The Dark Knight Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Mr. Socko]

EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I think the problem with realism and believability are that they are often used as synonymous terms used to imply the same meaning. It also doesn't help the fact that they aren't exactly mutually exclusive concepts either and are instead, mutually reinforcing. Take your own example of Jackson's suggestion: increasing the wingspan of the dragons to make its flight more "believable". But isn't it made "believable" by applying REAL world logic a.k.a strokes of REALISM?

Or think about it this way - what are the chances of someone or something coming off as "believable" to you if it does NOT behave how you would expect it to in the real world? Isn't that judging it on the basis of realism? Plausibility is defined as something that appears likely to be true, despite absence of proof, meaning even though it's not real it LOOKS real enough to be "real". If you think about it, it is impossible for something to be plausible or believable without being realistic.

You present a very good point. So I will admit, to a degree, an amount of realism is needed(and for just about everything)

 

[Solidus]

That's why we need a great filmmaker who is also a big fan of Batman to step up to the plate. Burton, Schumacher, Nolan did not really know the world of Batman before they were attached to their respective films. Not like how Peter Jackson was a huge fan of LOTR years before he made the trilogy.

And because of this, they all took huge liberties. Tim Burton brought Tim Burton's Batman to the big screen. Christopher Nolan brought Christopher Nolan's Batman to the big screen, etc. I simply want to see "BATMAN," if you have a great director who's also been a fan of the material for years, he would be more selfless in what is brought to the silver screen and how. In my opinion...

But can you really do that? No matter what the director will bring what they believe to be Batman. And even you and I both being long time Batman fans probably would do things differently, because we interpert certain things differently. Just like all mythologies. I see what your saying and it would be cool, but even sometimes looking at the "fan films" that claim they are true fans to the Bat universe, they do a horrible job for the most part.

I think that is just one thing that may never be possible, because even with in the comics themselves artists differ from one to another how to bring Batman about.

Though I'm not saying your wrong, that would be cool no doubts. But I just don't think it could ever be done. Well at least the way you describe it. Because no matter what, there is so much source material, some will complain about certain things that should not or should have been included.

I'm just saying it would be so hard to do. I mean you have a huge Bat fan like me , who likes and prefers the Year One look. When you are a huge Bat fan too, and you have different looks/style you prefer. So it would just be so hard to ever bring a universal adaptation.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Aye, that is a good point. I sometimes forget to take into account how much Batman has variated over the past seven decades as opposed to something like LOTR which is just three books. So you are pretty right and I was wrong there, for once


edit: most fanfilm directors suck too.

 

[Solidus]

Aye, that is a good point. I sometimes forget to take into account how much Batman has variated over the past seven decades as opposed to something like LOTR which is just three books. So you are pretty right and I was wrong there, for once

Your not wrong for thinking that, but it just would be hard to do. But yea no matter what there is just so much source for Batman it would be hard to please them all.

 

[Sandouras]

Clayface could be considered to have superpowers.

And half the other villains, while not exactly superpowered, have some pretty far-fetched abilities and appearances.

Would the Long Halloween be bad without Grundy? No. Would it be bad if a movie adaptation of this comic omit Grundy for teh realisms? No. What else was unrealistic about that (its been a long time, maybe i am forgetting something)?
So does it matter that some people raise an eyebrow when batman dives on 10 armoured guards and none of them manages to shoot him? Or that in the "Dark Victory" comics batman is shot in the chest (he had ARMOUR) but is left unconscious without the shooter or Twoface who killed him, unmasking him? Is it bad if we omit these things? Cause if they made me raise an eyebrow in a comic, then they will make me shout in a movie!

There isn't. Those who are not big fans of the "dark gritty realism" is a very small percent as opposed to those who are fans. The general audience, the critics, and a good 60%(guesstimation) of the members on the Hype all seem to like it. It's simply that not all like it, and I don't think you or anyone would expect every single person to like it.

