Dare I Criticize the Batman Franchise?

[ai_ki_pez_man]

Batman’s history admittedly affords the franchise admittedly rewards the upcoming Dark Knight movie with no small amount of visibility. Coupled with the tragic demise of Ledger, it seems that this movie will most likely be the top grossing movie of the summer. It seems that these aforementioned factors may place Dark Knight above criticism, resulting in many inflammatory remarks on the Marvel boards, despite the success of both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk.


However, I just rewatched Batman Begins, and although it is undoubtedly the most successful DC film EVER (followed closely by the first two Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies), I still think that it rewrites the Batman mythos in ways that make me uncomfortable. Us Marvel-raised guys have taken a beating in light of Nolan’s vision, and I thought that it would be in all fairness to point out at least one major issue that I have had will ALL of the Batman movies: a vestige that still expresses itself today.
That being – why MUST Batman have a “love interest” in every film? My conception of the character is one epitomized by loneliness. Self-imposed solitude is one of the factors that drive Batman. When Keaton tore his cowl off in “Batman Returns,” I felt like we jumped the shark. While that may seem far removed from what Bale is doing, Nolan’s incarnation of Batman intentionally reveals himself in a similar way towards the end of “Batman Begins.”


It would be more dramatic if Wayne always kept his identity a secret against his more selfish desires – to the SAME character. However, this hypothetical character has no consistent historical precedent in the Batman mythos. There is no “Lois,” or “Iris,” or “Steve.” Best case scenario, Catwoman is the character that has kept Wayne’s interest for any length of time. That is why various filmmakers have to keep creating new love interests for Bruce Wayne, why none of them stick, and also why it does not seem to matter too much that Gyllenthal is taking the role over (which might indicate that we really don’t care about the character).


These movies are not without flaw, the most major of which is to continually keep rewriting the mythos of the characters to better serve the silver screen. In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition. This happened in Superman Returns with disastrous results (Superman’s possible love child……WTF?). DC….stick with what has already worked!

 

[Katsuro]

I'm pretty sure the love interest in Begins was studio mandated. Yeah, it would've been better without her, but the love story was also very minor. Hell, she was more of a friend than a love interest up until the end. They only kissed once.

 

[The Question]

While I would have preferred Rachel to have been an established character instead, she didn't bother me. Bruce has always had quite a few ladies in his life in the comics, and the fact that he cares very deeply for many of them but has failed to truly connect with all but a handful of them (and even then, only Selina, Talia, and Silver come to mind, and two of them are somewhat of the bat**** crazy variety), I think, emphasizes his loneliness.

 

[The Major]

In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition.

The only adaption that you listed which mythos had the precedent was Daredevil.

FF and GR did major changes to the concepts which ended up hurting them instead of updating them relevantly.

While I would have preferred Rachel to have been an established character instead, she didn't bother me.

Agreed.

As Katsura mentioned I liked that Rachel wasn't a standard love interest, too.

Bruce has always had quite a few ladies in his life in the comics, and the fact that he cares very deeply for many of them but has failed to truly connect with all but a handful of them (and even then, only Selina, Talia, and Silver come to mind, and two of them are somewhat of the bat**** crazy variety), I think, emphasizes his loneliness.

Batman is bat **** crazy to me. That's why I think Catwoman and Talia suit him as love interests. No normal girl is going to realistically stay with a guy who makes James Bond look normal.

 

[Katsuro]

In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition.

Really? So the movie version of Dr. Doom was just like the one you grew up reading about, huh? You sure about that?

 

[Gilpesh]

Why is it... that anyone who criticizes the Batman franchise... thinks they are somehow the first and will be killed for doing so?

 

[bullets]

How is having a love interest a flaw? Almost every movie has a love interest and it's only right that Batman would have somebody . Also the complaint won't hold much weight because

Spoiler

rachel dies

That would surely lead us to catwoman in the third film .

Another thing is that this franchise will surely continue but we wont have nolan, bale or oldman after the next sequel . It will most likey be a new vision.

 

[dnno1]

...That being – why MUST Batman have a “love interest” in every film? My conception of the character is one epitomized by loneliness. Self-imposed solitude is one of the factors that drive Batman. When Keaton tore his cowl off in “Batman Returns,” I felt like we jumped the shark. While that may seem far removed from what Bale is doing, Nolan’s incarnation of Batman intentionally reveals himself in a similar way towards the end of “Batman Begins”.

