The Dark Knight Rises Is Nolan's Batman the DEFINITIVE Batman?

[spideymouse]

This thread questions the faithfulness of Nolan's Batman universe to the original comic books. If this is a repeat, my bad.

Many of these threads discuss aspects of Batman (villains, sidekicks, storylines) which are shot down by the argument, "Nolan would never do that" or "that wouldn't fit," and I totally agree. And at the same time, I believe that Chris Nolan has caught the spirit of Batman with the most faithful representation on the big screen.

However, how faithful is it if he can't adapt some very important aspects of Batman from the comics? (i.e. Robin, several classic but "unrealistic" villains, etc.

"And here... we... go."

 

[TLH]

Well, I'd say Nolan's films are fairly faithful in tone, atmosphere, theme, and appearance to the Loeb/Sale collaborations. I guess faithful isn't the right way to describe it. I'd say the new Batman films are heavily inspired by some graphic novels.

Batman Begins had traces of Haunted Knight.
The Dark Knight had a lot in common with The Long Halloween.

I'd like to see the third film take some of Dark Victory and apply it to live action.

 

[CHEZ]

It's faithful but original as well. As long as Nolan takes the character seriously, puts him in a batman costume and has him fight interesting villains then I'll keep going to the theater.

 

[blaberskite]

Don't think any version can be called definitive,but it doe's remind me of when lord of the rings came out Peter Jackson said one of the first things he realised was that no matter how hard he tried and wanted to he was'nt going to be able fit everything from the books into the films and some things just would'nt work,whole characters were forgotten and whole parts of the plot were changed ,but what he set out to do was keep the spirit of the books intact and be as true to the source material without compromising the films,I like to think that this is what Nolan has done,he's played around and taken some liberties with the source material but I think he has been very true to the core of the character and kept the spirit ofthe mythos intact.

 

[Matt.S99]

theres really no such thing as a ''definitive Batman''. Theres just too many incarnations of the character.


Nolans batman is very faithful to the darker, more serious comics like TLH, Y1 etc.

 

[spideymouse]

theres really no such thing as a ''definitive Batman''. Theres just too many incarnations of the character.


Nolans batman is very faithful to the darker, more serious comics like TLH, Y1 etc.

Good point. I was thinking about that while I started the thread. I'm glad you picked up on it. Anyway, I think it's a good discussion if people have things to say.

In a way, most Batman films have been faithful, just to different incarnations. Even Batman Forever was "faithful," albeit to the more campy versions of Batman. Not sure if I want to talk about the movie after that, tho... eww.

 

[CHEZ]

theres really no such thing as a ''definitive Batman''. Theres just too many incarnations of the character.


Nolans batman is very faithful to the darker, more serious comics like TLH, Y1 etc.

Nicely said, and absolutely true.

 

[CHEZ]

I wonder, however, could Bob Kane's first few issues be the definitive Batman?
Because, when he first introduced the character, he was dark, mysterious, there was no Robin, and his enemies were the mobsters and homicidal maniacs (Joker etc)
Nolan's movies really are honoring that.

 

[spideymouse]

I wonder, however, could Bob Kane's first few issues be the definitive Batman?
Because, when he first introduced the character, he was dark, mysterious, there was no Robin, and his enemies were the mobsters and homicidal maniacs (Joker etc)
Nolan's movies really are honoring that.

That's true. However, a lot of the characterization (filling in) has come from subsequent incarnations, especially Frank Miller's take. I think Nolan has been taking the best parts of several versions and combining them.

 

[spideymouse]

I'm also wondering if this is the right forum for this thread. Maybe it should be moved, since it doesn't specifically talk about Nolan's sequels.

 

[Darkfly]

I wonder, however, could Bob Kane's first few issues be the definitive Batman?
Because, when he first introduced the character, he was dark, mysterious, there was no Robin, and his enemies were the mobsters and homicidal maniacs (Joker etc)
Nolan's movies really are honoring that.

ah but your missing the fact Batman went around shooting people on purpose & making sure they got their just deserves & frankly Nolan's is more based on 80's Batman (Miller, etc) though still distancing itself from those comics since he's going for this whole realistic vision of Batman which just doesn't exist in the comics, no cool/unrealistic villian origins, no sudden leaping off buildings without showing what he does afterwards to get down (Cape/Wings, etc), amongst other things.

And believe me I don't hate his films, I love'em to bits but these are Nolan's issue's just like Burton & Schumacher films had issues too.

 

[CHEZ]

That's true. However, a lot of the characterization (filling in) has come from subsequent incarnations, especially Frank Miller's take. I think Nolan has been taking the best parts of several versions and combining them.

No doubt about that. I think it's safe to say that Nolan's Batman is the definitive Batman. Because it's pulled from the best stories from the comics but is still original, it respects Kane's original vision, and really embodies Joseph Campbell's "Heroes Journey". I am sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind for now.