I agree with Reg's first post on this page. But I also say, I like what Nolan has done. Batman Begins is the best made Batman movie to date and The Dark Knight looks like it'll be my favorite Batman movie yet, but I'm not a big fan of making Batman very very realistic and leaving out the more 'fun' and 'comic book' elements for the sake of the film being entirely dark and realistic. As I said, Batman Begins is the most well made Batman movie yet, but the fun factor that was present as such with Batman'89 and Batman Forever was totally missing from Begins, which is why it's not my favorite.


No, no more realistic than V for Vendetta, History of Violence, The Bogie Man, or Button Man(not as stupid as it sounds). All, with possibly the exception of V are far more realistic than Batman and his list of several fantastical villains.

Spoiler

Surely BB was a bit serious, but why wasnt it fun? Why was B89 more fun? I can understand why the lighthearted Forever was more fun, but not 89. All in all, batman is a gritty, dark story in the comics. Its how it should be in the movies. If i want fun and easygoing, i watch adam west. Also, BB had enough fantastical elements. It didnt have lazarus pits or clayface, or burton's gotham, but i didnt see anything missing. What i didnt miss, is him dodging bullets like i describe above.

And seriously, you posted that pic? Thats an abomination. Its not canonical.


On the use of armour in the movies: I suspect that it originated from Burton's need of a sturdy material to make the cowl. But having a rubber head with a cloth suit wouldnt match. It even got worse with Keaton's physique so they made a suit to fix that. Apart from protection and stuff, rubber gives an other feel to batman. It looks like skin or something and not a cloth that you and me could wear. It makes him otherworldly, not to mention that it makes for a better, more defined and more sturdy physique. I dont wanna see Bale's jelly rolls when he crouches or something. I dont want to see him in robocop armour either.
But sure, Bourne or Bond go against criminals, but not on rooftops. They use guns and they dont fight 10 thugs at the same time. They cover behind a rock and shoot. Batman doesnt.

Of course the approach isn't an instant failure, but its success depends on the matter of degree to which it is implemented. Nolan's approach works better than Schumacher's, because Schumacher exceeded the fantastical limitations set out by the characters and their histories. But if Nolan feels he must modify the characters to make them function within his "vision", then I tend to conclude that a director who took the properties for what they were would be more successful.

But, obviously, it's personal taste/my opinion etc.

Maybe Nolan is limited as Socko says. I for one cant see him use Clayface. But because someone in the 40ies drew the joker that way, doesnt mean that we cant change him to suit our times. Maybe not like this. But times change. I have said before that had WonderWoman been created today she wouldnt be wearing that stupid suit. How long do you think before they say "we respect her tradition but we ve had it with this sh**!". I am not saying that the joker needs fixing, i am just saying, why dont we give it a chance? Batman's world is quite realistic. Its not that big a change. I mean, look at Smallville or the Superman movies. Metropolis is just like NY. But its like a wonder-city in the comics or STAS!

 

[Conebone69]

The suit looks better in HD in the trailer. I dont think im too worried about it anymore

 

[Sandouras]

No you've misunderstood me.

To me, the degree of "believability" in the movies is irrelevant, because that isn't why I like Batman.

It just becomes a problem if the movies are so campy that they ruin the tone of the intellectual property (Schumacher), or so toned down that they pervert or dilute the characters (Nolan).

Since you are talking about nolan and not generally, i would like you to elaborate on that.

Which character was diluted?

Scarecrow? He just had a bit altered story.

Permawhite Joker? Who the f*** cares? As long as he looks white and acts like the joker. In fact i bet this chaos joker is far better than the looney joker of the comics. He stands for something here. He isnt homo for batman, nor does he want to kill people with having them laugh. I bet he just wants anarchy and chaos. More mature and less 40ies.

Rhas? It was up for the viewer to interpret his immortality. What was changed on him? That you didnt see the Pits?

