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

[TruerToTheCore]

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.

The Superman of today has nothing to do with the Superman of 1938 who threw criminals into their own bullets. Superman became a totally different character after the first crisis, for example, while Batman remained the same, more or less.

 

[Cain]

As I see it, he does to Batman some of the same stuff Harley does to the Joker.

Well I disagree with the majority of your points in this thread but feel Mr. Earle and Saint are both debating you fairly well there so I'm not gonna quote this whole post. However this sentence stood out so much that the bat fanboy in me had to take issue with it lol.


This is a comparison that makes no sense for the simple fact that Harley Quinn who I never liked but do accept plays a role that's nothing like Robin outside of having the title "sidekick". First of all the Joker does NOT need anybody to anchor him down. He is not supposed to be a hero he is morally grey sometimes he's done good but many times he's done a whole lot of bad, Batman is not supposed to be that way so logically a writer comes up with a concept that could bring the hero out of Batman even more and give him more definition.

He is a wild card random reinvention is his nature he has no defined sexuality and nobody he does not deem expendable. This is in the comic books so Harley Quinn never made sense to me when they introduced her to the comics. I understand her purpose in TAS, Dini wanted a pet character he could use cool but the comics did not need here. The Joker is no different with her or without her in his life in the comic books. She's just dead weight.


Robin on the other hand was needed from a narrative stand point to prevent Batman from becoming a monster. Somebody quoted Nietzsche earlier and that quote rings true. He was what kept Batman human, Batman not just seeing a reflection of his own origin in the death of the flying Grayson's but also becoming a father and big brother did a lot for the character. He was no longer just a clone of The Spider and other pulp heroes he was something more.

So the purpose these characters serve to the respective character they will always be tied to (Batman & The Joker) is completely different from the next. I don't know how anybody could view the relationship The Joker has with a girl he constantly uses and abuses to be similar to the Batman & Robin dynamic at all but maybe that's just me.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The Superman of today has nothing to do with the Superman of 1938 who threw criminals into their own bullets. Superman became a totally different character after the first crisis, for example, while Batman remained the same, more or less.

Ditto!

Well I disagree with the majority of your points in this thread but feel Mr. Earle and Saint are both debating you fairly well there so I'm not gonna quote this whole post.

Thanks!

 

[Drz]

Wait. So Superman threw people into their own bullets and killed until 1984? That was the era of the first crisis correct? Whoa. That's interesting.

All Superheroes stopped killing atleast when Silver Age started. Remember that even when Batman stopped killing, they still made Batman, Superman and Robin kill nazis and japanese people for some World War propaganda.

Silver Age made sure that all heroes would follow the law and always follow the orders from policemen and everything "american" that the goverment wanted the comics to have. Thats why ultimately Batman and Robin stopped fightning human criminals but just aliens and whatnot.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Well I disagree with the majority of your points in this thread but feel Mr. Earle and Saint are both debating you fairly well there

Okay, thanks for the candor.

Harley Quinn who I never liked but do accept plays a role that's nothing like Robin outside of having the title "sidekick". First of all the Joker does NOT need anybody to anchor him down.

While I do agree on you assessment of the Joker, usually I feel there are too many characters anchoring Bats down. First there was a side-kick, now there's a whole family with more than two generations. Ultimately, all those people play a part that contributes to the story but also takes away. After a time, all of them kinda end having a fairly stable status as secondary characters, but during their introductions the focus of the story invariably locks on them, like any master-apprentice story usually focuses on the apprentice, being the one facing most obstacles and more inmediate conflict. Even if Robin had not come along, there would've been other people keeping Batman sane. Batman and Bruce have other allies.

In any ongoing maturity stories, surely someone must take the role of the son, I get that. I don't have any problem with Bruce having a son. Neither with him having a co-worker, which is what a side-kick is about. But a child/teenage side-kick? Which basically he allows to go into danger, willingly? Scarred, traumatized, stubborn, over-protective, "hates-his-own-life" Bruce? For me, this ultimately betrays what I've felt Batman to be about. Maybe I'm not as adaptable or can't appreciate the story without over-thinking it. I can accept that. But Robin, well, it's not about him being a bad character, but being a teenage side-kick.