People perceive a person who lives a monastic life as boring and effeminate. Not quite the public image that you would want one of your flagship characters to have. Even in the animated and live action serials, he dated a woman every once in a while or there was a love interest. Also you have to consider that the other half of the audience is female and they like some drama and romance in their movie going experience. It is more than just a studio mandate, it is in the interest of image presentation and appeasement of a large audience demographic.

...These movies are not without flaw, the most major of which is to continually keep rewriting the mythos of the characters to better serve the silver screen. In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition. This happened in Superman Returns with disastrous results (Superman’s possible love child……WTF?). DC….stick with what has already worked!

This is not true. All of the Marvel films were adapted (rewritten) for the silver screen. Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider, but by a genetically enhanced spider. The FF got their powers from a cosmic storm while in a rocket ship that crash landed on Earth. That didn't happen exactly that way in the movie and Dr Doom didn't have cosmically enhanced super powers. Bullseye did not have a branded tattoo on his forehead. I think the only one of the films you listed that was the most altruistic was "Ghost Rider" and that didn't do too well at the box office. Furthermore, the comics are always changing (adapting) to the times as well. Peter Parker went from being single to a married back to being single and in high school. In a nutshell, a product has to be able to adapt to suit its environment in order to survive or the have its life cycle endure. Sticking to the source material or the president of maintaining the mythos is not a necessary condition for success since there have been a lot of films that have succeeded without doing this.

 

[The Major]

Furthermore, the comics are always changing (adapting) to the times as well. Peter Parker went from being single to a married back to being single and in high school. In a nutshell, a product has to be able to adapt to suit its environment in order to survive or the have its life cycle endure.

Those are soft reboots. I have no problem with those. They just have to make sense, be enjoyable and fit the franchise's concept its apart of.

It's the same with the movies adaptions.

Sticking to the source material or the president of maintaining the mythos is not a necessary condition for success since there have been a lot of films that have succeeded without doing this.

Movies can still respect a comic franchise mythos while taking it in new directions. Many have done this with success. Execution and whether the updated version is a good idea matter with this, too.

If they're going to throw out 99% of the concept they're not making an adaption they're making a completely new movie by themselves that's pretending to be some other franchise.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Why are we even discussing this? If he has a problem with BB then take it to the BB forum.


He admitted he's a Marvel fan. He's just jealous that Iron Man was getting all the praise (this is how to do a superhero movie) at the beginning of summer and now TDK is stealing all the thunder and being calle a "masterpiece" and "raises the bar for comic movies."

 

[The Batman]

Batman’s history admittedly affords the franchise admittedly rewards the upcoming Dark Knight movie with no small amount of visibility. Coupled with the tragic demise of Ledger, it seems that this movie will most likely be the top grossing movie of the summer. It seems that these aforementioned factors may place Dark Knight above criticism, resulting in many inflammatory remarks on the Marvel boards, despite the success of both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk.


However, I just rewatched Batman Begins, and although it is undoubtedly the most successful DC film EVER (followed closely by the first two Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies), I still think that it rewrites the Batman mythos in ways that make me uncomfortable. Us Marvel-raised guys have taken a beating in light of Nolan’s vision, and I thought that it would be in all fairness to point out at least one major issue that I have had will ALL of the Batman movies: a vestige that still expresses itself today.
That being – why MUST Batman have a “love interest” in every film? My conception of the character is one epitomized by loneliness. Self-imposed solitude is one of the factors that drive Batman. When Keaton tore his cowl off in “Batman Returns,” I felt like we jumped the shark. While that may seem far removed from what Bale is doing, Nolan’s incarnation of Batman intentionally reveals himself in a similar way towards the end of “Batman Begins.”


It would be more dramatic if Wayne always kept his identity a secret against his more selfish desires – to the SAME character. However, this hypothetical character has no consistent historical precedent in the Batman mythos. There is no “Lois,” or “Iris,” or “Steve.” Best case scenario, Catwoman is the character that has kept Wayne’s interest for any length of time. That is why various filmmakers have to keep creating new love interests for Bruce Wayne, why none of them stick, and also why it does not seem to matter too much that Gyllenthal is taking the role over (which might indicate that we really don’t care about the character).


These movies are not without flaw, the most major of which is to continually keep rewriting the mythos of the characters to better serve the silver screen. In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition. This happened in Superman Returns with disastrous results (Superman’s possible love child……WTF?). DC….stick with what has already worked!

