The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!!

[Saint]

but in a realistic fictional world, trends would have to be as close to our world as possible.

This isn't an important point for us to get into a big debate about, but I don't agree. Obviously that's a fair approach to take, but one could just as easily make up entirely different origins for these trends and maintain realism, so long as those origins make sense and are plausible. Some may disagree, but realism in terms of fiction means plausibility, not real world accuracy.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

realism in terms of fiction means plausibility, not real world accuracy.

i agree 100%

 

[Comics N' Toons]

realism in terms of fiction means plausibility, not real world accuracy.

i agree 100%

 

[Crook]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting.

I wouldn't want Bruce to jump straight into "I'll train my apprentice!" mode. There's a level of absurdity to that, regardless of tone. I see Bruce taking Dick in not only because he sees a lot of himself in the boy, but with his resources he can ensure Dick has everything necessary to lead a normal life. He can keep watch to make sure Dick does not suffer through the same pitfalls he did as a teen.

After the eventual backfire of this plan, then we can get into the training. But even then I want to see Bruce remain hesitant. He'll try his best given the situation (as everything else has been exhausted), but he's not so sure himself how they'll both see this through. It's a risky task, whether Dick is out there in the field or behind a desk. It's what Bruce sees in Dick's potential and what lies ahead that I think he should be weary of.

 

[Saint]

I wouldn't want Bruce to jump straight into "I'll train my apprentice!" mode. There's a level of absurdity to that, regardless of tone. I see Bruce taking Dick in not only because he sees a lot of himself in the boy, but with his resources he can ensure Dick has everything necessary to lead a normal life. He can keep watch to make sure Dick does not suffer through the same pitfalls he did as a teen.

After the eventual backfire of this plan, then we can get into the training. But even then I want to see Bruce remain hesitant. He'll try his best given the situation (as everything else has been exhausted), but he's not so sure himself how they'll both see this through. It's a risky task, whether Dick is out there in the field or behind a desk. It's what Bruce sees in Dick's potential and what lies ahead that I think he should be weary of.

Oh, absolutely. I agree on every point. It should never be a clear-cut "here's what I'm going to do, because it'll work out for the best" thing on Bruce's part. This is questionable and dangerous territory, and it needs to be written as such.

Your last point is well made; I feel the logical ending for a film featuring Robin is not for them agree to remain partners and run dynamically in front of the lit batsignal; rather, it is to leave Dick's future in question, and Bruce grimly contemplating the Pandora's box he's opened.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Perhaps. I think it was mostly down to good writing and not realism. Of course realism helps prevent the general audience from rolling their eyes so that explains why Nolan's movies are so successful apart from their good writing. Grant Morrison's amazing Batman stories could never be adapted on the big screen.

It's not that simple. Realism also makes you create a whole chain of causality, one where motivations must be comprehensible and relatable. Realism helps characterization and avoids ideas being forced upon the viewer, as well as providing new designs that strive to stay both loyal and fresh (Joker's make-up). Realism forces you to be subtle, and through subtlety many iconic elements can be found. It is also an optional standard by which certain recurrent ideas from the filmmakers don't get totally out of hand and get a life of their own (Burton's fetishistic designs, Frank Miller's hard-boiled endless monologues). Nolan keeps it at check all the time too, with many scenes a ideas that are not realistic at all, to keep balance (TDK is full of them).

I'm not saying this illusion of "Realism" is the best and only route, but it did serve Nolan a lot and he obviously feels quite comfortable with it when it comes to Batman. It is his strong suit, his selling point, and his characters depended strongly on it. Like I said, he even bothered to prevent it from getting to extremes. He never dealt with realism in absolute terms. Everytime I see someone like you saying "teh realism" I get all " Were they seeing the same movie I was? I had to do some heavy suspension of disbelief!".

It just seems to me that Schumacher's fiasco and the general predisposition that Robin is cheesy are responsible for the way he is avoiding him.

sometimes i feel that Nolan was almost embarrassed to be associated with a comicbook franchise.

Where do you get all that stuff from? My only guess is Projection. Nolan has never excused his exclusion of Robin by saying "i am a seriouz director you guys, i do serious movies, please take me seriously, no robin, no unrealism". He diplomatically said Robin was still in a crib. He never disrespected the character, like Bale may have. Far from it. Yet that is what you get. Hell, maybe you are right and he is scared of doing it, but he knows his own strengths better than you and me.

Stripping Batman of his cape and grapple gun? I mean, come on...

Everyone stumbles at first when dealing with unfamiliar material and having a load of responsability and cash. The thing is he just didn't do it. In fact, this is the guy that has given us the most faithful character interpretations in live-action films ever. Cut the guy some slack.

I just had hopes that someone could take over after Nolan leaves and continue telling Batman's stories so that we would be able to see him evolve, mature, adopt Robin, age, hell, maybe even step aside because of age and give the mantle to Dick.
But then TDK came and was so damn realistic that it closed all the doors. There is little left to do in such a restricted vision and i am sure that Nolan wont allow anyone to pick up his Batman when he leaves.

You've been here for God knows how long arguing that Robin could be done in this series. Hell, you even said to me Robin "would easily fit in the Nolanverse". And now you're here saying it's a lost cause?
I challenge you to point to me the "big differences" (?) applied from Begins to TDK. Tell me what and why prevents Robin from being introduced. Be clear and not vague, I'd like factual, objective things that meant such a drastic change of direction. You may even do a favor to the anti-Robin crowd.

But look at Marvel. They are setting up their Marvelverse, close enough to the canon, and you know it will continue as long its profitable, even if they have to recast or change directors and creative teams. Writers and artists change in comics all the time.

But WB is bowing to Nolan, letting him do whatever he wants because they trust him and they have no idea what they re doing. Its fortunate that Nolan helms batman, because the success is completely down to him and not WB/DC. If they could handle their franchises as Marvel seems to be, they could start their own DCverse and establish all their big players, give us cameos (especially of heroes who could never support their own movie, i.e. Black Canary in a Batman movie), team ups, a Justice League movie, etc.[/quote]

Okay, I reckon you needed to get that out of your system, but this is getting wildly off-topic. *

The film plans for the rest of DC's heroes are not Nolan's responsability. He's not preventing them from anything but getting them right on track again. Think of Nolan as a mega-successful Ang Lee. WB and DC can easily do a reboot and a sequel to his universe, while making money for more superhero movies. What's wrong with that?

I am saying that after these glorious movies about Batman's first years, the story should go on, Gotham should keep filling up with freaks and so on. The alternative is Snyder adapting what else, TDKR page by page, or some director doing another trilogy in a different setting (maybe Batman will move from Chicago to Detroit or LA, who knows? ), with a different batman. Why not evolve the current one beyond his first year?

Chill about TDKR. After Watchmen's final gross, Snyder didn't become WB's golden boy. He's not reliable enough to hand him their biggest money-making franchise.
And about other directors taking a whole new approach, once more, I bring forth The Incredible Hulk. Sequel... and... Reboot.
The only bad thing Nolan is doing is setting the bar too high so, you're getting restless at nothing here, it's all in your head.

You know damn well that first they design the suit and then they rationalize it. What's the problem with other heroes' suits?

No no no, the process is more like "Intention-Design-Excuses", which is thing not to miss sight of. I call these "rationalizations" excuses because some are more fortunate than others. Consider the birth of most of these super-suits. They were designed between the 40's and the 50's for a public much different in their way of thinking to ours (or, at least, mine). A public more naïve, with less good cultural referents, with simpler pretentions about comics. It was done for for a marginal audience, not ambitious, but conformist.

