusts me that these people are the ones who keep filmmakers on their twisted path, and that they have the gall to look down on people who demand more faithful movies. They have the gall to assume that our only expectation is faithfulness and that our interests in no way interact. Hey, I want a "cool" movie, too, but it can't be cool if it professes to be about certain characters and are not, in fact, about those characters.

People act like big themes are important and details are unimportant. I'll say again what I've said in the past: There is nothing more important in the validity of an adaptation of well established, epic fictional characters than details. Nothing.
If not for the details, you've got archetypal characters indistinguishable from others in the genre, and that takes no integrity or knowledge to write. That's why nobody is allowed to use terms like "nitpicks" to criticize posters in these threads. Nothing is merely a nitpick. People can argue about how necessary certain aspects are to certain characters or stories, but the details are the most essential aspect of the stories. There's no such thing as the "essence" of the characters if their appearance, individual mannerisms, unique histories and other distinguishable traits are not intact.

A lot of people think the Batman is cool in his comics. Anyone who thinks that can't be translated into a movie as directly as possible is either lazy, unintelligent, or even more defeatist than I am on my most depressed days. The people who say "that won't work" or "can't be translated" are losers, plain and simple.
In the immortal words of John Locke, and allowing for the hypothetical nature of the situation (since I have not the requisite connections, resources or specific training yet to produce any of these products yet): "Don't tell me what I can't do."


Thanks for posting, guys.

 

[Zaphod]

Herr:

After doing some thinking on the hypothetical Batman franchise of ours, I have come to the conclusion that their should be a far more effective way in showing to the audience a fully fleshed out origin for Bruce’s character, straight out of ‘The Man Who Falls’ and the scenes involving young Bruce in Gotham as we spoke about, and a movie which still spends most of the screen time showing the Batman in action when he gets back to Gotham.

I believe that the most effective way to do this is to portray Bruce’s origin in a mini-series, which would air preceding the release of ‘The Batman’, or during. The series would show Bruce’s journey from the FBI, through his training with Kirigi in Korea up until he’s encounter with the Shaman. Each episode would focus on a particular type of training, divided into ‘Chapters’, and would intersplice flashback sequences relating back to Bruce’s childhood in Gotham, from his falling down the well into the bat-cave, through to his Parents murder, and him finally leaving Gotham at age 14. Each episode would focus on a certain moral, thematic skills, which Bruce learns, aswell as the practical ones, which he uses in the field. Think of it as a cross between CSI and Lost (in terms of narrative structure, with flashbacks and so forth) in some respects. Of course, I would have the series called ‘Bruce Wayne: The Man Who Falls’ and the series would be just that, a dramatised portrayal of said events from that story. While I would still maintain faithfulness to the comics as close as possible, I think that we could potentially expand on some sequences for the sake of the series, which wouldn’t hamper the existing mytho’s but even improve upon it; I’m talking about a mini series with decent production value which deals in the psychological development of Bruce Wayne as well as his journey in mastering all the skills we know him to have as Batman. Such examples of expanding faithfully upon events in the Man Who Falls story would naturally include Bruce training with Kirigi, but also Bruce in the FBI I feel could benefit from a story with more depth, although still firmly relating to Bruce’s disillusionment of course. I just mean that the events which show such disillusionment could be fleshed out into it’s own story for a single episode. I know this could be done well, and I hope it’s making sense to you, since I’m not to good on getting some ideas across.

The movie, ‘The Batman’, could therefore take of a lot with Batman in Gotham easier since the series would serve as its origin story. It’s worth adding now, that the series would promote the movie as much as being a serious piece of televised drama, for the sake of letting the viewing audience know that both shows are connected. Such as advertising the trailer at the end or the beginning of every episode, or something. However, in order to make the movie itself coherent and to provide the necessary back story elements for those who may have not seen the series, I would have minor flashback scenes to the series (literally, minor) to show how the Batman’s current way of fighting crime parallels the skills Bruce learnt abroad. I know for a fact there is a way of doing this without making the series watching audience feel like their retreading old ground. Even those who have seen the series would enjoy seeing how the skills have been carried over into the Batman’s career, which would give them a proper understanding of how the Batman works, even to those in the casual audience. The movie in this case would be more like ‘Year One’ in the sense that it should begin with Bruce arriving home to Gotham, from there, the only origin elements would be the minor flashbacks described above, Bruce collecting data and surveillance, he’s first failed night out and then the Batman debuting. It may be worthwhile considering reintroducing the Scarecrow for this movie Herr if you like this idea, since we’d have more time to develop and show his character. Still included in the movie would be all the other elements we discussed i.e. Falcone, Penguin, Catwomen cameo etc.

I seriously think that this could work absolute wonders, making a brilliantly dramatised series detailing Bruce’s journey from anguished child to crime fighting vigilante through a mix of series and film, which would function as an overarching franchise.

Sorry if that was all scatterbrained, when I’m passionate about an idea, that’s what happens. It’s better if you ask questions and I reply, since I can answer in a more cogent way. Let me know your thoughts, Herr?

 

[Herr Logan]

That sounds like a good idea, Zaphod. That's similar to when someone suggested that I put Professor Charles Xavier's origin stories into a miniseries that ran alongside the X-Men movies. That makes it optional to watch his origin.

I still like the title 'Batman: Year One' better than 'The Batman,' but you know that.

I'll be out of town for the weekend starting in maybe less than an hour or so, so it'll be a couple of days before I can respond to any further posts. Take care, guys, and keep up the good work.

 

[The Batman]

I too cant see why anything from the comics cant be put into a movie.

In fact...Batman is probably one of the most cinematic superheroes. A truly faithful Batman movie can stun audiences. And again, The general audience dosent really care about heavy focus on realism, which is why its funny when these directors act like its the only right way to do things

 

[JLBats]

I too cant see why anything from the comics cant be put into a movie.

In fact...Batman is probably one of the most cinematic superheroes. A truly faithful Batman movie can stun audiences. And again, The general audience dosent really care about heavy focus on realism, which is why its funny when these directors act like its the only right way to do things

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

 

[Zaphod]

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

While I understand your comments on some fans jumping way to early to negative conclusions, and in part do agree, you let Nolan of to lightly. For one thing, it was Nolan who originally didn't want The Scarecrow to wear a mask, or in fact a costume at all. Alas, Nolan got his wish for the later, and we were burdened with the rather uninteresting appearence of Crane in a regular business suit. The fans have ever right to be negative towards these movies, not least because of what has gone before as obvious examples of filmmakers incompetance, but also because it usually means they can appreicate the good elements when they see them a whole lot more.

 

[Herr Logan]

I have to say, I don't think this is so much a crime of Nolan's as it is the fans'.

Nolan said realism a few times too many perhaps, and fans took it a little too much to heart. Soon we saw info that emphasized the realism and de-emphasized the fantastical elements. Ra's was called an ecoterrorist originally. This fact was so over-emphasized that when I realised he lived in the mountains with ninjas, I was overjoyed.

I think all of this Joker stuff, with him as a normal guy with some, you know, slight green highlights in his hair, is that same fanboy realism over-hyping.

You can't say that word as a derogative here. I know it was a mistake, but you need to check the rules.

Edit: Actually, I'm not even sure to whom that's directed, since the word is used to describe both people who actually know their comics history and demand better, and people who defend the filmmakers no matter how badly they scrw up. Either way, I stand by my inclusion of that on my "forbidden" word list, regardless of who it's describing, and we don't need the confusion. Just be more careful in the future.