1. I'm pretty sure Tim Burtons Batman is still the most successful DC film...

2. Batman has a love interest in the movies.... because he has love interests in the comics.

3. No offense, but i for one am damn glad WB dosent agree with your conception of Batman, or others who believe that batman is some kind of sexless robot

 

[ai_ki_pez_man]

Why is it... that anyone who criticizes the Batman franchise... thinks they are somehow the first and will be killed for doing so?

Well….this is a flame-heavy forum.

FF and GR did major changes to the concepts which ended up hurting them instead of updating them relevantly.

All of the Marvel films were adapted (rewritten) for the silver screen. Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider, but by a genetically enhanced spider. The FF got their powers from a cosmic storm while in a rocket ship that crash landed on Earth. That didn't happen exactly that way in the movie and Dr Doom didn't have cosmically enhanced super powers. Bullseye did not have a branded tattoo on his forehead. I think the only one of the films you listed that was the most altruistic was "Ghost Rider" and that didn't do too well at the box office.

Really? So the movie version of Dr. Doom was just like the one you grew up reading about, huh? You sure about that?

All of these are good counter-examples



I was never a big reader of the original Ghost Rider, and only became acquainted with the character in his 90s incarnation. More well-read readers will undoubtedly have more to say about the movie. All I can say is, from my meager experience, I was not a huge fan of the movie.

I felt that the Fantastic Four movies were the poorest that Marvel has had to offer. While I liked the interactions between the Thing and the Human Torch, the shortcuts that were used around Dr. Doom degraded the character, and perhaps this issue plays a bigger role in my dissatisfaction with these movies than I would like to admit. Still, the essential qualities of any of these characters are not seriously called into question. Dr. Doom is still Mr. Fantastic’s nemesis, Reed Richards is still in love with Sue Storm, and Johnny Storm still likes to mess with Ben Grimm. I still think that the Silver Surfer was the highlight of Fantastic Four franchise.

I still hold that the Marvel does the best it can to pay respect to its mythos, despite is historically convoluted nature. I think that this is a trend we will see more of now that they are their own studio. Regardless, the original motivations of the majority of the Marvel franchises are intact, and I don’t think that we can say the same for the DC.

No offense, but i for one am damn glad WB dosent agree with your conception of Batman, or others who believe that batman is some kind of sexless robot

The character of Batman is one that I see epitomizing unrequited love. His personal mission should keep him from truly understanding love. This DOES NOT make him sexless. Instead, it makes him a perpetual adolescent. Because of his past, he can never actualize his feelings, but he can explore them through his relationships.

In the end, this aspect of Batman was only tangentially explored in the comic books. It has become the forefront of the movies, which is my point of this thread.

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

Why are we even discussing this? If he has a problem with BB then take it to the BB forum.


He admitted he's a Marvel fan. He's just jealous that Iron Man was getting all the praise (this is how to do a superhero movie) at the beginning of summer and now TDK is stealing all the thunder and being calle a "masterpiece" and "raises the bar for comic movies."

did you even read his post?

he made legit points about the nolanverse. nowhere does he say he's jealous. if anything you're illustrating his point.

he can't take it to the batman boards, b/c let's face it, at the moment, they're the most fanatical members on the entire site

yet at the same time, anybody who dares criticize TDK gets labeled a troll. even though the vast majority of fans haven't seen it yet, somehow it's ok to praise it and call it on par with a scorsese film or some crazy hyperbole but as soon as anybody has a complaint they're just "blowing things out of proportion"


just b/c critics says something is awesome, doesn't always make it great

1. I'm pretty sure Tim Burtons Batman is still the most successful DC film...

2. Batman has a love interest in the movies.... because he has love interests in the comics.

3. No offense, but i for one am damn glad WB dosent agree with your conception of Batman, or others who believe that batman is some kind of sexless robot

1. maybe financially, adjusted for inflation, etc...it certainly captured gotham city imo. all the crazy bridges and architecture was awesome. burton's style really helped for that. compared to nolan's gotham, which is just chicago with a monorail. that being said i think donner's superman is arguably the best DC movie, if not the best comic book movie and i'm a huge marvel fan (spidey2 and IM are both excellent in my book)

2. very true, but why not use those ones then?

vicki vale? understandable, gotta distance itself from the burton ones, being a reboot and all

talia? would've been perfect. she's always been the one batman encounters first, before ra's. their relationship is also very complex

silver st cloud? could've worked as some childhood friend of bruce's. rich socialite circles and all that jazz.

catwoman could work, but then there's a) the whole batman returns confusion and b) you'd need more than one movie to develop her into a credible romance/foil

which brings us back to square one with rachel. completely useless character. we all know she was studio mandated (as well as casting choice), which just shows that WB didn't fully trust nolan. once again, understandable, but it's how nolan/goyer executed it, that was the problem in begins for me too.