And times changed... yet the basic designs of most of this suits STAYED THE SAME for the sake of tradition.

Luckily, Batman's has undergone serious stylistic variations to match the audience's dynamic tastes. Has Superman gone through equal change? Nope.
But well, Supes is a pretty constant character. Take Green Arrow instead. When the character went through his big rewriting under O'Neil's pen in the seventies, did he get a visual change to match with? Nope, he just went on with a slight variation of the same "Errol Flynn" Robin Hood-esque outfit, domino mask included. So yeah, more of the same. Thank god Batman doesn't wear a domino mask; THAT would be cheesy.

Those styles reference a lost time of adventure fiction that is feels appallingly outdated and kitschy today. Rationalizations usually come afterwards and, as such, most of them feel forced upon us. And that's what I loath. They are lazy and thinly veiled attempts to justify their inflexibility, their bad audience targeting, and their assumptions of the current public accepting anything they feed them.

Why is Superman cheesy but batman isnt? If anything he looks nothing like a giant bat. Especially with the yellow belt and yellow emblem on his chest.

I've explained more than three times now why I think Batman's suit is a great deal less cheesy than Supes'. Not only it has endured more changed and been more flexible, it also stems from a character's mind that eventually got to be known for his obsessions and imperfections (same happens for most of his enemies). All its flaws can be traced back to Bruce's rationale of how his iconic image might be (and his makes MUCH MORE sense than his sidekicks').
Then you take Superman's suit: DC had to make up a whole cultural value for an alien people that, in this day and age, is too human-based and not alien-like at all. It's a very contrived explanation and, as such, it's hard to swallow. Of course, it has grown into this iconic image, everybody is accostumed to it, and it works in a world full of even tackier character designs. It may not be umbearable, but it's definitely cheesy.

The first route is more flexible and looks for substantiation in the human condition. It's deep, reflective and dynamic.
The second makes a far-fetched explanation much after the design is presented and then sets in stone. It was designed to a much more naïve audience and doesn't work as well for today's audiences.
You tell me if there isn't a difference.

Now extrapolate that to Robin and you'll see one of the reasons of why so many people are reluctant to see that on the screen. It's not just ignorance or that they're always thinking of Schumacher. That's just the comforting explanation.



*Granted, it's easier for Marvel to establish their universe in film. Their movies, when put together, made more money. They can afford planning for the long run. In addition, Marvel, having certain similarities between their heroes, has been able to cook up a world where being one in a tacky suit is not really something to wonder. They inhabit the same world where that is every day stuff. But what on Earth have Batman and Thor (!) in common?
In Marvel, suits are predominantly product of their characters inmature tastes (Spider-Man, Iron Man, the F4), as opposed to those fewer times in which they wear it because it's SUPPOSED to look good (Captain America). On the DC Universe, the tendency is the other way around, with Batman being a part of the first group.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

With regards to the absurdity of superhero costumes, the reality is that people wear stupid, silly looking crap everywhere, all over the globe. Ideas about acceptable fashion come from all over the place. In a world with costume heroes emerging in WWII, no, I do not find it all ridiculous to think that superheroic fashion trends would evolve. Really, underwear outside the pants is not inherently any more ludicrous than people jamming metal piercings into their mouths or stretching out their earlobes.

This is something Watchmen did very well, implying the tacky costumes stem from both trends and psychological baggage. It was very well done because it subverted the initial cheesiness and gave it layers and layers of meaning to work with. It didn't reinforce cheesy designs with cheesy explanations or, even worse, took the designs for granted. In Watchmen, each and every suit was touched upon and none happened to reflect what the character was about in a direct, obvious manner (except maybe Rorsarsch).

But most classic ongoing superhero stories, outside of Watchmen, do exactly the opposite. They are colorful, juvenile, tacky, in-your-face and are supposed to reinforce heroism on already heroic characters, which adds little. At least some heroes got around that by having their costumes address their inmaturity or celebrity status (Flash, Iron Man, Spider-Man, the F4), although many others failed by having costumes that are supposed to just be cool and nothing more (Daredevil, Captain America, the classic X-Men). And then we have the "alien explanations", which try validate designs that go from the just horrible Green Lanterns to the moderate Martian Mahunter. (Supes is like right in the middle of those two).

There is an argument that some trends would simply be impractical (capes, for example) for certain heroes, and that is something that should be considered, depending on the level of reality involved in the story being designed. However, if practicality was the rule, Batman would not wear a cape, so we can probably agree that liberties must be taken.

Of course liberties can be taken. It's a balancing act. But many times writers don't even make the effort (Captain America).
I don't think the issue is solely about practicality either, but of course, that should be a factor too. On a human, vulnerable, function-oriented and pragmatic character like Bruce, practicality should be a bigger issue than for other heroes. IMO, Nolan made a wonderful job over-justifying that cape of his. No harm done there.

Because, well, capes are cool. People wearing lightning bolts on their chests and wrapping themselves in flags are cool, too. Sufficiently explain where the fashion comes from, and make the compromise of removing or altering elements you can't explain, and you won't have the problem of cheesiness or tackiness. Obviously, one must also consider the appropriateness of the elements for the universe and visual style in that specific interpretation.

In this day and age, bolts in chests are increasingly less cool. For today's more cynic viewer, a character like the Comedian is ten times more relatable and engaging than the idealized Captain America. Caustic, bleak, irony-charged comics are becoming more and more popular for a reason. And meanwhile, many of these characters risk becoming suddenly outdated and ineffective, if they're not so already. Sure, positive, light themes can still be conveyed, but "simplicity" is the not word of order anymore.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I wouldn't want Bruce to jump straight into "I'll train my apprentice!" mode. There's a level of absurdity to that, regardless of tone. I see Bruce taking Dick in not only because he sees a lot of himself in the boy, but with his resources he can ensure Dick has everything necessary to lead a normal life. He can keep watch to make sure Dick does not suffer through the same pitfalls he did as a teen.

After the eventual backfire of this plan, then we can get into the training. But even then I want to see Bruce remain hesitant. He'll try his best given the situation (as everything else has been exhausted), but he's not so sure himself how they'll both see this through. It's a risky task, whether Dick is out there in the field or behind a desk. It's what Bruce sees in Dick's potential and what lies ahead that I think he should be weary of.

Thumbs up. Oracle-lite it is then.

 

[3atman]

Nolan shouldn't introduce Robin, but Robin should be introduced by the next guy. If I were WB, I'd sign directors and actors to 3 movie deals, tell them to tell a trilogy arc, and go from there. The Nolan trilogy seems to be a Batman origin. Even in TDK he's still not sure how to use Batman all the time, he's still learning. By the end of the next one, he should be a fully capable, mature Batman. The next director should take the reigns and have 3 movies of basically "Robin Begins". I don't want to see Dick as Robin until at least the very end of the first, if not in the second. shoot the movies nearly all at once so the releases can be closer together and the focus is the same and we don't get weird stuff.

The thing about good movie series is that the characters have to continually grow. They can't be stagnat. what makes characters interesting is seeing how they react. seeing how they adapt to new situation. Batman Begins-how does Bruce Wayne become Batman and how does he deal with it, TDK-how does Batman deal with someone with no logical motives like the Joker and how does he deal with the loss of Rachael. 3atman (perhaps)- how does he deal with being hunted by both sides and seen as the villain. Batman 4 - how does he deal with an orphaned kid. Batman 5 - how does he deal with a side kick. Batman 6 - how does he deal with his side kick and best friend leaving (and maybe alfred's death) batman 7 - how does he deal with being alone.