Hence, my comparison with Harley Quinn.

Robin on the other hand was needed from a narrative stand point to prevent Batman from becoming a monster.

The same could be said about Harley. In some ways, she introduces her partner (the Joker) to new dynamics, while also revealing him as more of a monster through the depictions of his abuse to her.

The problem is that, to me, both characters also fail to do this, because Harley inadvertently (or not) makes the Joker more endearing and less threatening (he always takes her back after all), and Robin also reveals the psychotic, irresponsible and out-of-touch side of a Bruce that can put a kid in harms way "because he sees himself in the boy". Bruce, who almost gets no pleasure from his life, lets a boy who is not his equal take the same path he took. Right.

After Harley and Robin, I'm really not sure if the Joker is less human or Batman less of a monster. Ironically, most people I know think the best dynamics of the two pairs are The Joker betraying and abusing Harley, and Batman reacting angrily and authorative to Robin's disobediance. And you can't really say those people don't know the characters well enough.

The Superman of today has nothing to do with the Superman of 1938 who threw criminals into their own bullets. Superman became a totally different character after the first crisis, for example, while Batman remained the same, more or less.

Wait. So Superman threw people into their own bullets and killed until 1984? That was the era of the first crisis correct? Whoa. That's interesting.

LOL. What he said.
Also, Batman had Silver Age's friendliness, O'Neil's, Grant's and Morrison's more traditional heroism, Miller's much followed (but luckily fading away) grim threadbareness, etc. Maybe I just follow Batman more, but of the two, he seems the one with the less repetitve depictions. He's seems to me the more resilient of the two.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

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?

And the colors are much darker, the cape much bigger, the cowl is not bitonal anymore, and seriously, did you see the examples of NOT-elseworlds regular and influential runs?

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.

This you are right about, I give you that. That's the reason of why sometimes I like Robin and sometimes not. Nevertheless, the differences among readers are there either way.

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.

Ever heard of comics as being modern-day mythology? Ever heard of pop literature ALSO being a vehicle for trascendental themes? Ever heard of the super-hero genre being loaded with archetypes and heavy symbolism that give room to great character and theme explorations while also being engagin and fun? This society unfortunately looks down upon intellectualism and heavily prioritizes mindless fun and kitsch, but I hope you're beyond that.

Oh right, i forgot i am talking to Thomas Wayne. Everything makes sense if batman does it. When others do it, its cheesy.

Other do this too. I just have seen Batman do it more often and also break more ground for others to follow. Does "1986" rings any bells?

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.

Okay, I'm gonna try...

... Man that fights criminal psychopaths wearing a costume that resembles a bat, that also questions his sanity.
... Multi-species intergalactic corps with magic green rings that can materialize any forms made of green energy, which they use fight evil forces and protect the Universe.



If you can't tell them apart and see which is more absurd and random, I cannot help you.

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.

I don't give Batman a free pass? You think I don't think that's preposterous and cringe-worthy because I like most other Batman stories? I like to see medieval samurai Batman as much as the next guy and I will get fun from it, but it won't blow my mind. I also keep reading GL. What's your point then? That I like one more than other? Sure, because one engages in cheesiness much less often than the other.

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.

Without the eco-terrorism (when reasonable, like when she said Batman was not her enemy but only an obstacle) Ivy is indeed cheesy. Clay-face is too, although several early incarnations are not sci-fi in anyway. Killer Croc was a plausible guy for many years and that idea was pushed forward the most by Azzarello's "Joker".
Freeze is mostly moderate sci-fi, not green energy-charges rings (rings, for Pete's sake). He was also a regular, run-of-the-mill mad scientist, which is cheesy to the one millionth potency, and that's why I thank the heavens every night for Dini's arrival.
Manbat it's not only cheesy, but the worst idea ever, which is funny because someone in DC may have thought it was "clever".
The Joker is not cheesy under any standards, not for me. In the Silver Age? Sure. Bu the form we know and love couldn't be more subversive.