 

[CHEZ]

ah but your missing the fact Batman went around shooting people on purpose & making sure they got their just deserves & frankly Nolan's is more based on 80's Batman (Miller, etc) though still distancing itself from those comics since he's going for this whole realistic vision of Batman which just doesn't exist in the comics, no cool/unrealistic villian origins, no sudden leaping off buildings without showing what he does afterwards to get down (Cape/Wings, etc), & a few other things.

And believe I don't hate his films I love'em to bits but this Nolan's issue's just like Burton & Schumacher films had issues too.

Hey, I didn't say things weren't changed. Over the past century the gun became a forgotten detail about early Batman. But you know what? Nolan actually did bring that in, in a funny way. Remember? Batman busts imitators who use guns! Funny, huh?

 

[CHEZ]

I'm also wondering if this is the right forum for this thread. Maybe it should be moved, since it doesn't specifically talk about Nolan's sequels.

I am sure our conversation will evolve into what's to come?

 

[spideymouse]

One thing's for sure: It'll be a difficult transition moving away from this type of Batman once Nolan and Bale check out. This devotion to realism has definitely paid off for a live-action take. It's just sad that it's been said that Nolan's sequels can't include essential Batman characters like Robin or certain Bat-villains, all for the sake of that same devotion to realism. Has Nolan "changed things...forever"? Is there really "no going back?"

Probably not. I can imagine future Batman movies going back to a more fantastical universe, and if they can keep the spirit of Batman, kind of like Batman:TAS, I'm all for it. I'm just afraid that they won't get as close to Batman as Nolan has, and we won't see redemptive adaptations of Robin or Mr. Freeze from Nolan.

 

[CHEZ]

Hopefully, we get one good last third film from Nolan, bringing an end to a fantastic trilogy.
Then I am sure the franchise will fall into new hands. When that happens all we can hope for is that it keeps in line with Nolan's work, but that is so unlikely, considering that each film has to top the last. A character like Batman after a while bids for bigger more fantastical action. I just hope that it is still within a world that is crime/thriller noirish, but the problem with that is after a while that ceases to be a fresh concept.
People get bored.

 

[Matt.S99]

Good point. I was thinking about that while I started the thread. I'm glad you picked up on it. Anyway, I think it's a good discussion if people have things to say.

In a way, most Batman films have been faithful, just to different incarnations. Even Batman Forever was "faithful," albeit to the more campy versions of Batman. Not sure if I want to talk about the movie after that, tho... eww.

they all were. Burtons films were pretty faithful to miller's gritty, dirty, dark interpretation of the character.( i think dkr was one of the adaptations used for B89). Shumachers films were very faithful to the campy, happy batman alot of people know and love. Especially the 60's TV series.

 

[JackBauer]

No. As much as I loved TDK and as adequate as BB served as an origin, the definitive version as far as I'm concerned is without a doubt The Animated Series.

 

[CHEZ]

they all were. Burtons films were pretty faithful to miller's gritty, dirty, dark interpretation of the character.( i think dkr was one of the adaptations used for B89). Shumachers films were very faithful to the campy, happy batman alot of people know and love. Especially the 60's TV series.

Ahhh, yes...yes, batboy99, but that still bids the question: Which is the definitive Batman?

 

[Gamingboy]

I voted "no" because of the way the TOPIC NAME was posted (I didn't read the poll question itself, I'm so stupid).


But yes, I'd say it is rather faithful. I mean, not continuity-wise, but tone-wise.


However, I must say that it is NOT the definitive Batman. That is still and probably always will be the Batman created by Dini and Timm and voiced by Kevin Conroy as seen in Batman: The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, etc.

That Batman perfectly balanced the fantastic and mundane aspects of Batman, it is in many ways a better Batman then the Batman in the comics is. The only problem they had was that they would usually only be able to imply that that Joker was a mass-murderer (which, in some ways, is better, since it leaves some stuff up to the imagination, and let's face it, the stuff people can think of is often a helluva lot more scary then what they would see).

 

[Matt.S99]

Again, there isnt a definitive Batman. He's had too many interpretations. Its all a matter of taste/ opinion. To some, the campy batman is the definitive Batman, and to others, the more serious batman of this era is the definitive Batman. Again, there isnt ONE definitive Batman.

 

[CHEZ]

I thought we were talking about the live action films?

 

[Matt.S99]

Still applies to the movies IMO...

 

[Two-Face]

why this thread even here? This should be in TDK forum...

 

[November Rain]

I would say nolan's actual batman character is still a bit on the weak side, kinda very luke skywalker ish with large influences from alfred, rachel and lucious...

i would expect bats to be headstrong and go against advice from everyone else andhave scenarios work out fine but in an unexpected manner (unexpected to everyone without prep time).

nolan's batman is still kinda soft.