3. he's not a sexless robot. he's just devoted to his mission. it takes a special woman for him to consider hanging up the cape. catwoman fits this bill. talia fits this bill. sasha bordeaux could fit this bill. rachel? she doesn't.

it's one thing if WB execs want to shoehorn in a romance plot to try and attract female viewers. it's another thing when the people involved go about it with a character never even originating from the comics. especially when there are several good ones already

 

[DACrowe]

Eh, where to begin. Well first I"m just gonna' point out that Vicky Vale and Selena Kyle (the love interests in the first two Burton films) were in the comics. For that matter so was Julie Madison in B&R, but she was so minimal in such a bad movie no one remembers she was there.

I do agree with you about love interests being studio mandated. Albeit Burton used both of his as intelligent catalysts into exploring the psyche of Bruce Wayne, albeit Catwoman worked to greater results. The scene you speak of in BR is scary because he could not take that leap into a "normal life" with Vicky Vale in the first film, but he makes it with a kindred spirit who is as ****ed up as him and still suffers for it.

But let's move on to Nolan as that is what this is about. Nolan is doing something with Rachel Dawes that Burton tried and failed to do with Vicky Vale. Rachel is Bruce's life line to normalcy. She is his connection to humanity and in TDK he thinks he can reach out for it and it is in his grasp. Not to spoil anything, but it is more complicated than Bruce realizes (duh).

While Rachel was mandated by the studio, I feel her character actually has been somewhat beneficial to the movies. I know fanboys (not calling you one) don't see it that way and I usually see responses about how "worthless" she is. But she served as a good foil for Bruce Wayne that connected his origin with the latter half of the movie with someone other than Alfred. It gives Bruce a confidant in the DA office when it was too early to go into Harvey Dent and is going to be used especially well in TDK> Nolan is exploring the cost of being Batman. Nolan is saying anyone with sanity (which Bruce should have) would not resolve themselves to lonliness and emptiness forever off the bat like Batman. He is looking for a way out. Nolan is going to take that away from him, which is far more interesting than the demi-god of self-perfection whose arc is done as soon as his parents die, which is what many fanboys seem to want.

I think in the end while it is studio mandated it is good to see Batman without his mask interact with someone other than Alfred. And while Vicky, Chase and Julie didn't stick, the fact that Rachel is still in the sequel (even after the original actress left) does show she has a purpose and is of value to Nolan's vision. As for Catwoman, I thought she was the linchpin of BR and held very well there.

 

[DACrowe]

These movies are not without flaw, the most major of which is to continually keep rewriting the mythos of the characters to better serve the silver screen. In the case of Marvel, the mythos takes precedent. While I will agree that this does not always result in the best film (FF, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, to name a few), at least those of us who learned to read by comics do not see our memories distorted beyond recognition. This happened in Superman Returns with disastrous results (Superman’s possible love child……WTF?). DC….stick with what has already worked!

Also, I take point with drawing a distinction between adaptation and blind faithfulness. All four of those mediocre superhero movies you listed were inferior to Superman Returns. I myself am a Marvel fan first and most know how I defend the Spidey movies for example. But they too (well at least the first two) are examples of adapting the material in a streamlined way that captures the essence of the comics and the characters without getting bogged down in the continuity and detailed back stories that are too large and convoluted for any series of films. Nolan understands this and is adapting to his artistic vision. I'd rather a group of filmmakers know and respect the material but alter it to fit what they see as its potential. It can be faithful to the comics (Batman Begins) even if it adds a childhood friend/romantic interest (Rachel Dawes), Ra's Al Ghul training Bruce before he was Batman and being a mentor then without once mentioning Talia or the Lazerous Pit, etc.

What matters is making a quality movie that is true to the source but can stand on its own. If anything I am starting to wonder if Marvel could take some pointers from Nolan. Iron Man was very good, but it is obvious Marvel is restraining artistic flourishes and strong auteur stamps (similar to how EON maintains a certain bland and simple style for the Bond movies) and The Incredible Hulk is made in the exact same vein as Iron Man. Sure you won't end up with something that borders on groundbreaking but falls flat on its face (Ang Lee's Hulk) but you won't even get something as unique as Spider-Man 2. Marvel is playing it safe and formulaic and TIH is great if you're a fan of the comics, but as a movie on its own it extremely average at best.

