I re-watched "The Dark Knight" this weekend...

[Eggyman]

Absolutely!

 

[WeaponXProject]

Which is the beautiful thing about having two different Bat-verses on film. Let's just ignore the other's yes?

Clooney? Clooney?! Who that E.R. guy? He never wore a pointy eared mask...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

But to be fair, I did and still do enjoy Batman Forever. But usually I have to be under the influence for that!

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think this is best explained with this quote: "if the audience knew what they wanted they wouldn't be the audience".

I like that.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Few will admit that Nolans do...I see some issues but every fanboy will see issues with every film no matter how great it is.

Well, I do like both Burtons and Nolan and try to restrain from comparing them directly or anything like that.

That being said I just think that Nolans has less unsubjective flaws overall. I have a lot of problems with Burtons Batman movies personally on a technical and subjective level.

 

[Octoberist]

I like Burton's visuals in the first Batman. In Batman Returns, I liked the visuals but it was pretty much one big set shot at different angles, so it felt much smaller than the Gotham in Batman 89.

 

[Eggyman]

I like Burton's visuals in the first Batman. In Batman Returns, I liked the visuals but it was pretty much one big set shot at different angles, so it felt much smaller than the Gotham in Batman 89.

Yes. Gotham was a beast in '89 and I loved it. Yet I prefer TDK's Gotham of BB's.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, the score and visual style of Batman and Batman Returns to me are the shining points of those movies.

 

[Team Andino]

Like some people have already said there are some things that can stay true to the comic while some that need a slight variation. When I was in 8th grade I didn't care about Green Goblin wearing a suit or how Spideys web came to be. Same goes for just recently with how Dent was scarred. The reason changes like Dents scarring and Joker wearing make up are accepted with open arms is it was done well. Had they showed Dent getting burned in Batman Forever people would of complained about how that wasn't how it was done in the comics. The thing is most people loved TDK so much that when Dent was finally scarred it was done so well that it was hard to complain.

Look at it like you being a teacher and grading a 10 page essay. If you read a great paper that kept you enthralled from start to finish you'll more then likely over look on purpose the minor mess ups like a missing comma or misspelled word. You'll obviously take note of it but everything else was so well done your just happy with the over all paper. Now say you read a 10 page essay that was complete crap. Run on sentences, misspelled words, an sentences that don't even make sense. With this you'll be nitpicking everything on it to show everyone whats wrong with it.

 

[Tron Bonne]

It did show Dent getting scarred in Batman Forever. It was like on a news report on Two-Face within the movie, I believe. It was true to the comics if I remember and that portrayal of the character was an abomination

 

[Team Andino]

It did show Dent getting scarred in Batman Forever. It was like on a news report on Two-Face within the movie, I believe

It was done like it was in the comics by acid thanks to Boss Maroni (as he was dubbed in the film). But had had he been scarred by fire or a barracuda to the face we'd be complaining since there were other obvious flaws to the film. Like I said bother essays could have misspelled words but if there both done in different forms one better then the other then its easier to overlook it on purpose

 

[BLACKVULCAN]

i just wanted to give my 2 cents since that's all i got left.
I dont think i am your average Fanboy in that since alot of the changes made from X-men, Spider-man and a whole slew of others didnt bother me. I grew up watching both those sorry ass made for TV Captain America , Doctor Strange, All those Made for TV Hulk with Lousy ass Daredevil , and Thor movies. So i guess i got use to the changes that Hollywood does.all i wanted to see was these guys in live action form.TDK is the best superhero movie for me cause it was like watching an Shakespearean play with black leather and some guy as a clown.that's the reason I love it.Hollywood for the most part is going to do what the want to do and change things around.If that dude in Iron Man tuns out to be the Mandarin. we will again have that same scenario of the villain creating the hero( i hate that) but beggars cant be choosy, and i am begging for Superhero movies. when the joker is upside down talking to Batman. the 1st time i saw it, i thought i was listening to Iago telling Othello why he did what he did to betray him. that's the reason TDK so far is the best in the genre .
Thank you and now good night.I have to use my last 2 cents to take the bus outta here.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I like that.