Fantasy diluted Penguin on the other side. But its teh Burton so nobody speaks against it, especially you.

yeah but according to nolans realism (starting to hate that word ) batman is more likely to die than rambo or james bond. And the suit isnt that protective either, he got big bruises from his fight in the docks in BB

He wears armour in the comics. So they intergrated that in the film. Realism or no realism. They followed the comics! Where is your god now?

 

[Fenrir]

No, they are writing--period. When the writer says "It would make sense if he had a radio in his cowl," or "It would make sense if the batmobile was a repurposed military prototype," that's writing.

Like I said, only in the strictest literal sense. Otherwise, those aspects have near zero impact on things like story and character development. That is why even if they are good touches by the writer, the writer doesn't really get enough (or any at all) credit for it because it doesn't really contribute to the overall plot or character arcs. Similarly, even if the writer does NOT bother with these auxiliary touches and instead, solely focuses on the meat of his job i.e, the story and characters completely right, he doesn't get criticized for overlooking those details. And often, it is the director, not the writer, who infuses these small touches in the film.

I can't figure out what this sentence means. If you're trying to say "Plausibility can be sometimes be an improvmenet," well, I never said otherwise.

Of course, haven't you been paying attention all this time?

I said, "but at the same time, it can be successfully argued...". I was not dismissing the alternative approach, but merely talked about reinforcing the arguments of the "realism" camp with similar logic pattern employed by those who are against it.

If you define greatness as being the most popular among the greatest number, then your logic might be sound. I don't define it that way. The cowardice of studios that stifles the creation of truly great sci-fi and fantasy does not make the alternative genres "greater." The cowardice of studios that requires all sci-fi and fantasy films be mindless actions romps does not somehow make the "realistic" films "greater."

The problem is not the genere; it's idiot executives and idiot filmmakers.

That sounds little more than a silly excuse. Pretty much all films that are "truly revolutionary" were met with resistance from studio execs. The cowardice of the executives is an irrelevant point here because we're talking about films that actually got made, despite the fierce opposition. "Realistic" films like Citizen Kane fell into the same cesspool of studio interference as the comic-booky Superman 2. And let's face it - there is hardly any lack of "truly great sci-fis". Talented and determined filmmakers have often gotten their way in making whatever kind of film they want regardless of what the suits thought, because they'd either go to another studio, or independently finance it and then sell distribution rights and whatnot. It's not like all hope is lost just because studio bigwigs said no.

What you are taking about is completeness, not plausibility. LOTR is not plausible, it is complete. That means the world has been written in such away that it has rules, and the things inside it conform to those rules. It's realistic only within it's own confines, not within the real world. LOTR is not better because it is plausible or believable, but because it is complete and makes sense within itself.

This is what I mean when I say a film can be, as you described "intimately detailed' and "fully explained" without being realistic, believable, or plausible, relative the real world. Batman can be complete in the same way that LOTR is complete without being believable, realistic, or plausible. If you construct it properly, Batman can fight a man made out of clay and nobody will say "That's stupid" by the same token that nobody said "That giant flaming eye is stupid." You don't have to make it campy or over-the-top, either.

No, I am also talking about plausibility, and let's not forget that a lot of the "rules" of the world in LOTR are in many ways similar to that of ours. Otherwise, Jackson didn't need to increase the wingspan of the nazgul's rides and I'm sure he made many such similarly motivated decisions throughout the course of the entire film. It is ridiculous to say LOTR is NOT plausible, believable or even remotely realistic when it has clear and blatant parallels to our own real world, to real world history and actually uses real world as a template for the entire "world of men" section of the film. It's pretty much lifted straight from the early Middle Ages.

And most importantly, comparing Batman to LOTR is another logical fallacy. LOTR is fantasy that is PARTIALLY based on the real world, but Batman is COMPLETELY based upon our own contemporary reality. How can anyone can sensibly call Batman "fantasy" like LOTR (particularly his depictions as an urban legend vigilante and detective rather a superhero) is beyond me.