Just something like that, that was very basic but the character has to grow and you can't try to force too much at a time or else you get a jumbled mess. adding Robin in the next Nolan movie would probably do that, adding robin in the next movies after Nolan will probably work out.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

The thing about good movie series is that the characters have to continually grow. They can't be stagnant. What makes characters interesting is seeing how they react, seeing how they adapt to new situation.
Batman Begins- How does Bruce Wayne become Batman and how does he deal with it
TDK- How does Batman deal with someone with no logical motives like the Joker and how does he deal with the loss of Rachael.
3atman (perhaps)- How does he deal with being hunted by both sides and seen as the villain.
Batman 4- How does he deal with an orphaned kid.
Batman 5- How does he deal with a side kick.
Batman 6- How does he deal with his side kick and best friend leaving (and maybe Alfred's death)
Batman 7- How does he deal with being alone.

*sigh* If only you were the CEO of Warner Brothers.

ps. I don't like Alfred dying, though.
ps2. 3atman? Now I get your nick!

 

[Crook]

Thumbs up. Oracle-lite it is then.

Only at the beginning, of course. I've seen many back up "Oracle-lite", but they literally want Robin to just remain in the cave (if you ask me it's pointless to even introduce the character). I see it as a jumping off point to actually fight alongside Batman.

Batman 4 - how does he deal with an orphaned kid.
Batman 5 - how does he deal with a side kick.
Batman 6 - how does he deal with his side kick and best friend leaving (and maybe alfred's death)
batman 7 - how does he deal with being alone.

That's pretty much how I'd cap my fantasy franchise as well. Setting up the relationships he has with Dick and Alfred only to snatch them away near the end, would be a bittersweet catharsis for Bruce by film's end.

Love the character to death, but I can't imagine ever liking a "happy" ending for him.

 

[3atman]

I only stopped at 7 because it was getting a bit long. after he's alone I'd start into some Tim Drake stuff, he gets the kid out of loneliness, trains him too quick and rushes him into being Robin before he's ready, he dies, then bruce, at the 9 or 10th movie, has his back broken by Bane. Then we do some Batman Beyond type of stuff, maybe have it be Grayson coming back so even though drake is dead, Alfred is dead (by this point he logically MUST be dead), Rachael is dead, everyone is dead and he has his back broke, he still has grayson, his best friend. You could end it there or do a few movies with Grayson as Batman Beyond until he tells bruce "I've only been doing this for you, I can't do it anymore" and retires, leaving it time for a Dark Knight Returns type of thing.

Really, even though Bats has a ridiculous library of source material, you can make it all follow a pretty logical path. With a Nightwing spin off or 2 after Dick leaves in my Batman 6, you would end up with around 15 movies.

I would honestly like to see them do a harry potter sort of thing where they lock in the main people for a long time and do 5 or 6 films, one every year.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You've been here for God knows how long arguing that Robin could be done in this series. Hell, you even said to me Robin "would easily fit in the Nolanverse". And now you're here saying it's a lost cause?
I challenge you to point to me the "big differences" (?) applied from Begins to TDK. Tell me what and why prevents Robin from being introduced. Be clear and not vague, I'd like factual, objective things that meant such a drastic change of direction. You may even do a favor to the anti-Robin crowd.

BB felt like a superhero movie to me. TDK felt like Public Enemies, Heat, or any other crime drama. Hell, Chicago wasnt even masked under CGI this time, it was simply Chicago and not Gotham. Just because a truck flipped and a chopper blew up, it doesnt make TDK a superhero film, because it barely was one.

The film plans for the rest of DC's heroes are not Nolan's responsability. He's not preventing them from anything but getting them right on track again. Think of Nolan as a mega-successful Ang Lee. WB and DC can easily do a reboot and a sequel to his universe, while making money for more superhero movies. What's wrong with that?

He is preventing them from using Batman in anything other than his movies. And of course his tightly closed nolanverse would never allow for cameos from other heroes, team ups, or a JL film. He is the only one who knows what he is doing and WB is letting him because even though they have some of the most successful comicbook franchises they have no idea how to turn them into successful movie franchises. They still dont know why S:Returns fluked and are thinking about making the reboot darker because hey, it worked for Nolan.

Chill about TDKR. After Watchmen's final gross, Snyder didn't become WB's golden boy. He's not reliable enough to hand him their biggest money-making franchise.
And about other directors taking a whole new approach, once more, I bring forth The Incredible Hulk. Sequel... and... Reboot.
The only bad thing Nolan is doing is setting the bar too high so, you're getting restless at nothing here, it's all in your head.

Never thought of that. Thanks.

And times changed... yet the basic designs of most of this suits STAYED THE SAME for the sake of tradition.

By todays serious standards every superhero would wear a black swat suit with an emblem on his chest. Thank god they kept the original designs.

Luckily, Batman's has undergone serious stylistic variations to match the audience's dynamic tastes.

Wait whaaaat? He only changed his emblem. He still wears his underpants over his suit and he still looks nothing like a bat. Not even Alfred would be so partial to batman as you are.

Superman gone through equal change? Nope.

Superman's suit works for him, so why would it change?

Thank god Batman doesn't wear a domino mask; THAT would be cheesy.

But most of his supporting cast does. Robin, Nighwing, Huntress and others wear domino masks.

Those styles reference a lost time of adventure fiction that is feels appallingly outdated and kitschy today. Rationalizations usually come afterwards and, as such, most of them feel forced upon us. And that's what I loath. They are lazy and thinly veiled attempts to justify their inflexibility, their bad audience targeting, and their assumptions of the current public accepting anything they feed them.

This is the way american comics are drawn. You are free to not like it of course, but dont think that Batman stands out from the rest of the superheroes. They only chose the bat because all other animals were taken. Then they rationalized it with Bruce needing to strike fear, and with the bat breaking through the window and giving him the idea. Other explanations seem forced to you, but this doesnt? You cant have it both ways.

it also stems from a character's mind that eventually got to be known for his obsessions and imperfections (same happens for most of his enemies). All its flaws can be traced back to Bruce's rationale of how his iconic image might be (and his makes MUCH MORE sense than his sidekicks').

No,no,no, Bruce isnt just imperfect, he is stupid.
1) He is leaving his mouth uncovered, which means that he could hurt his world famous face.
2) He is often dealing with villains that use poisonous gases but he doesnt wear a gas mask.
3) Capes hinder movement and could get him killed.
4) THATS NOT HOW BATS LOOK LIKE! If he really wanted to look like a bat and strike fear, he should have dressed like Manbat. 100 times more scary and looking like a bat. But this is how Finger designed his suit, it looks very good, so we suspend our disbelief and buy that he actually looks like a bat and he is scary instead of laughable.

The second makes a far-fetched explanation much after the design is presented and then sets in stone. It was designed to a much more naïve audience and doesn't work as well for today's audiences.
You tell me if there isn't a difference.

"I am an alien living on earth and i would like to dress like my people to honour them." Yeah, very far fetched way of thinking for Clark, considering how he feels for being the sole surviving Kryptonian.

In addition, Marvel, having certain similarities between their heroes, has been able to cook up a world where being one in a tacky suit is not really something to wonder. They inhabit the same world where that is every day stuff. But what on Earth have Batman and Thor (!) in common?

You know that Batman lives in a universe where half its inhabitants are costumed heroes/villains right? He lives in the same world as Greek gods, 4th dimension gods (Darkseid), alien super people that absorb sunlight, space cops with magic rings, speed demigods, wizards, and kids fighting crime.

Equally, Ironman lives in the same world as Thor. In the comics all that is easier to fit together, but in the movies its going to be a challenge to put Downey's tech based Ironman next to a Norse god. But at least Marvel is trying. In the end if it fails they wont do another Avengers movie and keep the franchises separate. What did DC do? Try to make a half arsed JL movie with a cast of unknowns and the director of happy feet, while the Batman of the JL would be some other batman, creating confusion.

