• Happy Halloween

    Happy Halloween, Guest!

The Dark Knight Batman vs. Iron Man via chud.com (Batman as a Character)

J

J.Howlett

Guest
Evening, ladies and gentle-men. Get a load of this. It's an interesting read.
If I'm infamous for anything at this point, it's for being the guy who didn't like Batman Begins. Which isn't really true, by the way - I liked it enough that I felt the lazy, stupid ending truly killed what was an otherwise good film. That's what annoys me so much about the movie; if Batman Begins had been bad from frame one I wouldn't have given a **** that the third act goes the way that it does. But director Christopher Nolan and company get off to such a strong start that the strike out at the end hurts so much more.

The recently defuncted comments section was lit aflame when I said that I thought Iron Man would prove to be the best superhero movie of the year. Despite the fact that I didn't say any other superhero movie would suck, the immediate reaction was that I was ****ting on The Dark Knight. Because, you know, I'm the guy who hates Batman Begins for no apparent reason. What's hilarious is that no one commenting had seen EITHER film, and I wasn't saying anything bad about The Dark Knight. But the way that Batfan's feathers are constantly ruffled has made me decide to put aside finishing my Iron Man review for a moment and talk a little bit about Batman.

First of all, I don't think Batman tends to be an interesting character. I'm getting this out of the way up front because I want to give people the ability to opt out of this editorial immediately and because I think this is fundamentally part of the problem with the modern Batman films. Batman has been an interesting character, and I think some writers in modern times have done fascinating work with him - namely Grant Morrison and Frank Miller. A lot of people will be shocked that I think All Star Batman and Robin, The Boy Wonder is brilliant, but it is. The book is sheer satire, Miller taking the tropes of the character that have been painfully enmeshed over the last three decades and dialing them up to 11, exposing them as sociopathic and fascist fantasies with weird sexually stunted overtones. Morrison, meanwhile, has been looking to break Batman out of the gothic claptrap of grimness (which he is partially responsible for, thanks to Arkham Asylum) and return him to his status as an adventure hero, a change that's almost revolutionary.

Batman tends to be one note, an obsessive nut who can't get past his early childhood traumas*. It's interesting to see that most of the creators who have worked on Batman seem to have understood how dull he is - Batman is constantly surrounded by supporting characters because he only becomes interesting when he's being bounced off someone else, or is reflecting aspects of someone else. And because the last few decades of Batman's history has been a race to the bottom in regards to depicting him as humorless, grim and super-serious, this element of the character is only getting more magnified. Batman sheds no light, he absorbs it from others. He may be the only iconic superhero whose villains are endlessly more interesting than he is.

It's that problem which informs the first four modern Batman films. In each one the villains upstage the hero, but it's hard to see how it could be any other way (Nolan solves this problem by making his villains mostly as flat as Batman in Begins). Batman's character is established quickly and easily, and then that's it. There's nowhere else to go with him. He's a character who never learns anything, and the only growth he ever shows is to become more and more withdrawn and crazy. Conceptually that's cool, but in a franchise setting that's... boring. Imagine going to theaters to see Taxi Driver IV: The Final Fare. Although, to be honest, I do feel that Travis Bickle is a more nuanced character than Batman has ever been.

All of this is compounded by the false math that says dour is more meaningful; it's the high school reaction that says love songs and dance songs are never going to be as good as the really heavy songs about death and wizards. People claim that Batman is more relatable because he's human; in many ways this makes him less relatable to me. If I had super powers, maybe I would go out and do superheroic things. If my parents were murdered I would probably be less likely to dress up as a bat and punch out criminals. It's an insane reaction, frankly.

But also, what does Batman say about us? Spider-Man is about being a regular guy and trying to do the best with what you have. Superman is about the American ideal. Iron Man is about taking responsibility for what you've done. Batman is about... how horrible life is in modern urban areas? Being an obsessive sadist weirdo? The thematic element that has people excited about The Dark Knight - that Batman's very presence escalates things in Gotham City - is itself a post-modern take on the character, not what the character is actually about. Maybe the most interesting thematic element to Batman is the idea that no matter how much we improve ourselves physically, it doesn't make a difference if we don't improve ourselves emotionally, but I somehow don't feel that most fans are interested in Batman as a cautionary tale.