Similarly, the film that doesn't have Batman fighting a clay monster is not better simply by virtue of being more closely aligned with the real world. Different, but not better.

It is better if the film itself is trying to be more closely aligned with the real world. Otherwise, having Batman fighting such a character would defeat the very purpose of the film's world trying to replicate it's real world counterpart as much as possible.

 

[Fenrir]

Okay guys, had a great time talking to y'all. See you next weekend (probably).

 

[Mr. Socko]

Why was B89 more fun?

I'd say simply because of the Joker. Jack's Joker was suppose to be a crazed madman, but he was also ridiculously over the top as Joker should be. He made the entire movie 10x more fun than it would have been otherwise. He wasn't like Norman Bates or Hannibal Lecter. And I'm sure Heath Ledger's Joker will also retain that element of 'fun'(nurses outfit anyone), the element that really makes you want to cheer for him despite him being the bad guy.

If i want fun and easygoing, i watch adam west.

Feel free.

And seriously, you posted that pic?

No, you only imagined it. . . . .

Thats an abomination. Its not canonical.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say the films are not as well.

 

[Sandouras]

As I said, protection isn't the suit's only purpose. Nolan has already showed us this. The ears, cowls, gauntlets, and belt have some sort of functionality to justify their existence. The bodysuit is simply part of this entire look.

To me, if the rubber bulletproof concept is erased, it changes nothing for me in terms of enjoying the story and film. And in terms of visuals, I certainly won't miss it, in favor of a slightly more accurate comic book suit. That's not to say it will be devoid of any purpose. It just takes the suit's merit a different way.


Considering fantasy movies absolutely demolish realistic movies in terms of blockbuster and mainstream success, you might want to rephrase your question, or take it back.

There is a difference between Transformers, StarWars or whatever and a direct movie interpretation of the silly stuff that is going on in comics because writers run out of ideas. I mean all this cloning stuff, timetraveling paradoxes and a new robin every 10 years is just ridiculous. Too much mumbo jumbo in the comics these days.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Since you are talking about nolan and not generally, i would like you to elaborate on that.

Which character was diluted?

Scarecrow? He just had a bit altered story.

Permawhite Joker? Who the f*** cares? As long as he looks white and acts like the joker. In fact i bet this chaos joker is far better than the looney joker of the comics. He stands for something here. He isnt homo for batman, nor does he want to kill people with having them laugh. I bet he just wants anarchy and chaos. More mature and less 40ies.

Rhas? It was up for the viewer to interpret his immortality. What was changed on him? That you didnt see the Pits?

Fantasy diluted Penguin on the other side. But its teh Burton so nobody speaks against it, especially you.


He wears armour in the comics. So they intergrated that in the film. Realism or no realism. They followed the comics! Where is your god now?

Somebody needs to calm down.

Do you need a hug?

 

[Crook]

There is a difference between Transformers, StarWars or whatever and a direct movie interpretation of the silly stuff that is going on in comics because writers run out of ideas. I mean all this cloning stuff, timetraveling paradoxes and a new robin every 10 years is just ridiculous. Too much mumbo jumbo in the comics these days.

And how did that at all apply to my post? Where in the world did I imply film should adapt any of those things from the comics?

 

[The Battousai]

Somebody needs to calm down.

Do you need a hug?

 

[Cúchulainn]

Where is your god now?

Yea apparently what with all the war and pestillence going on at the moment, and that earthquake, comic book related theological dilemmas have been put on the long finger by god.

However, your query is important to him and your comic book problem will be dealt with by a customer service representative in rotation.

 

[Sandouras]

Somebody needs to calm down.

Do you need a hug?

I am just in a hurry. Too many posts to catch up. I didnt mean to shout. I just type in a hurry and dont mind with manners a lot.