Now Marvel is rushing their movies off without directors or screenplays like they're on an assembly line. Meanwhile Nolan continues to push the genre into the direction of art (which it has pushed for rarely with Donner's Superman, Burton's Batmans and Lee's Hulk to mixed results). He is pushing the limit of what is expected even if he strays a little far to make his vision work (oh nos, Joker wears make up and is not permawhite ). I'd rather see them take risks with their future movies. I mean if they are all of equal quality and don't try to raise the bar they will get old fast.

 

[04nbod]

Why is it... that anyone who criticizes the Batman franchise... thinks they are somehow the first and will be killed for doing so?

maybe because of replies like this?:

He admitted he's a Marvel fan. He's just jealous that Iron Man was getting all the praise (this is how to do a superhero movie) at the beginning of summer and now TDK is stealing all the thunder and being calle a "masterpiece" and "raises the bar for comic movies."

I haven't seen the OP around so I don't know his motives but why must it be a Marvel vs. DC war? Why must it be jealousy? I'm a fan of both. I saw Iron Man and will see Batman but I don't hero worship Nolan's retelling. If anything I disagree strongly with some of Nolan's views most notably the inclusion of Dick. I think someone who thinks the kid takes away from the darkness in fact it highlights Bruce's desire for family and we see Bruce as a child through Dick but thats for another thread. I hate how 'Marvel Fan' is meant to automatically invalidate a person's view of DC.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

maybe because of replies like this?:



I haven't seen the OP around so I don't know his motives but why must it be a Marvel vs. DC war? Why must it be jealousy? I'm a fan of both. I saw Iron Man and will see Batman but I don't hero worship Nolan's retelling. If anything I disagree strongly with some of Nolan's views most notably the inclusion of Dick. I think someone who thinks the kid takes away from the darkness in fact it highlights Bruce's desire for family and we see Bruce as a child through Dick but thats for another thread. I hate how 'Marvel Fan' is meant to automatically invalidate a person's view of DC.

Why even come into the DC forums with this when there's a forum dedicated to Batman Begins and Batmania. Is the BEgins forum flooded with viewers? No it isn't. The opening poster wants his rant to be seen and so he post in the second DC forum so it'll be seen.

Considering that most people agree that Rachel/Katie Holmes sucked in Begins and was useless, what exactly did he expect to get flamed about?



The key phrase in the OP that made me cringe was
"Us Marvel-raised guys have taken a beating in light of Nolan’s vision, and I thought that it would be in all fairness to point out at least one major issue that I have had will ALL of the Batman movies: a vestige that still expresses itself today."

So he feels like BAt fans are bashing in Marvel forums and suddenly decides to cast a critical eye now. Jeez, the Batmania is gonna end in a few days anyway.

And yes, I think the Batforums are insane right now.


I hated all the praise being lavished on Iron Man after the movie, that I thought was average, but I didn't feel the need to rain on the Marvel guys parade.

 

[chamber-music]

Also, I take point with drawing a distinction between adaptation and blind faithfulness. All four of those mediocre superhero movies you listed were inferior to Superman Returns. I myself am a Marvel fan first and most know how I defend the Spidey movies for example. But they too (well at least the first two) are examples of adapting the material in a streamlined way that captures the essence of the comics and the characters without getting bogged down in the continuity and detailed back stories that are too large and convoluted for any series of films. Nolan understands this and is adapting to his artistic vision. I'd rather a group of filmmakers know and respect the material but alter it to fit what they see as its potential. It can be faithful to the comics (Batman Begins) even if it adds a childhood friend/romantic interest (Rachel Dawes), Ra's Al Ghul training Bruce before he was Batman and being a mentor then without once mentioning Talia or the Lazerous Pit, etc.

What matters is making a quality movie that is true to the source but can stand on its own. If anything I am starting to wonder if Marvel could take some pointers from Nolan. Iron Man was very good, but it is obvious Marvel is restraining artistic flourishes and strong auteur stamps (similar to how EON maintains a certain bland and simple style for the Bond movies) and The Incredible Hulk is made in the exact same vein as Iron Man. Sure you won't end up with something that borders on groundbreaking but falls flat on its face (Ang Lee's Hulk) but you won't even get something as unique as Spider-Man 2. Marvel is playing it safe and formulaic and TIH is great if you're a fan of the comics, but as a movie on its own it extremely average at best.