In Marvel, suits are predominantly product of their characters inmature tastes (Spider-Man, Iron Man, the F4), as opposed to those fewer times in which they wear it because it's SUPPOSED to look good (Captain America). On the DC Universe, the tendency is the other way around, with Batman being a part of the first group.

As i said before, they first design the suit to be cool and then they try to explain it. Would Ironman be as interesting if he wore a serious all black armour? Not to me, i like him the way he is. In the end, he, Batman and Superman live in a world where dressing up in a flashy suit is considered ordinary.

 

[Mr. Earle]

batman 7 - how does he deal with being alone.

He is secluded in his manor and cave until that brat McGuiniss finds himself on his doorstep.

Only at the beginning, of course. I've seen many back up "Oracle-lite", but they literally want Robin to just remain in the cave (if you ask me it's pointless to even introduce the character). I see it as a jumping off point to actually fight alongside Batman.

Agreed

That's pretty much how I'd cap my fantasy franchise as well. Setting up the relationships he has with Dick and Alfred only to snatch them away near the end, would be a bittersweet catharsis for Bruce by film's end.

If you re going to end the story somewhere, i suppose this is the way to go. I suppose the general audience would roll their eyes if they follow the canon and start introducing one Robin after the other.
I'd certainly do a Batman Beyond trilogy as Bruce's future.

I would honestly like to see them do a harry potter sort of thing where they lock in the main people for a long time and do 5 or 6 films, one every year.

It would be very hard to pull off and maybe the general audience would get bored from the overdose of Batman.

he still has grayson, his best friend.

Dick Grayson is his son, not his friend.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

BB felt like a superhero movie to me. TDK felt like Public Enemies, Heat, or any other crime drama. Hell, Chicago wasnt even masked under CGI this time, it was simply Chicago and not Gotham. Just because a truck flipped and a chopper blew up, it doesnt make TDK a superhero film, because it barely was one.

- Hero wearing bat costume.
- "What bus driver!?" (crash)
- Fake grenade with green gas.
- Bat-signal making scum nervous.
- "Loiter"-"Intimidate" (lol)
- "I recommend you buy American."
- Wayne asleep in meeting.
- "We're gonna have... tryouts."
- Hong Kong, "without a landing."
- "Please deliver to - Lieutenant Gordon" (lol again)
- "How do the defendants plead?" (noisy rabble)
- "Hands up pretty boy!" *thump*
- Batman contemplating his suit.
- Bullet in brick (realism my a**)
- The "You brough this craziness on us" pose.
- "Take the Batman into custody... I am the Batman."
- "He's not being a hero. He's being something more."
- THE WHOLE CAR CHASE SCENE
- Yeah, the batpod.
- "Did Batman save you, daddy?"
- THE WHOLE INTERROGATION AND BOMBS SCENES
- The "broody Batman in the destroyed grounds" pose
- Battered Bruce holding his mask.
- Dent's half-face burning and his coin.
- "This town deserves a better class of criminal" with pile of burning money. (priceless)
- "The Lamborghini then".
- Nurse Joker.
- First of several coin flips.
- Hospital actually being blown with detonator a bit jammed.
- Huge Bat-sonar.
- THE WHOLE FIGHT SEQUENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING
- Batman final showdown with Joker's and ending at his mercy.
- Upside down Joker after defeat, and being taken by the SWATs.
- "...We have a winner."
- Gordon axing down the bat-signal.
- Batman running away from the dogs.
- Epic final Gordon speech with fantastic score.
Annnnddd.....
- The many martial arts fights.
- The many one-liners.
- The Joker, a faithful comicbook adaptation who was a HUGE part of the whole thing.

All those things were stuff that screamed they belonged to the genre.
Your obssesion with M. Mann may have prevented you from seeing it .

They still dont know why S:Returns fluked and are thinking about making the reboot darker because hey, ut worked for Nolan.

You can't blame him for being successful. If eventual directors want to follow that path based on success instead of what they can actually handle, it's their fault, not his. And I'm glad you like the Reboot Sequel thing.

By todays serious standards every superhero would wear a black swat suit with an emblem on his chest.

When it comes to powerless humans? Hardly the case.
(ALSO SEE: Iron Man's success)

Wait whaaaat? He only changed his emblem. He still wears his underpants over his suit and he still looks nothing like a bat. Not even Alfred would be so partial to batman as you are.

Finger... Lee... McKeen... Mahnke... Workman. Compare. They all use non-oval emblem and underpants over.
They also have different color patterns, varying lengths of the fins, cape and ears, diverse materials for the belt, alternance of reflective rubber or fabrics texture, different shapes in the shoulders and bottom points, as well as the tip of the fingers in the gloves, visible armour or not, etc.
Add to that the various batsuits with different purposes.
Nuff' said.

Superman's suit works for him, so why would it change?

What works or not is debatable. As I said, he became an icon, and I don't want him to change. It never has, and ot's too late in the game for him. Batman, on the other hand, has a more dynamic design and his suits in the Burton films became as culturally iconic as the ones in the comics, for better or worse. His side-kicks could use some changes too.

But a ton of his supporting cast does. Robin, Nighwing, Huntress and others wear domino masks.

Hence... the landslide results in the poll.

This is the way american comics are drawn. You are free to not like it of course, but dont think that Batman stands out from the rest of the superheroes. They only chose the bat because all other animals were taken. Then they rationalized it with Bruce needing to strike fear, and with the bat breaking through the window and giving him the idea. Other explanations seem forced to you, but this doesnt?

No, it doesn't, and I explained you why. And that perspective of using fear (and, as developed later, also questionable methods) do make him stand out. He's also DC's most popular asset BY FAR. He has been adapted many more times than any other superhero. He's the highest-grossing superhero on live-action films. He does stand out. I'm only suggesting one of the reasons.

No,no,no, Bruce isnt just imperfect. He is stupid and illiterate. Stupid because:
1) He is leaving his mouth uncovered, which means that he could hurt his world famous face.

He can hurt it covering it either.

2) He is often dealing with villains that use poisonous gases but he doesnt wear a gas mask.

He does sometimes. Always doing it difficults breathing.

3) Capes hinder movement and could get him killed.

True, but the cape gives much needed give aesthetic presence (something other superheroes don't require as much as he does) plus provides huge mobility when gliding (Nolanverse and some instances in the comicbooks).

Illiterate because:
1) THATS NOT HOW BATS LOOK LIKE! If he really wanted to look like a bat and strike fear, he should have dressed like Manbat. 100 times more scary and looking like a bat. But this is how Finger designed his suit, its looks very good, so we suspend our disbelief and buy that he actually looks like a bat and he is scary instead of laughable.

He doesn't want to look like a bat. He wants to look as a guy who reminds you of bat-like dark things and also like a maniac about to kick your ass.

"I am an alien living on earth and i would like to dress like my people to honour them." Yeah, very far fetched way of thinking for Clark.

The far-fetched thing comes in accepting the alien people look and dress that way.

You know that Batman lives in a universe where half its inhabitants are costumed heroes/villains right? He lives in the same world as Greek gods, 4th dimension gods (Darkseid), alien super people that absorb sunlight, space cops with magic rings, speed demigods, wizards, and kids fighting crime.

I know this. But Batman operates predominantly in Gotham. Nice city, very much like Valhalla, right?
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Equally, Ironman lives in the same world as Thor.

Oh yea, I meant Hawman but typed Thor instead. My bad.