But seriously, where is your god now? Batman has armour in the comics. So grey or not, however it looks, its armoured.

Anyway, i just want to say this:

I am so pleased with what Nolan did to BB that the flaws of the suit didnt occur to me. I had seen the promotion photos with the white background. I had seen the huge helmet cheeks and the (at that time i didnt like it) helmet being separated from the cape. But i didnt care for them when i was watching the movie.
I didnt just see a two hour movie set only in nightime Gotham slums. I saw a glacier, the himalayas, bruce in jail, in a skyscraper and other stuff. I saw bright and i saw dark. Not just night (like burton).
The story was beautiful. The flashbacks were intriguing and made for a better storytelling. The characters were revised and i never felt that i had seen something before in a comic book or a movie (i can always go back and watch TAS). Scarecrow, Rhas, Falcone (not so great) were so beautifully intertwined with the story. I loved how Bruce's training was presented, how clever the final test was and how cleverly he passed it. I loved the new Alfred although its time Batman gains some confidence and isnt scolded like a schoolboy anymore. I marveled at the new batmobile, its new abilities and how unrealistic and Batman Forever its moving seat is (take that you guys on the fantastical camp!). I also loved how we had that twist at the end. Sure some people would have picked it up, but i didnt remember from BTAS (and i didnt read much comics then) who rhas was and i didnt know Neeson was matching the exact look to get the hint for the twist. That hid the twist for me and now i am asking for more twists or non-linear storytelling in TDK.

What i am trying to say is that Nolan gave us so much for us to bicker about the rubber suit. As Reqwek said when we grow up we care more about the characters and less about the explosions. BB gave so much on that front. It presented the story in a non-linear and completely new way. I knew that Doc Oc was going down in Spiderman, but i didnt know what batman was gonna accomplice on his first days. I also didnt get tired on a burtonesque Gotham that daylight never comes and it was good that half of the film was spent away from it. I hope Hong Kong is good in TDK. Additionally, Nolan gave us a true bruce wayne and spent some more time to show us more about his parents (Burton's was a miserable little man and not bruce wayne but yet noone shouts at burton).

TDK seems to go in the same way. So many new characters are coming to play. Such a complex and intricate story. Its not "hey magneto is out again", neither is it "omg that dude fell in the chemicals, i wonder what is going to happen to him". Its gonna be dent getting scarred, joker ravaging through gotham and batman getting hopeless. All seen under a new prism and not having the story's copypasted from the comics. Yes, maybe we had some goyerisms, but when you left the theatre, or after watching the dvd for the 100th time, does the "nice coat" line still linger in your brain?
Not to mention that i liked it. It lightened the air a bit, just like Fox's playful talks with Bruce or the hotel scene. Burton was like he wanted to make kids suicidal. Bruce is serious and all, but jeez.

 

[Cúchulainn]

I know!!! I totally agree! What was that fool Tim Burton thinking when he had a dark colour and lighting scheme to a character whose pseudonymn is "The Dark Knight"?! It's not as if that character is a creature of the night, you know what I mean? It's not like the last 60 years have set a precedent regarding the whole night time thing.

There was daylight in Burton's Gotham by the way. But that's just semantics.

I don't like Nolan's Bruce Wayne actually, I prefer the philanthropist Wayne from BTAS.

BB was a good film, no doubt about it. But I want a film about batman, I don't really give a rat's ass about seeing a glacier or a skyscraper. In fact I LOVED the Art Deco, or Dark Deco of Burton, and I think setting it in a pseudo-futuristic forties United States was a stroke of genius, as it made B89 timeless... (The artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as prince" aside).

BB will date.

 

[The Joker]

This thread has become ALOT more interesting to read lately

 

[Sandouras]

I know!!! I totally agree! What was that fool Tim Burton thinking when he had a dark colour and lighting scheme to a character whose pseudonymn is "The Dark Knight"?! It's not as if that character is a creature of the night, you know what I mean? It's not like the last 60 years have set a precedent regarding the whole night time thing.