Now Marvel is rushing their movies off without directors or screenplays like they're on an assembly line. Meanwhile Nolan continues to push the genre into the direction of art (which it has pushed for rarely with Donner's Superman, Burton's Batmans and Lee's Hulk to mixed results). He is pushing the limit of what is expected even if he strays a little far to make his vision work (oh nos, Joker wears make up and is not permawhite ). I'd rather see them take risks with their future movies. I mean if they are all of equal quality and don't try to raise the bar they will get old fast.

DACrowe gets it.

I'm not a fan of the Marvel vs DC stuff. It seems a little childish to me. I like characters from both companies and I want them both to be successful. There is no reason why we can't get good movies from either to enjoy.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

DACrowe is on the money. Again.

As for the DC vs. Marvel Thing, DC wins.

Why? Because they've got BATMAN and JOKER (greatest villain ever). That's why. t:

 

[The Major]

talia? would've been perfect. she's always been the one batman encounters first, before ra's. their relationship is also very complex

Nolan's already set Talia up with Begins. If we don't see her in Nolan's movies the next director could easily bring her in by connecting her to events in BB.

I'd like to see a director like Fincher use her if Nolan doesn't.

it's another thing when the people involved go about it with a character never even originating from the comics.

Rachel technically did originate in the comics. She was different from her movie version, of course. She's The Reaper's daughter from Year Two not a D.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaper_(DC_Comics)

 

[Evil Twin]

Having the same first name as a different character doesn't make them the same.

I see nothing wrong with Batman having a "love interest" in the movies. It adds complication, conflict, gives the character something to do besides obsess over the criminal, gives the actor a break from being in a restrictive costume, raises the personal stakes (it's one thing to threaten Lois Lane or Mary Jane who we know nothing is likely to happen to, it's another to threaten Vicki Vale or Rachel Dawes), and often has other uses. Vicki Vale is, for the most part, the audience viewpoint character in Batman, who represents light, she literally wears white in many scenes. Rachel Dawes represents the girl Batman left behind who is one of the sacrifices Batman made, although I agree she wasn't handled particularly well. Catwoman is his mirror. While they might be studio mandates, they're also opportunities for storytelling. And, heck, if you're going to want $150+ million budgets, you better have some sort of appeal for women if you want the film to be financially viable.

I do think people give Nolan something of a pass for the changes he's made, and he's made a lot, simply because he's made a movie that they enjoy. Adaptation involves changes, especially since most of these properties are at least 30 years old.

 

[kyuubijavi1]

1. I'm pretty sure Tim Burtons Batman is still the most successful DC film...

2. Batman has a love interest in the movies.... because he has love interests in the comics.

3. No offense, but i for one am damn glad WB dosent agree with your conception of Batman, or others who believe that batman is some kind of sexless robot

Woah Tim screwed up Batman's origin and thats hard to do but he screwed it up having Joker be the one to kill his parents

Nolan made sure that it was Joe chill that killed his parents cause Batman was created off a random crime just like Spidey was

screwing that up add's nothing in fact it kinda kills it Batman fights an on going war cause he could never get the vengence he decires

and Spidey could of stopped the killer but chose not to out of spite

now as for the love intrest its no secret Katie was the weak link in Batman Begins but oh well she's been recast and it seems like Maggie completely owns the role

you wanna complain about love interest take it to spiderman that actually takes hours away from the movie just to show both peter and mj whine about not being with one another then whine about being with each other

 

[The Major]

I do think people give Nolan something of a pass for the changes he's made, and he's made a lot, simply because he's made a movie that they enjoy.

Nolan has made some changes none of them contradict the spirit of Batman from the comics that much.

All he did was use a more realistic and condensed story to get the same effect.

What's important is he did these changes well. They weren't random, they fit the franchise and the execution was perfect.

Adaptation involves changes, especially since most of these properties are at least 30 years old.

Yes, adaptions do need changes but changes can be good or bad depending on what is added or gotten rid of and how it is given form. It's definitely got to be an improvement on the actual source its using for the media it is made in.

 

[Heretic]

I dont have a bias against love interests for Batman in the movies...my major problem is that i the first four movies he revealed his identity to 4 different women who were then never seen again.

AND...I personally think that batman Begins would have been a more effective lead in to The Dark Knight if Bruces childhood friend had been Harvey Dent. It would have made his turn into Two Face more meaningful, and it would have placed him as Assistant DA in the first movie, which is why hes DA in the second.

Not that Im complaining...

 

[dnno1]

That's a little better than Spider-Man in the comics. A lot of the people who found out who he was never lived to tell the story later on. Doc Ock might be an exception.