In the comics all that is easier to fit together, but in the movies its going to be a challenge to put Downey's tech based Ironman next to a Norse god.

Which is exactly the point of most people against Robin's inclusion people around here. Glad you people found something to agree with.

As i said before, they first design the suit to be cool and then they try to explain it.

What was cool in the 50's is not so much now. Nowadays, the writing is making the characters cool in spite of the suits, mainly.

Would Ironman be as interesting if he wore a serious all black armour?

I have gotten out of my way to make huge disctinctions with the Iron Man case. It's modern, it serves his character and it's updatable.

In the end, he, Batman and Superman live in a world where dressing up in a flashy suit is considered ordinary.

I wouldn't call it ordinary, but it's okay. Mainstream viewers are the main factor in big film companies' decisions, anyway. That type of audience is not familiar with that world you talk about. So, rest assured, many films must come and pave the way before we see that on the screen. DC may very well thank Marvel. The Avengers project will definitely help grow comfort around that idea.

 

[Mr. Earle]

When it comes to powerless humans? Hardly the case.
(ALSO SEE: Iron Man's success)

What i meant is that if all these superheroes were designed today, their suits would be a lot less flashy than they are now.

Finger... Lee... McKeen... Mahnke... Workman. Compare. They all use non-oval emblem and underpants over.
They also have different color patterns, varying lengths of the fins, cape and ears, diverse materials for the belt, alternance of reflective rubber or fabrics texture, different shapes in the shoulders and bottom points, as well as the tip of the fingers in the gloves, visible armour or not, etc.
Add to that the various batsuits with different purposes.
Nuff' said.

My god! Those changes are.... trivial!

VS

Hence... the landslide results in the poll.

No, the results came because most people in here have never picked up a comic book. The majority of batman comic book readers like Robin. Robin and Nightwing even had their own monthly series when other more established heroes were struggling to sale.

No, it doesn't, and I explained you why. And that perspective of using fear (and, as developed later, also questionable methods) do make him stand out. He's also DC's most popular asset BY FAR. He has been adapted many more times than any other superhero. He's the highest-grossing superhero on live-action films. He does stand out. I'm only suggesting one of the reasons.

Seriously Thomas, i know he's your son, but you need to stop it.
And no, Superman is more popular around the world.

He doesn't want to look like a bat. He wants to look as a guy who reminds you of bat-like dark things and also like a maniac about to kick your ass.

I couldnt find the original page from Detective Comics but its the same:

Spoiler

I know this. But Batman operates predominantly in Gotham. Nice city, very much like Valhalla, right?
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Thor is Marvel, Batman is DC. Why are you putting them in the same sentence?
Just like Ironman works with Thor in the Avengers, Batman works with WW in the JL. Just like Thor has Valhalla, WW has Themiscyra, an island filled with immortal Amazons fighting Greek gods.

Which is exactly the point of most people against Robin's inclusion people around here. Glad you people found something to agree with.

As Crook has said, a lot of people will get red faces if Nolan adapts Robin successfully! "I was rooting for Robin all along! Robin is awesome!"

 

[Comics N' Toons]

As Crook has said, a lot of people will get red faces if Nolan adapts Robin successfully! "I was rooting for Robin all along! Robin is awesome!"

This sentence is the perfect venom to spit at all the Robin haters!t:

 

[GaiusBaltar]

What i meant is that if all these superheroes were designed today, their suits would be a lot less flashy than they are now.

Perhaps, but seeing the state of some of the lingering visuals around, would that really be a bad thing?

My god! Those changes are.... trivial!

No, they're not. And those two images don't reflect what I described.

No, the results came because most people in here have never picked up a comic book. The majority of batman comic book readers like Robin.

You base that on...?

Robin and Nightwing even had their own monthly series when other more established heroes were struggling to sale.

Catwoman too and many regular comicbook readers around diss her all the time and don't want to see her in the sequel.
Hell, even Disney's McDuck has/had his own title. Now, I'm not saying Robin is impopular... but suggesting that most of the people voting against him do only because they're not familiar to comicbooks sounds biased and resentful, to say the least.

Seriously Thomas, i know he's your son, but you need to stop it.
And no, Superman is more popular around the world.

No, he's not. Stop living in the eighties.

I couldnt find the original page from Detective Comics but its the same

"Become a bat"... "Look just like a giant bat when donning the suit"... yeah, you're metaphor-impaired, aren't ya?
Of course you're not. But the "illiterate" line was too good to resist, am I right?

Thor is Marvel, Batman is DC. Why are you putting them in the same sentence?
Just like Ironman works with Thor in the Avengers, Batman works with WW in the JL. Just like Thor has Valhalla, WW has Themiscyra, an island filled with immortal Amazons fighting Greek gods.

I told you, I had a mind lapsus and mistook Thor with Hawkman (big whoop). You totally made my point there anyway.

As Crook has said, a lot of people will get red faces if Nolan adapts Robin successfully! "I was rooting for Robin all along! Robin is awesome!"

That most likely won't happen and you know it. This is a huge topic change anyway, because you're not addressing what I said. You're saying that flashy, comicbook-like visual have a greater resistance in live-action films, and before that you said you didn't think Robin would fit in the universe of "The Dark Knight"... which is exactly what the anti-Robin crowd have been saying all along! How do you justify all that debating of yours if you still agree with the opposing side?

 

[Saint]

But most classic ongoing superhero stories, outside of Watchmen, do exactly the opposite. They are colorful, juvenile, tacky, in-your-face and are supposed to reinforce heroism on already heroic characters, which adds little. At least some heroes got around that by having their costumes address their inmaturity or celebrity status (Flash, Iron Man, Spider-Man, the F4), although many others failed by having costumes that are supposed to just be cool and nothing more (Daredevil, Captain America, the classic X-Men).

Yes. And? I fail to see why having a costume that just looks cool is necessarily a failure. Incomplete, perhaps, but not inherently a "failure." Your position seems dubious; you complain that the the costumes are unjustified, and then you complain that writers have tried to complete these concepts by writing justifications for them.

And then we have the "alien explanations", which try validate designs that go from the just horrible Green Lanterns

I'm not sure I can have productive discussion with someone who feels Green Lantern's design is "just horrible."

Of course liberties can be taken. It's a balancing act. But many times writers don't even make the effort (Captain America).

I'm not sure I follow you. The logic behind Captain America's design is implicit. I don't consider it a stretch at all to believe that, in the established Marvel universe, the government would build their own superhero and wrap him in the flag.

In this day and age, bolts in chests are increasingly less cool.

According to whom? Certainly not among comic book fans, and apparently not among the general public either, as the heroes of the general public (sports heroes) wear their insignias on their chests as a matter of course.

It may save time to tell you that I will never agree that chest emblems are anything less than awesome. The superhero genre is named as such for a reason, and while modernization has largely been a good thing, the day that masks, insignias, and secret identities are no longer a part of the genre is the day you can truthfully say that there is no superhero genre. For those that dislike masks, capes, and secret identities (which is to say people who do not like superheroes), this may be exactly what they want. That is not what I want.

For today's more cynic viewer, a character like the Comedian is ten times more relatable and engaging than the idealized Captain America. Caustic, bleak, irony-charged comics are becoming more and more popular for a reason. And meanwhile, many of these characters risk becoming suddenly outdated and ineffective, if they're not so already. Sure, positive, light themes can still be conveyed, but "simplicity" is the not word of order anymore.

Conveniently, I do not agree that wearing a superhero costume requires any sort of inherent narrative simplicity.

As an aside, have you read any of the current volume of Captain America?

 

[Saint]

You base that on...?