There was daylight in Burton's Gotham by the way. But that's just semantics.

I don't like Nolan's Bruce Wayne actually, I prefer the philanthropist Wayne from BTAS.

BB was a good film, no doubt about it. But I want a film about batman, I don't really give a rat's ass about seeing a glacier or a skyscraper. In fact I LOVED the Art Deco, or Dark Deco of Burton, and I think setting it in a pseudo-futuristic forties United States was a stroke of genius, as it made B89 timeless... (The artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as prince" aside).

BB will date.

I meant that Burton's Gotham was depressing. It was the same everywhere and it didnt have the contrasts of Nolan's to give some relief to the viewer. The lack of daylight and that disgusting manour didnt help either.

Bruce just came back to gotham and just regained his company's control. Give it time. I like BTAS Wayne the most as well and i think that Nolan's is right on that track. In fact i think that BB suit imitated the BTAS look of batman a lot (huge upper body, big jaw and square, not round, head). Dont know if thats a coincidence.

As for timelessness of B89 i agree. Throw in a bunch of old caddilacs and some art deco and shazam you got a timeless looking movie. As far as storytelling, Keaton barely moving in the suit (and being a *****ty wayne) and the rest though, for me its old.

 

[Saint]

Like I said, only in the strictest literal sense. Otherwise, those aspects have near zero impact on things like story and character development. That is why even if they are good touches by the writer, the writer doesn't really get enough (or any at all) credit for it because it doesn't really contribute to the overall plot or character arcs.

It doesn't matter what it contributes to--it is writing. The conception of the story, world, elements, and justification or explanation of those things in a piece is writing. Nothing else follows; how can conceiving of explanations for elements of a story not be writing?

Similarly, even if the writer does NOT bother with these auxiliary touches and instead, solely focuses on the meat of his job i.e, the story and characters completely right, he doesn't get criticized for overlooking those details.

He does, by me.

That sounds little more than a silly excuse.

I'm not really concerned with you opinion of my position on that matter.

The cowardice of the executives is an irrelevant point

Hardly. You contended that the disproportionate popularity of "realistic" movies indicates they may be inherently better; I said that studio cowardice stifles quality in the sci-fi/fantasy genres more than most others, thus causing said disproportionate popularity. Seems relevant to me.

here because we're talking about films that actually got made,

No, we're talking about the merits of sci-fi/fantasy versus more conventional genres.

there is hardly any lack of "truly great sci-fis". Talented and determined filmmakers have often gotten their way in making whatever kind of film they want regardless of what the suits thought, because they'd either go to another studio, or independently finance it and then sell distribution rights and whatnot. It's not like all hope is lost just because studio bigwigs said no.

I never said great sci-fi films don't get made, I said many are killed or altered by studio interference, in greater numbers than other films. For example, there is a greater chance of a studio greenlighting a small, personal crime drama than there is of them greenlighting a small, personal crime drama starring Batman or some other sci-fi/fantasy element. The reason is because studios have a very narrow view of what can be done with sci-fi and fantasy. They also have a very narrow view of what Batman films should be like, which is depressing.

No, I am also talking about plausibility, and let's not forget that a lot of the "rules" of the world in LOTR are in many ways similar to that of ours.

And most are not.

Otherwise, Jackson didn't need to increase the wingspan of the nazgul's rides and I'm sure he made many such similarly motivated decisions throughout the course of the entire film. It is ridiculous to say LOTR is NOT plausible, believable or even remotely realistic when it has clear and blatant parallels to our own real world, to real world history and actually uses real world as a template for the entire "world of men" section of the film. It's pretty much lifted straight from the early Middle Ages.

Everything is about degrees, and there is a greater degree of fantasy than realism in the film. Unless you've got a Wizard friend who came back from the dead that I don't know about.