I think it's true. [blackout]For example, Wolverine and the X-Men, the latest cartoon ends episode 26 (which I've seen) with the confirmation that yes, season 2 takes place entirely in the confines of the "Age of Apocalypse" Universe. AOA Cyclops, Sinister and Apocalypse all stepping out onto the platform to oversee a crowd of poverty stricken humans.[/blackout]

You might wonder why I bring this up. It's because it factors directly into this argument. Fanboys will clamor about how Wolverine wears leather, or how Batman has nipples, or when Green Goblin wears a cybernetic suit, but in the comics they will happily accept a Universe featuring Cyclops with long hair, a dead Professor Xavier, Wolverine with one hand, and a Magneto led X-Men. Not only accept, but love it so much it gets animated.

 

[Chris Wallace]

On the one hand, I'm a little pissed at you for that spoiler. On the other, it is funny that comic books have been a fluid medium for as long as I can remember & yet comic book fans are steadfastly resistant to change.

 

[roach]

You might wonder why I bring this up. It's because it factors directly into this argument. Fanboys will clamor about how Wolverine wears leather, or how Batman has nipples, or when Green Goblin wears a cybernetic suit, but in the comics they will happily accept a Universe featuring Cyclops with long hair, a dead Professor Xavier, Wolverine with one hand, and a Magneto led X-Men. Not only accept, but love it so much it gets animated.

Because with AOA we saw what led up this universe with Legion going back in time to kill Xavier.
With movies we want to see the classic versions of our heroes and villains

 

[dude stannis]

Because with AOA we saw what led up this universe with Legion going back in time to kill Xavier.
With movies we want to see the classic versions of our heroes and villains

But if it just can't work on screen people have to accept the changes. That goofy ass Goblin suit in the comics is laughable enough as it is in the comics, on screen no one would have taken him seiously.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Chris once, again, we are in full agreement. And the big red letters made me laugh.

 

[roach]

But if it just can't work on screen people have to accept the changes. That goofy ass Goblin suit in the comics is laughable enough as it is in the comics, on screen no one would have taken him seiously.

were not against change...just stupid change. I would expect the Iron Man movie to be based in Vietnam. So I can accept that change. I happen to agree that the goblin suit probably couldnt be taken straight from the comics....but if they used the goblin suit from the comics to show how screwed up in the head Norman was I think it would have worked.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The difference between Nolan and Raimi is that Nolan makes changes for the good, to further the story or to make it more realistic. Raimi just makes stupid changes that mean nothing and are uncalled for. He seems to like every single villain having ties to Peter Parker. Why? It works for GG but why do it with Sandman and Ock?

 

[roach]

Peter interviewing Ock on his project is hardly a tie

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea but in the end Ock was thwarted because he was friends with Peter. That isn't Doc Ock. He is one of the most evil villains in the MU. And he should of been portrayed like that in the film, not controlled by his frickin arms. All them scenes where he was talking to them were ridiculous.

 

[CFE]

I see where Ace is coming from...and there is a connection between Peter and every villain in the films.

Goblin and Spidey are connected through Harry...and the fact that they're arch-enemies

Ock and Spidey are connected through science...and everything about using intelligence for the common good and giving up your dreams to do the right thing.

Sandman and Spidey are connected through the fateful night of Ben's murder...and all the jazz about forgiveness.

Venom and Spidey are connect through being co-employees of the Bugle, sort of being parallels of one another...not to mention the Symbiote of course.

Every movie-rogue has a strong bond to Peter as a character...they aren't independent of Peter.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think the relationship with Norman/ G.G was done well. I really enjoyed Spiderman 1. But from then on it just seemed like Raimi was taking liberties, changing characters that have been popular for years and years for no reason what so ever. Not every single villain needs to be personal to Parker. And the thing with Sandman? Why? I see what you are saying about forgiveness CFE, but that could already be portrayed with Peter and Harry. There was no need to make Sandman like that.

 

[CFE]

I totally agree...and yet there was a big ole' forgiveness fest going on after the final battle...go figure.

Sam and Ivan shouldn't have been allowed near the script, IMO.

 

[Eggyman]

Can I agree too? Because I do