Christopher Nolan seems to have bought into the idea that songs about death and wizards are cooler than songs about being in love; all indications point to The Dark Knight being exponentially darker and tougher than the first film. I've thrown up my hands at this trend; everybody but me seems to think that the things they loved as kids should become scaled up as they become adults. If the Baby Boomers felt this way we'd probably have had an R-rated Howdy Doody movie by now. Of course a lot of people don't understand where I'm coming from - I've had readers and friends alike tell me that there's no way to do Batman lighter without turning it into Batman and Robin, and I understand the fear. I just think this kind of binary thought process is wrong.

Batman can have adventures. He can be an adventure character. His villains don't need to be ruthlessly rooted in reality and psychology - if anything it would probably be more interesting to see the modern, 'realistic' Batman going up against more fantastical elements in his movies. The idea of Batman being the mirror image of his insane foes is so boring already - let's see a Batman movie where he's the model of rationality going up against something profoundly irrational. R'as al Ghul would have been more interesting with his Lazarus Pit and mystical mumbo jumbo intact from the comics because those elements are so outside of the modern movie Batman's comfort zone. I don't want a realistic Joker, one extrapolated from a place of reality. I want a Joker who is larger than life, who approaches the cartoonish, because the laugh-a-decade Batman going up against him is more intriguing that way. Hell, I'd be happy with a Batman movie that dialed down the goth overtones and went back to the character's real roots of noir. How about a Batman film where the world's greatest detective detects stuff? A crime movie with Batman as the PI. There are so many possibilities, and they don't all lead to the examinations of tortured psyches or the clownish ******** of Adam West.

Twenty years ago, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight and Alaan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen kicked off the trend of deconstructing and psychologically examining comic book superheroes. It was intriguing and fascinating for a while, but the characters can't remain deconstructed if they're going to continue on in movie franchises. I'm hoping that the movie version of Watchmen does the opposite of what the comic version did, that it puts that genie back in the bottle, that it's the last word on the subject. That's what I love about Jon Favreau's Iron Man - the hero isn't being deconstructed, he's not a closet case or a deviant or a freak. Who would have thought that a mostly psychologically undamaged heroic superhero would be refreshing?

*It is important to note that, no matter what a fan may tell you, there is no one Batman. The character has changed drastically over the decades, and each of the versions of Batman is just as relevant as all the rest. For the sake of argument, though, I'm talking about the Batman who came about in the comics in the 70s and who was really solidified by Tim Burton in his films.
 
This isn't interesting at all. The dude's an asshat, and he's pretending that his critcisms towards Batman fans is somehow new and exciting.
 
Quite true. I don't agree with his assessment that Batman doesn't bring any "light (his words)" compared to his counterparts.

The core of his character and what he represents is what makes Batman, the character, special. Just because he's a darker character compared to the others doesn't mean he doesn't have something to offer in terms of hope for the reader/viewer....

The character has a powerful, thematic arc that is inspiring, if you consider his circumstances and how he's turned that into a positive...even if it's extreme.
 
I'll just say that they should burn. This is the same guy that thought Fantastic Four was better than Batman Begins. Lets just say the man has no idea what Batman is all about and I feel sorry for the fact that he is forcing himself to be let out of the wonderful loop.
 
this is a terrible read.
And theres no point of comparing these films. There is no point
you just wasting your time.
Lock this thread...
 
It's Devin, right? He's the main reason I stopped reading or posting anything on CHUD.com. Screw 'em.
 
That was nothing more than inflammatory drivel, seeking to elicit a reaction. no substance whatsoever. :dry: :down

We have a thread for competition in relation to TDK, in which Iron Man figures prominently. Additionally, how's about at least a cursory effort in not linking to articles that contain verbiage that blatantly bypasses the censor.
---------------------------------------
This topic was originally closed because I found the piece to be devoid of anything other than bunk (echoed by the leading responses from other posters) and duplicative of the box office competition discussion. I was approached about the possibility of re-opening it in an effort to entertain discussion addressing the merits of Batman as a character. Though initially speculation of this article having any worth, perhaps something resembling a decent exchange of ideas can be sifted from this transparent rigmarole. To that end, let's have at it.
 
I'm going to address the major claims of the article.

Batman tends to be one note, an obsessive nut who can't get past his early childhood traumas*. It's interesting to see that most of the creators who have worked on Batman seem to have understood how dull he is - Batman is constantly surrounded by supporting characters because he only becomes interesting when he's being bounced off someone else, or is reflecting aspects of someone else.