While it certainly doesn't prove a majority, the success of Morrison's Batman and Robin is a fair indicator of the character's popularity.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Yes. And? I fail to see why having a costume that just looks cool is necessarily a failure. Incomplete, perhaps, but not inherently a "failure."

I consider incompleteness, implemented just too appeal to cheesy tastes, to be a failure. Even more when those regular tastes can change drastically with the years, yet the costumes don't. If a visual designed is unjustified and increasingly outdated, what does that make it? Then again, that's just me, it may not be a failure to you. It's all a matter of perspective and priorities.

Your position seems dubious; you complain that the the costumes are unjustified, and then you complain that writers have tried to complete these concepts by writing justifications for them.

I don't mind them writing some explanations, I like that. I just dislike the ones that feel forced to me, like Superman's circus outfit apparently resembling Kryptonian apparels.

I'm not sure I can have productive discussion with someone who feels Green Lantern's design is "just horrible."

Same here with people that don't have any problem whatsoever with outer-space galactic protectors in domino masks who create any wished forms with their rings' good green energy, are harmed by bad yellow energy, and commanded by a councile of little Yodas-likes with correct syntaxis.
... Seriously.

I'm not sure I follow you. The logic behind Captain America's design is implicit. I don't consider it a stretch at all to believe that, in the established Marvel universe, the government would build their own superhero and wrap him in the flag.

No, you're right (no sarcasm here), they don't need any explanations anymore because they've built their world that has grown populated with all kinds of cheesy visuals. Except that when Captain America was created, there was no Marvel Universe. Not even the first X-men generation were around. And, you may correct me here, but as far as I Know, Marvel hasn't rebooted their Universe. It's still Steve Rogers and he has been around since the 40's.

According to whom? Certainly not among comic book fans, and apparently not among the general public either, as the heroes of the general public (sports heroes) wear their insignias on their chests as a matter of course.

Look, I'm a comic book fan, and I enjoy some Flash stories, I just don't like the costume. I was making a point about today's general audiences, because comicbook films ususally try to get a compromise between both audiences, the fanbase and the mainstream public.
Sports are totally different, by the way. Try making your law-enforcement officers wear that.

It may save time to tell you that I will never agree that chest emblems are anything less than awesome. The superhero genre is named as such for a reason, and while modernization has largely been a good thing, the day that masks, insignias, and secret identities are no longer a part of the genre is the day you can truthfully say that there is no superhero genre.

Which is why I say I don't want them to be changed, they've been longer than who knows what around and have ingrained in popular culture. But films are a different thing, and admittedly certain heroes work better with compromises on this aspects than others. Of cours,e in the end, it's all subjective, I'm just stating an opinion.

Conveniently, I do not agree that wearing a superhero costume requires any sort of inherent narrative simplicity.

That's what I'm saying.

As an aside, have you read any of the current volume of Captain America?

I do have to catch up, I guess. Has it changed too much? I haven't read his stories since the nineties.

While it certainly doesn't prove a majority, the success of Morrison's Batman and Robin is a fair indicator of the character's popularity.

Which could be in spite of Robin, and given the longevity of the character I don't think there would be many bat-fans questioning his presence. It's better to accept it and enjoy the ride, isn't it?
But take it out of his element into movies, and that should be a new story.

 

[Mr. Earle]

No, they're not. And those two images don't reflect what I described.

The first picture is Batman's first suit as designed by Finger and the second is Batman as designed nowadays. The changes are trivial. You were referring to the suit having gloss, or different textures and generally even more trivial changes. So over the course of 60 years the big changes you refer to were the suit's texture and the length of his gloves? Jesus.

You base that on...?

On having been here long enough to know that most people here have never picked up a comic book.

but suggesting that most of the people voting against him do only because they're not familiar to comicbooks sounds biased and resentful, to say the least.

No, its because the majority of the people that read the comic books appreciate Robin as a character and want to see him in the movies at some point (not necessarily in B3). But people in here only seem to focus on trivialities and not what the character has to offer (because they dont know what he has to offer). Their arguements are:
1) Cheesy suit
2) Kid sidekick is unrealistic
3) Batman must always be alone on a gargoyle in the rain, or else its cheesy.

No, he's not. Stop living in the eighties.

Whatever. Who cares? Its not like i get a share from his earnings.

You're saying that flashy, comicbook-like visual have a greater resistance in live-action films, and before that you said you didn't think Robin would fit in the universe of "The Dark Knight"... which is exactly what the anti-Robin crowd have been saying all along! How do you justify all that debating of yours if you still agree with the opposing side?

The way i see it, Begins was a comic book movie that could fit Robin in its world. TDK was a crime drama set in chicago with a dude in swat gear running around beating people up in staged fights. So yeah, i think that Robin could fit in the Nolanverse, the Begins nolanverse.

I don't mind them writing some explanations, I like that. I just dislike the ones that feel forced to me, like Superman's circus outfit apparently resembling Kryptonian apparels.

But it isnt conventient that Batman's circus outfit with a cape and cowl somehow resembles a bat?
You re so partial to Batman its not even funny.

Same here with people that don't have any problem whatsoever with outer-space galactic protectors in domino masks who create any wished forms with their rings' good green energy, are harmed by bad yellow energy, and commanded by a councile of little Yodas-likes with correct syntaxis.
... Seriously.

But space monks with laser swords are ok? A man that dresses up like bat and fights evil clowns and people with half their face burnt is fine? A story about a guy who teleports an exploding psychic squid in the middle of New York to save the world is OK?

Except that when Captain America was created, there was no Marvel Universe. Not even the first X-men generation were around. And, you may correct me here, but as far as I Know, Marvel hasn't rebooted their Universe. It's still Steve Rogers and he has been around since the 40's.

The guy was a living flag, boosting morale and taking the fight to the Germans. Cap was like... America incarnate fighting in the front row.

Which could be in spite of Robin, and given the longevity of the character I don't think there would be many bat-fans questioning his presence. It's better to accept it and enjoy the ride, isn't it?

Its not in spite of Robin because Batman already has 2 other monthly series in which he goes solo and B&R sells more than them. Damian is one of the greatest characters the franchise has ever seen. Hell, i'd rather read about Dickbats and Damian than Bruce and any Robin. Its that good a dynamic the new guys have.
And again, before the shake up that took place after RIP, Robin and Nightwing used to have their own titles which were going very well, so i assume that readers liked them. Its just that the general audience hasnt been introduced to kid sidekicks properly so its understandable that they dont like them.

 

[Saint]

Even more when those regular tastes can change drastically with the years, yet the costumes don't.

They don't? The costumes have been evolving since their inception. This is more subtle in some areas, but that only indicates that tastes of the fans have not changed as much as you suggest.

I don't mind them writing some explanations, I like that. I just dislike the ones that feel forced to me, like Superman's circus outfit apparently resembling Kryptonian apparels.

I already mentioned that, did I not?

Same here with people that don't have any problem whatsoever with outer-space galactic protectors in domino masks who create any wished forms with their rings' good green energy, are harmed by bad yellow energy, and commanded by a councile of little Yodas-likes with correct syntaxis.
... Seriously.

Frankly, the "I can recite fictional concepts in a list, implying that they are unacceptably ridiculous" approach doesn't really move me. I can employ the same tactic for equally ridiculous aspects of Watchmen, if you like. Of course, that would be silly: we both know that if one actually reads Watchmen, ostensibly ludicrous elements of the book do, in fact, make sense and serve the story. Were you an actual reader of Green Lantern, you would know the same is true there, as well.