And most importantly, comparing Batman to LOTR is another logical fallacy. LOTR is fantasy that is PARTIALLY based on the real world, but Batman is COMPLETELY based upon our own contemporary reality.

Hardly. The degree of realism in Batman's world may be greater than that or LOTR, but not nearly to the extent you seem to think. Of course, Maybe there's a fountain of youth, clay people, icemen, and plant women in some part of the world I'm not aware of. Oh, and an army a ninja Man-Bat assassins, too. I mean, Ra's Al Ghul just returned from the grave as a disembodied spirit. Sounds like fantasy to me.

How can anyone can sensibly call Batman "fantasy" like LOTR (particularly his depictions as an urban legend vigilante and detective rather a superhero) is beyond me.

See, you've beaten yourself right there. You might as well have said "Batman isn't fantasy, except for all those stories where he is."

The fantastic, impossible superhero stories where Batman fights monsters and superpeople are as integral to the character as the urban vigilante stories, regardless of how much one might wish otherwise.

It is better if the film itself is trying to be more closely aligned with the real world. Otherwise, having Batman fighting such a character would defeat the very purpose of the film's world trying to replicate it's real world counterpart as much as possible.

That's not what I meant, and you know it. The Clayface example was not made to say that an unrealistic character could be placed in a realistic film with no ill effects, but rather that a film made with rules that rule out characters like Clayface is not better than one that is made to allow such characters. Being more closely aligned to the real world does not magically make the former film better than the latter.

 

[SheldonLevene]

No, I don't think we'll get it, because WB--like most studios--is too cowardly.

Lol, yeah unfortunately I was was thinking the same.

 

[Cúchulainn]

I meant that Burton's Gotham was depressing. It was the same everywhere and it didnt have the contrasts of Nolan's to give some relief to the viewer. The lack of daylight and that disgusting manour didnt help either.

As for timelessness of B89 i agree. Throw in a bunch of old caddilacs and some art deco and shazam you got a timeless looking movie. As far as storytelling, Keaton barely moving in the suit (and being a *****ty wayne) and the rest though, for me its old.

First of all... Gotham is not meant to be a nice place. In fact, it's meant to be a really really ****ty place. A place that's decaying and needs batman.

Secondly. Nolan isn't going to way of an altruistic philanthropic Wayne, he's chosen to go for a nitwit prick of a Wayne, and from the sides and other things I've read, Wayne doesn't really change much in the next one. Nolan got this wrong. Wayne is meant to be a nice guy.

Finally. whatever about the best Batman, Keaton was unquestionably the best Wayne, IMO. He most certainly wasn't a ****ty wayne.

 

[The Battousai]

First of all... Gotham is not meant to be a nice place. In fact, it's meant to be a really really ****ty place. A place that's decaying and needs batman.

Secondly. Nolan isn't going to way of an altruistic philanthropic Wayne, he's chosen to go for a nitwit prick of a Wayne, and from the sides and other things I've read, Wayne doesn't really change much in the next one. Nolan got this wrong. Wayne is meant to be a nice guy.

Finally. whatever about the best Batman, Keaton was unquestionably the best Wayne, IMO. He most certainly wasn't a ****ty wayne.

Stop putting your opinion up on a pedestal - you're no better than Sandouras if you do. You're welcome to having one, but don't give it as fact - that's arrogant.

 

[Cúchulainn]

It is ridiculous to say LOTR is NOT plausible, believable or even remotely realistic when it has clear and blatant parallels to our own real world, to real world history and actually uses real world as a template for the entire "world of men" section of the film. It's pretty much lifted straight from the early Middle Ages.

LOL...
[citation needed]

 

[SheldonLevene]

Stop putting your opinion up on a pedestal - you're no better than Sandouras if you do. You're welcome to having one, but don't give it as fact - that's arrogant.

Lol only because 99% of hype users view thier opinion as scientifically tested truth.