The author assigns a trait of all characters to Batman specifically, as a negative. Characters cannot exist in a vacuum. A supporting cast is necessary in all but the rarest instances to stimulate character advancement and give the character people to sound of on, so the entire story isn't told in monologue.
There's nowhere else to go with him. He's a character who never learns anything, and the only growth he ever shows is to become more and more withdrawn and crazy.
This is simply the nature of comics: changes are few, and sudden. You will always get a decade or two of stagnation followed by sudden, sharp advancement. That's just how the business works.

All of this is compounded by the false math that says dour is more meaningful; it's the high school reaction that says love songs and dance songs are never going to be as good as the really heavy songs about death and wizards. People claim that Batman is more relatable because he's human; in many ways this makes him less relatable to me. If I had super powers, maybe I would go out and do superheroic things. If my parents were murdered I would probably be less likely to dress up as a bat and punch out criminals. It's an insane reaction, frankly.
The degree to which batman should be relatable on the superficial level is open for debate. It is important for him to be relatable as representing the internal struggles of humanity--it is less important for us to say "Yeah, he fights crime because his parents died--I relate to that."

But also, what does Batman say about us? Spider-Man is about being a regular guy and trying to do the best with what you have. Superman is about the American ideal. Iron Man is about taking responsibility for what you've done. Batman is about... how horrible life is in modern urban areas? Being an obsessive sadist weirdo? The thematic element that has people excited about The Dark Knight - that Batman's very presence escalates things in Gotham City - is itself a post-modern take on the character, not what the character is actually about. Maybe the most interesting thematic element to Batman is the idea that no matter how much we improve ourselves physically, it doesn't make a difference if we don't improve ourselves emotionally, but I somehow don't feel that most fans are interested in Batman as a cautionary tale.

This is the best part. What a composite character like Batman is "about" is as much up to the reader as it is to the individual writing him at any given time. The inability of the author to extract meaning from the character says more about him than it does about Batman.

On the most fundamental levels, Batman is about two things: first, human power and independency; and second, the ethical struggle inherent in human existence, which can be boiled down to "do the ends justify the means."

On the first note, Batman has always represented--though not intentionally, I imagine--atheistic sensibilities where other superheroes normally reflect theistic sensibilities. The hero who is given a miraculous gift of power to defend the world reflects the mentality that there will always be someone to watch over us--that God is there to protect us and save us. Superman is a Christ child from the heavens, Wonder Woman was forged by the gods themselves. They represents absolutes: they are morally complete, paragons who come down from the heavens to protect us from evil. They did not need tragedy to shape them, they simply knew what had to be done, and they do it.

Batman, on the other hand, contains a message very different: that there is no one to save us, that God will not protect us, and we will not be supported by divinity or the inherent good of the universe in our struggles. Batman reflects the sensibility that ultimate moral responsibility is on the shoulders of mankind, and we must determine this code and execute it accordingly, because no one else will do it for us. We have to make our own heroes and protect ourselves.

The second point I mentioned follows from this. Batman is frequently the voice of mankind among the superpowered: he is the voice of dissent that insists that superhumanity cannot make decisions for humanity. He insists that the burden of moral decisions should be on mankind. He is not trusting of the superfolk and the authority they seem to think they have. This is the second point: because of this, he represents completely our own struggle to do what we believe is good, and how far we go to achieve these ends, because he does not delegate responsibility to anyone besides humanity. He does not say "What would Superman do" the way some people ask "What would Jesus do?" He doesn't recognize any authority besides humanity when making the decisions that affect us, and accordingly the responsibility to determine what is right or wrong, and the struggles that come with it, all rest squarely on man.

To illustrate this struggle, he represents the pinnacle of humanity: noble, self-sacrificing to the absolute, dedicated, the peak of intelligence, strength, and skill, with an unwavering dedication to what is right and just. At the same time, he represents the absolute bottom of humanity: he is ruled by suffering, dependent on violence, driven at least in part by all of our darker natures: vengeance, hate, anger.

Accordingly, he is constantly at odds with himself and his mission. There is a part of him that is the noble pacifist, who abhors violence and seeks peace through peace, and the part of him that is the vengeful criminal, the part that feels compelled to go out and hurt, to punish, who seeks peace through war. Fundamentally he is our own struggle to find our moral center, our balance. To what degree to we use diplomacy to seek peace, and to what degree do we enforce it?