No, you're right (no sarcasm here), they don't need any explanations anymore because they've built their world that has grown populated with all kinds of cheesy visuals. Except that when Captain America was created, there was no Marvel Universe. Not even the first X-men generation were around. And, you may correct me here, but as far as I Know, Marvel hasn't rebooted their Universe. It's still Steve Rogers and he has been around since the 40's.

As per my understanding, mystery men existed prior to Captain America in the Marvel timeline. It doesn't matter, anyway: even if they didn't, there's still precedent for creating a flamboyant costume. The germans had the Red Skull running around in, you guessed it, a mask of a red skull as a nazi propaganda symbol. Captain America was the american response.

Sports are totally different, by the way. Try making your law-enforcement officers wear that.

Many law enforcement officers display their insignia on their uniforms, also.

Which is why I say I don't want them to be changed, they've been longer than who knows what around and have ingrained in popular culture. But films are a different thing,

They present different visual challenges, requiring that concepts be evolved (see: Spider-Man), but conceptually, the difference is far less dramatic than people believe. Frankly, many of the superhero costuming arguments should have ended when the first images of Raimi's Spider-Man hit the net. Yes, it had to evolve to suit live action, but the concept did not need to change. Certainly, the concept of the Bat costume needed to change for Nolan's films, but that is a function of the style, not the medium. While I won't speak in absolutes, I can think of few maintstream superhero costumes that are not viable on screen in the proper stylistic environment. The Flash is a great example, because if you put the Flash in Raimi's Spider-Man... well, he'd look right at home, wouldn't he?

I do have to catch up, I guess. Has it changed too much? I haven't read his stories since the nineties.

Let's just say that Ed Brubaker's current run on Captain America has been consistently one of the best books on the shelf. If you have fifty dollars to spend, I suggest purchasing the first omnibus from Amazon. However, it's not my fault if you buy it and don't like it, because I can't make any promises to a guy who doesn't like Green Lantern. If you do buy it, I want to know what you think.

Which could be in spite of Robin,

Have fans also been reading his solo series for ten years in spite of him?

 

[GaiusBaltar]

The first picture is Batman's first suit as designed by Finger and the second is Batman as designed nowadays. The changes are trivial. You were referring to the suit having gloss, or different textures and generally even more trivial changes. So over the course of 60 years the big changes you refer to were the suit's texture and the length of his gloves? Jesus.

It's in moments like this I wish I could upload to imageshack.

I named lots of writers, you brought up only a Lee, which has a fairly moderate approach and is liked by many fans and is being considered the standard, but Batman should be far from having a strict look. Sometimes it feels people only know about "Hush". For example, the grey & bluish suit is taken for granted, but in Doug Manhke's "Under The Hood" it's grey and black, and in many parts of "No Man's Land" (see Consequences, art by Mark Buckingham) he's totally black and has a very distinct cape end in spiralls.
In more alternative stories, like crossovers and elsworlds, the designs are even more audacious. With Marvel's Daredevil, he really spiked shoulders. In the classic elseworld "Arkham Asylum", Dave McKean drew a Batman with really long ears, and huge arm fins.

And even when you try to dismiss that, I still mentioned him having different alternative suits for different circumstances, didn't I?

I remember MILPERSMAN posting some great images of a suit I had not seen before and was nothing like the usual stuff. Sadly, they're not available anymore more. Do you remember them?
(http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=17871332#post17871332)

You know why I think they dare do this kind of stuff in comics? Because the Burton armoured approach got to an almost equal level of iconic status as the tradition suit, and acknowledging that doesn't hurt.

On having been here long enough to know that most people here have never picked up a comic book.

Generalizations work both ways. That thing you say can apply also for people that have voted for Robin. I've seen many here who also avid mainstream Batman & Robin readers for its light and fun storytelling as well as for its easy emotions, but are not be able to sit through Arkham Asylum or TDKR, and loath The Killing Joke as easily. The fanbase sometimes gives the impression of being fragmented into fractions that can be like water and oil.

No, its because the majority of the people that read the comic books appreciate Robin as a character and want to see him in the movies at some point (not necessarily in B3). But people in here only seem to focus on trivialities and not what the character has to offer (because they dont know what he has to offer).

Again, generalizations won't take you far. Many defend the character without understanding it either, even suggesting the most ludicrous plot ideas to introduce the character, showing the real reasons they want him in. On the other hand, I've seen some pretty meaty, lenghty and insightful analysis for the downsides of Robin's presence as Batman's sidekick. El Payaso is responsible for many of these posts, but not only he. Is he one of those that only "seem to focus on trivialities"?

The way i see it, Begins was a comic book movie that could fit Robin in its world. TDK was a crime drama set in chicago with a dude in swat gear running around beating people up in staged fights. So yeah, i think that Robin could fit in the Nolanverse, the Begins nolanverse.
But it isnt conventient that Batman's circus outfit with a cape and cowl somehow resembles a bat?
You re so partial to Batman its not even funny.

For the millionth time, it is not convenient because its writers don't try to make the suit be derived from a whole new element of universe-building. They just make it stem from Bruce's imagination, with all its virtues and flaws. They even usually make the suit reflect poorly on him, making people question his sanity and the validity of his premise and methods. How on Earth can that be convenient? At least he gets a bad rep about it, instead of going around like is the most normal thing in the world.

But space monks with laser swords are ok?

If you're talking about Star Wars, no, it's not. But at least the wardrobe and the weapon of choice say tons about their unified ideology and their veneration of mystic, humbling beliefs in a highly technological world. It also works because it's supported in the same principle of placing them in a world full of other wacky visuals, some of them so awful that it makes you forget the Jedi look bad. In fact, they're the ones who look best

Now tell me why does a pragmatic, stoic, no-nonsense man would dress in colorful spandex and wear domino masks? Oh, right... it doesn't make much sense.

A man that dresses up like bat and fights evil clowns and people with half their face burnt is fine?

Yes, and I've spent like three pages in posts explaining why I find it quite okay, even pointing out some mild reservations. You keep repeating the same question, I'm only guessing you either didn't read them or chose to ignore them. It's actually like a kind of habit around here, to not adress all the points of the other guys? No wonder why people keep asking the same stuff over and over again.

A story about a guy who teleports an exploding psychic squid in the middle of New York to save the world is OK?

Even though I was slightly okay with the extensive exposition of the that big mess of a rationale, I still like it more when Snyder simplified it.

The guy was a living flag, boosting morale and taking the fight to the Germans. Cap was like... America incarnate fighting in the front row.

And I understand how that may resonate with that era's readers, especially after the Cold War kicked in. But nowadays... to me, he's a joke.

Have fans also been reading his solo series for ten years in spite of him?

Its not in spite of Robin because Batman already has 2 other monthly series in which he goes solo and B&R sells more than them. Damian is one of the greatest characters the franchise has ever seen. Hell, i'd rather read about Dickbats and Damian than Bruce and any Robin. Its that good a dynamic the new guys have.

This I agree with. But I think you and Saint misunderstood me here. My problem is not so much with the character as with his role towards Bruce and Bruce's attitude about it.

I find the Bruce-Robin dynamic so dissapointing that almost anyother shines in the comparison. Which has always been my biggest issue with the character. As I see it, he does to Batman some of the same stuff Harley does to the Joker. As a solo character he can be great and has improved as such (there's a quality leap from Grayson to Drake). I also agree Damian is a great character too.

But in my experience, when it comes to his role as a side-kick, Robin is still quite polarizing within readers. I think we can all agree All-Star was proof of that.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Now, Saint...

They don't? The costumes have been evolving since their inception. This is more subtle in some areas, but that only indicates that tastes of the fans have not changed as much as you suggest.

