Yes, because coming up with new and original ideas is always a bad thing. I mean, hell, any villain created after Bob Kane's death should be discounted. Actually, hell, let's even discount the Joker because he didn't arrive on the scene until 1940. Batman should just have fought the Chemical Syndicate and solved the same case over and over again for 70 years.
Actually, screw it, Batman was just a Superman knock-off, Bob Kane and Bill Finger should never have even created him.
OR... we can assume that new ideas are useful and good.![]()
Yeah we all remember Sam Raimi's "New Goblin"
Nah, the former sounds better. I like to live dangerously.
Yes, because coming up with new and original ideas is always a bad thing. I mean, hell, any villain created after Bob Kane's death should be discounted. Actually, hell, let's even discount the Joker because he didn't arrive on the scene until 1940. Batman should just have fought the Chemical Syndicate and solved the same case over and over again for 70 years.
Actually, screw it, Batman was just a Superman knock-off, Bob Kane and Bill Finger should never have even created him.
OR... we can assume that new ideas are useful and good.![]()
New stuff smells bad
It's unfortunate, yeah, but true. Suppose the Nolan brothers had an idea for an original villain. Would this villain be awesome? Probably, yes. But would it be a good idea? For most fans, no.
Well let's not forget that Joker played a key role in the film as well. In fact I'd say Phantasm, had very little screentime.You never know. People seemed to really like Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm, an original creation (despite minor inspiration from The Reaper, a commonly unknown character himself). MOTP is the favorite Bat-film of a lot of people.
Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.You never know. People seemed to really like Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm, an original creation (despite minor inspiration from The Reaper, a commonly unknown character himself). MOTP is the favorite Bat-film of a lot of people.
There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.And greatly altering a character works almost the same way; I'm glad Burton put his Penguin, practically an original character, in Returns, instead of his dry, uninteresting comic counterpart.
"Steven Sharp V is the grandson of Steven Sharp III, the original Gambler. He took over his grandfather's mantle as the Gambler. While keeping his identity as the Gambler hidden and masquerading as the Joker, he reorganized and reoutfitted the Royal Flush Gang."
I'm glad White got the part and not Banner. But I wish they had made him a character from the comic books instead of making up a character like they did with Rachel.
Nolan, there's nearly 7 decades of material on Batman. Surely you can find enough characters and story in there to adapt instead of making other things up and pulling non-comic characters out of nowhere.
Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.
There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.
Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.
There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.
This is an oversimplification. Being as this is an adaptation, it is hardly unreasonable for people to prefer existing characters be used, rather than new ones.
As I always say, comics have the luxury of freedom, and films do not. No less than three regular Batman comics come out monthly, so there's no reason not to make up new characters left and right, or explore new avenues, or make crazy changes. If the new characters or changes don't succeed, they are easily rolled back. If they do succeed, even the fans who don't like them can simply read different Batman books.
Batman movies, on the other hand, are far more rare. We get three a decade--maybe--and after those three, who knows? It could be ten years before we get more. Accordingly, the fans take an understandable "no nonsense" position. We don't want to waste these rare opportunities on new characters, or crazy new ideas. For one, each new character is a risk: there's a chance this new character will blow chunks. Secondly, there is almost always an existing--and popular--comic book character that could fit the role of this new character. It's pretty reasonable for someone to say "Character X should be used instead of this new character," because if Character X is not used there exists a very real chance that Character X will never be used, or at least not used for a very long time.
I am certainly aware that you--or others--may disagree with this position, and that you may want Batman films to be used as a vehicle for new ideas and characters. This is perfectly understandable and I don't mean to say it's a bad thing. Sometimes I think like this, too, but my purism usually gets the better of me. I've made this post because I think it's silly to be so dismissive towards an adherence to existing characters.
I mean there's a woman in Gotham City named the "Black Canary," and she couldn't BE any more Aryan! What about Black Mask? ANOTHER blond-haired honkie! Good Christ!
I m really happy for Mr Jai White . The guy has charisma and is so underestimated. They took tyrese for luke cage instead of Jai!That s a mistake! Now will get the proof of that in TDK.
Is he? I could have sworn he was European or something.
How does being European make Black Mask less of a honkie? He's still white!
That depends. It worked for Zsasz. I love Zsasz, and while I would have preferred he see a larger role, I would rather him have his two minutes screentime than never be seen in this franchise at all. I also recognize it won't work for everyone (I would hate to see Black Mask wasted on a cameo). But you may notice that the name "Gamble" appeared nowhere in my post. That is because I am not speaking of this role specifically, I was only speaking to your comments about new ideas.But Saint, Saint, Saint... for a small role with five minutes of screen time, if they used an existing character, wouldn't you complain?
Are you sure? I'd only be saying the latter if the character was ruined during his cameo role. The former I might not say at all: certain characters I am not interested in sympathizing with. I want to understand a character. Whether they are deserving of sympathy is something that follows from that. Understanding is easily established, even in small roles, by competent writers.Wouldn't you be crying that this beloved old character was given short shrift? "I didn't get to sympathise with him as a character," you'd say. "If he didn't fit in Nolan's world he shouldn't have used him," you'd say.
Someone who is very careful.Who can win?
You talk as if I am speaking in absolutes, but I am not. Would I have been upset if Grissom was replaced by Rupert Thorne and got whacked? Not really. Somebody else, though, would be upset and I get that. But In general I suspect such a move would have been approved. Falcone's situation was similar, after all, and everyone approved of that.So the characters in Batman '89 - Alicia, Carl Grissom, Bob the Goon, Brutali, Vinnie, etc etc etc shouldn't have been there because they're made up? It should have been Rupert Thorne, Sal Maroni, and Carmine Falcone? And none of them would survive the movie? Or is it better to make up characters for situations like that?
The problem here is that you assume he'll be used later. This is probably not true.So having five minutes of a beloved character and then having him get killed by the Joker is preferable to saving him for a time when he might be put to more effective use?
Not, not really. A much more accurate term would be a continuity revamp. As usual, it is all about degrees: a continuity revamp is retconning the original history and adjusting it. This is what films do. A Elseworlds tale is Batman getting a Green Lantern ring, Steel being unrelated to Superman, and Catwoman being some woman who comes back from the dead and sniffs catnip. In other words, while there will always be a need for adjustment, the closer to the comics the better.Films by default are basically "elseworlds" tales. They're NEVER going to match the comics 100%. It's not doable. It's a re-telling of the story. The timing and continuity of a story changes to fit into a two-hour time slot. So the way to approach every film is that it's an Elseworlds film.
Please find the place where I said "They should not make up supporting characters." I am only explaining why a desire to adhere to existing characters is understandable. Personally, I fall somewhere in between because I approach it on a case-by-case basis (Finch good, Rachel bad, Grissom acceptable but unnecessary).Now, if Nolan were going to pass up using any of the classic villains, or give an invented character the spotlight, I would complain. But we're talking about a small supporting role - not to mention a potentially interesting role for a black man, which is much needed in Batman's world since his cast is so predominantly honkified. I guess I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't make up supporting characters once in a while.