He also represents the struggle between reason and emotion. Ostensibly, Batman seems to be the ultimate rational thinker: giving no consideration to faith or emotion. But at his core, he is driven by pure, unadulterated emotion with no consideration for reason: his mission, to any rational man, is fruitless, but his emotion refuses to let him leave it be. He cannot rationally justify his rule of non-lethality, it is rooted in emotion, his absolutism and inability to compromise, the childish heart that can't bear to see anyone die. He is at once the ultimate optimist and the ultimate pessimist.

So, in other words, what Batman is "about" is being human. I can't imagine a more relevant theme than this, and it disturbs me that an individual who, ostensibly, has taken time to think on the matter and write this article has not noticed this.

Batman can have adventures. He can be an adventure character.
Curious--this sounds like what he did in Batman Begins.

His villains don't need to be ruthlessly rooted in reality and psychology

Reality, no--psychology, yes. Every villain should reflect a fundamentally different philosophy on being human, and accordingly psychology is critical. The villains are meant to be the men that Batman could have (or could still) become. The Joker is the man that accepted violence as the truth of the universe, where Batman is the man who absolutely refused it. Two-Face is the man who could not reconcile that conflict, and split himself in two for it. Scarecrow is Batman's dark emotion, Freeze is his cold caculation. I said that Batman is mankind's struggle to find his moral center, the blanace between good, evil, emotion, logic, and each of these villains represents what Batman would become were he not balanced, each is an extreme version of one of these elements oh human life.

Because they are meant to represent extreme, they do not need to be realistic. They can be incredible, impossible, fantastic borderline supernatural things, but the core will always be there, and that is their root in humanity.


if anything it would probably be more interesting to see the modern, 'realistic' Batman going up against more fantastical elements in his movies. The idea of Batman being the mirror image of his insane foes is so boring already - let's see a Batman movie where he's the model of rationality going up against something profoundly irrational. R'as al Ghul would have been more interesting with his Lazarus Pit and mystical mumbo jumbo intact from the comics because those elements are so outside of the modern movie Batman's comfort zone. I don't want a realistic Joker, one extrapolated from a place of reality. I want a Joker who is larger than life, who approaches the cartoonish, because the laugh-a-decade Batman going up against him is more intriguing that way. Hell, I'd be happy with a Batman movie that dialed down the goth overtones and went back to the character's real roots of noir. How about a Batman film where the world's greatest detective detects stuff? A crime movie with Batman as the PI. There are so many possibilities, and they don't all lead to the examinations of tortured psyches or the clownish ******** of Adam West.
This is one of the few sentiments in the article that make sense. Certainly there are a myriad of possibilities--not to take anything away from the realistic approach, but many are extremely intriguing and I want to see them in future films.
 
Batman>>>Iron Man

That pretty much settles it...

Close Thread
 
I decided to be more open minded and read the entire thing.

As a Batman fan...I don't fully agree with him on any of the things he pointed out but unlike most fanboys on here I don't think he was entirely in the wrong either.


And no...that whole post was not just...Iron Man > The Dark Knight.
 
Hmmm...Hard. I love both & am anticipating both films. Though, Indy>Deadpool>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Batman & Iron Man, for the record. :D

Iron Man has cooler weapons, but Batman is a little bit more badazz.
I like Batman a little bit more.
 
Saint, I think I love you.

On another note - this guy doesn't like Batman. So what? I'm not a massive fan of Superman, and the 616 Spider-Man comics I've read are boring as hell, not a patch on Ultimate Spider-Man. It's all down to personal taste, Gotham City just isn't his bag baby.
 
I read up till he said he liked Frank Millers version of Batman.

Then I instantly knew the kind of moron I was dealing with and didn't have to read the rest.


LAAAAAAAAME.

- Jow
 
chud is trash, no wonder no one but 14 year old kids and 30 year old virgins who like to hear the click klack of their own keyboard goes there.

anyone talking trash about BB's ending makes me LMFAO. this kid doesn't not his head from his ass. he's the one who slammed the ending for being "too cartoony" yet he posts a million words about liking all star batman and getting back to the "adventure hero" aspect of batman.

hypocritical much? put down the pen and go get some fresh air dude
 
I agree with alot of his points. But he doesn't actually speak about TDK that much and when he does it seems has an uninformed perspective.


I want a Joker who is larger than life, who approaches the cartoonish, because the laugh-a-decade Batman going up against him is more intriguing that way. Hell, I'd be happy with a Batman movie that dialed down the goth overtones and went back to the character's real roots of noir. How about a Batman film where the world's greatest detective detects stuff? A crime movie with Batman as the PI.