Do you think the taste of the fans tap directly into the decision making in DC? I don't. I remember moments when I saw comicbooks getting increasingly marginal, and new readers were getting younger and younger. Luckily, brilliant (yet respectful of tradition) story-telling has kept the business afloat, as well as much needed move towards less campy ambience. Like I say, too much "grim" is not good, but some grim hasn't hurt either.

I already mentioned that, did I not?

Yes you did. It's a good example.

Frankly, the "I can recite fictional concepts in a list, implying that they are unacceptably ridiculous" approach doesn't really move me.

I wasn't hopeful about it.

Ostensibly ludicrous elements in Watchmen do, in fact, make sense and serve the story. Were you an actual reader of Green Lantern, you would know the same is true there, as well.

From my "infidel" point of view hehe I can still see how "Watchmen" introduces these ingredients to undermine and criticize them, and show how laughable yet worrying they are. "Batman", being much less ludicrous, also does some of this. "Green Lantern", on the other hand, has its absurdity revered, taking it for granted instead of addressing it.

Don't get me wrong, I like Green Lantern. In time, I've grown accostumed to it. Right now I'm about to read "Blackest Night"'s first issue. But the problem for me with GL and similar superhero titles: I enjoy it, I get fun from reading it, but these same elements prevent me from having my mind blown in awesomeness. It amounts to a rather tepid experience, one I can only fathom as being similar to what Mr. Earle had with "The Dark Knight".

As per my understanding, mystery men existed prior to Captain America in the Marvel timeline.

I don't know, I just remembered Magneto embracing his "homo superioris" philosophy when chasing Nazis after WWII, so I put two and two together. Can't really believe in an established Marvel Universe in the fourties, especially when the company's name back then was Timely Comics.

It doesn't matter, anyway: even if they didn't, there's still precedent for creating a flamboyant costume. The germans had the Red Skull running around in, you guessed it, a mask of a red skull as a nazi propaganda symbol. Captain America was the american response.

"and then it was just too late."

Many law enforcement officers display their insignia on their uniforms, also.

I know, I often can't extrapolate specific elements. I get too focused in the big picture... focused on the bolts emblem appearing in the chest of an intensely red and yellow spandex suit with a little wings in the temples.

They present different visual challenges, requiring that concepts be evolved (see: Spider-Man), but conceptually, the difference is far less dramatic than people believe. Frankly, many of the superhero costuming arguments should have ended when the first images of Raimi's Spider-Man hit the net. Yes, it had to evolve to suit live action, but the concept did not need to change. Certainly, the concept of the Bat costume needed to change for Nolan's films, but that is a function of the style, not the medium. While I won't speak in absolutes, I can think of few maintstream superhero costumes that are not viable on screen in the proper stylistic environment. The Flash is a great example, because if you put the Flash in Raimi's Spider-Man... well, he'd look right at home, wouldn't he?

I've gotta give it to you, you're right about this. The question is if Batman, after being presented so many times in armoured rubber, has become one of those few comicbook heroes that need heavy adapting? In Nolan's particular brand of world, how drastic are the visual changes required for Robin to work? Which are the sacred visual cues that cannot be touched?

Frankly, I don't have answers to these questions because I'm more worried about Robin's role as a side-kick and the burdens of his introduction. But these visual topics concern a great deal of fans. In an hypothetical "The Flash" film thread, you wouldn't see the same restlessness about his design.

Let's just say that Ed Brubaker's current run on Captain America has been consistently one of the best books on the shelf. If you have fifty dollars to spend, I suggest purchasing the first omnibus from Amazon.

I'll look it up as soon as I finish Blackest Night. I've really liked Brubaker a lot since "Catwoman", that's a big hook for me. I'll let you know.

 

[Mr. Earle]

It's in moments like this I wish I could upload to imageshack.

I named lots of writers, you brought up only a Lee, which has a fairly moderate approach and is liked by many fans and is being considered the standard, but Batman should be far from having a strict look. Sometimes it feels people only know about "Hush". For example, the grey & bluish suit is taken for granted, but in Doug Manhke's "Under The Hood" it's grey and black, and in many parts of "No Man's Land" (see Consequences, art by Mark Buckingham) he's totally black and has a very distinct cape end in spiralls.
In more alternative stories, like crossovers and elsworlds, the designs are even more audacious. With Marvel's Daredevil, he really spiked shoulders. In the classic elseworld "Arkham Asylum", Dave McKean drew a Batman with really long ears, and huge arm fins.

And even when you try to dismiss that, I still mentioned him having different alternative suits for different circumstances, didn't I?

I remember MILPERSMAN posting some great images of a suit I had not seen before and was nothing like the usual stuff. Sadly, they're not available anymore more. Do you remember them?
(http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=17871332#post17871332)

Batman uses variations of the batsuit according to the circumstances and especially in elseworlds the artists grab the opportunity and design different batsuits spawning many variations. Every superhero gets a weird new suit in elseworlds stories, and so does Batman.
But you were claiming that Batman's suit evolved along the years so it got rid of all of the cheese. But the normal canon batsuit that Bruce uses everyday didnt since its basically the same as it was back then. The ears are a bit straighter and the gloves a bit longer, so what?

mainstream Batman & Robin readers for its light and fun storytelling as well as for its easy emotions,

You know, the lightness and fun of the story isnt based on whether Robin is included. Brave and the Bold is light and fun and yet Robin has only appeared in one episode. Robin has been in some of the most serious stories.

Now tell me why does a pragmatic, stoic, no-nonsense man would dress in colorful spandex and wear domino masks? Oh, right... it doesn't make much sense.

Why a pragmatic, stoic, no-nonsense man would dress up in colourful spandex and wear a bat cowl? Oh right... it doesnt make much sense.
Oh right, i forgot i am talking to Thomas Wayne. Everything makes sense if batman does it. When others do it, its cheesy.

Yes, and I've spent like three pages in posts explaining why I find it quite okay, even pointing out some mild reservations. You keep repeating the same question, I'm only guessing you either didn't read them or chose to ignore them. It's actually like a kind of habit around here, to not adress all the points of the other guys? No wonder why people keep asking the same stuff over and over again.

You havent adressed why space cops with magic rings are cheesy but a dude that dresses like a bat and fights costumed lunatics, alien gods and monsters is fine.
You can choose to like some comics and dislike some others, but you cant call GL cheesy when you read Batman. Batman shot an evil god with a god killing bullet and that god punished him by sending him in the past where he is living an infinite number of lives and deaths.

And even if you say "its just one story of that crazy loon Morrison", let me remind you that since forever, Batman's rogues gallery contains a woman that controls plants, a monster out of clay, a croc man, a clown, a man that needs sub zero temperatures to survive, a bat monster, and other cheesy villains. He has traveled to other dimensions, the past, the future, he has fought musical instruments, colours and what have you.

Not only that, but Batman has always been a member of the JL with everything that means about the stories and villains he faces there.

I find the Bruce-Robin dynamic so dissapointing that almost anyother shines in the comparison. Which has always been my biggest issue with the character. As I see it, he does to Batman some of the same stuff Harley does to the Joker.

Ok, fair enough.

But in my experience, when it comes to his role as a side-kick, Robin is still quite polarizing within readers. I think we can all agree All-Star was proof of that.

All-Star is not only non canon, but its a piece of ****. Why would you even use that as an arguement?

"Batman", being much less ludicrous, also does some of this.

Batman.... much less ludicrous...

Just read above where i describe what's currently happening to Bruce.

"Green Lantern", on the other hand, has its absurdity revered, taking it for granted instead of addressing it.

Green Lantern is science fiction. Why does everything have to take place in an alley of a pseudorealistic world? I can understand if its not your cup of tea, but dont pan it man!