If he really wants to see all this ^ then I think he's going to be pleasantly suprised with TDK.
 
I agree with alot of his points.

then may yahweh have pity on your soul. because the writer has no idea what the hell he's talking about. not only does he have no idea who batman is, even the arguments that sound halfway plausible are generic nerd-rants on comics in general:

He's a character who never learns anything, and the only growth he ever shows is to become more and more withdrawn and crazy.

ORLY???? welcome to comic books. this has nothing to do with the batman character or the writers who've worked on it. it's called, welcome to the comic book serial concept. characters stay the same because they need to be intact for the next guy who comes along and writes the books. It's called "revenue model" might as well QQ about television shows being flawed because they're for some reason constantly "interrupted" (by commercials)

CAN WE GET A GENERIC CRITICISM MASKED AS ERUDITE CRITIQUE IN DA HOUUUUUUSE

EVERYONE SAY HEEEY

furthermore, as a consequence of this, the way nerds are conditioned to react whenever anyone does do anything different with the character is to be reactionarily conservative... much as this writer does with Nolan's take on batman. it's different thus must be shunned, feared and railed against.

again has nothing to do with batman, everything to do with the comic book industry and how the modern american nerd is condidtioned.

It is important to note that, no matter what a fan may tell you, there is no one Batman

LMFAO NOOOOOOO LOL NERD. Batman is one of the most static and consistent characters of all time. He's fundamentally the kid who saw his parents get murdered in front of him. compare him to superman who truly IS a dramatically different character in different (golden age, silver age, iron age, modern) incarnations. he's not even the same character, sometimes he's actually clark kent as superman, sometimes kal-el acting as clark. even his very powers, his origin, values, everything is different.

take green lantern, or green arrow who are totally different PEOPLE through the years. take capt marvel, whose entire TONE changes as his ownership changes hands from Fawcett to DC. remember when wonder woman was "revamped" into a james bond type secret agent with NO superpowers? dude learn a bit about COMIC BOOK HISTORY before you come here and post laughable crap about inconsistencies. and yes comic books actually do go back before 1985 or frank miller....

this dude has NO IDEA what he's talking about. he's just typing some crap he probably read here and there thinking it sounds cool but makes him sound like an asshat. dude doesn't even actually know what noir is. batman is one of the most stable characters, in large measure because he was so part and parcel heavily based on existing characters with their own legendarium like zorro and Sherlock Holmes. the character and characterization for batman has remained remarkably consistent even in the 70s and 50s periods when most superheroes were being "re-imagined." even different takes on batman like frank miller and keaton's batman were perfectly consistent emphasis on different aspects of batman's character. I challenge this dude to find one major american comic book character who's remained AS CONSISTENT in the minds of writers and directors as batman has. there's certainly not another one in DC...

even this dude's criticism that a return is in order to "adventure hero" for comic book movies is a GENERIC ONE. LOL I GUESS HE JUST WENT AND CAUGHT A DOUBLE FEATURE OF SUPERMAN RETURNS AND ANG LEE'S THE HULK

this dude is in serious need of:

1) a chick
2) a shower
3) a kick in the ass

not necessarily in that order
 
It's Devin, right? He's the main reason I stopped reading or posting anything on CHUD.com. Screw 'em.

Seriously. Devin is the main reason why I stopped reading CHUD too.
 
Considering Tony Stark is a rip-off of Bruce Wayne and the fact that the Iron Man film would not have the cast it did without Batman Begins (Favreau has cited BB's cast as the best selling point for getting the likes of RDJ to sign on for Iron Man), I'd say the reviewer has a pretty narrow perspective of things.
 
Don't care about the whole Batman vs Iron Man thing. Both look great and will hopefully make lots of money.
 
I read up till he said he liked Frank Millers version of Batman.

Then I instantly knew the kind of moron I was dealing with and didn't have to read the rest.


LAAAAAAAAME.

- Jow


Is that so?


So, anybody who likes Frank Miller's Batman is a moron.
 
I agree with him. Although I enjoy the current franchise more than any other, I understand where he's coming from.
I'd love to see a batman movie done something like Flash Gordon. A real intelligent approach to the funhouse phantasmagoria so prevalent in the comics but never touched upon by hands that really knew anything about the material.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"