Batman also has the rogues gallery with the least non-human, superpowered villains. Please, bring me a single mainstream superhero that beats him in that aspect, I beg you.

He has traveled to other dimensions, the past, the future, he has fought musical instruments, colours and what have you.

And he remains the most sensible mainstream hero we know, in spite of those mistakes. I'm sure you know how to establish differences, right? At least between evil musical instruments, evil mutant plants, and a guy who found a phenomenom that makes him live on forever, right?

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

What don't you get? We weren't talking about canon, we were talking about Robin. You brought the popularity of the solo titles, I brough All-Star's impopularity.

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!

Batman is sometimes sci-fi too, and it can work within realistic parameters too. It's more versatile. Green Lantern is sci-fi spinned out of control. The visuals are way tackier too. It's very good you're able to let that pass and enjoy the ride, of course, but don't pretend everyone should do the same.

 

[CaptainClown]

whats going on?

 

[Saint]

Do you think the taste of the fans tap directly into the decision making in DC?

Of course. Every reader has a direct line to the great, powerful decision making brain at DC; I carry mine in my back left pocket. Classic costuming has been abandoned many times for many characters; it rarely sticks because the fans often do not want it to.

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

I'm not sure I agree with this, but even if I do, I absolutely do not agree that it is necessary to "criticize" or "undermine" these elements to make them viable. Frankly, there's absolutely zero problem with relishing absurdity. In fact, I bet Grant Morrison has that printed on his business card.

Grant Morrison
Relishing Absurdity​

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.

I'm not sure I see how the publication history is relevant to the fictional timeline.

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.

There are plenty of completely ludicrous and flamboyant dress uniforms in use in law enforcement. The Canadian Mounted Police, for example. In any case, here's the thing about absurd fashion: all fashion is absurd. No, I don't consider it to be ludicrous that crazy people who go out into the night to fight crime dress crazy, because sane people dress crazy every day, everywhere. ****, I'd wear a lightning bolt on my chest in a second, so I can't really fault the Flash for wearing one, can I? I'd wear a lightning bolt on my chest to a job interview if I thought I could get away with it. Granted, not every hero is going to be an exhibitionist (those designing for female supers really need to figure this out), which is why the advent of practical and understated designs has been a good thing for some heroes.

 

[Mr. Earle]

like any master-apprentice story usually focuses on the apprentice

Not when the protagonist is the master. Look at House. He has a team of employees, Cuddy and Wilson, but its always about him.

First there was a side-kick, now there's a whole family with more than two generations.

Bruce hasnt been a loner for quite a long time now. Same with Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. Hell, there's a new Krypton now (or something like that, i have to catch up)!

And the colors are much darker, the cape much bigger, the cowl is not bitonal anymore, and seriously, did you see the examples of NOT-elseworlds regular and influential runs?

But the standard batsuit that Batman uses in 90% of the comics ever printed has been the same. All the changes your refer to dont change anything. So what if the grey is darker, or if he used to have spikes at the end of his shoulders? He always looked pretty much the same = ridiculous by real world standards but fearsome by comic book ones.

Ever heard of comics as being modern-day mythology? Ever heard of pop literature ALSO being a vehicle for trascendental themes? Ever heard of the super-hero genre being loaded with archetypes and heavy symbolism that give room to great character and theme explorations while also being engagin and fun? This society unfortunately looks down upon intellectualism and heavily prioritizes mindless fun and kitsch, but I hope you're beyond that.

Of course i am, and this is why i am here posting about Batman. My point is that Batman is just as ridiculous as any other superhero, even Robin.

Without the eco-terrorism (when reasonable, like when she said Batman was not her enemy but only an obstacle) Ivy is indeed cheesy. Clay-face is too, although several early incarnations are not sci-fi in anyway. Killer Croc was a plausible guy for many years and that idea was pushed forward the most by Azzarello's "Joker".
Freeze is mostly moderate sci-fi, not green energy-charges rings (rings, for Pete's sake). He was also a regular, run-of-the-mill mad scientist, which is cheesy to the one millionth potency, and that's why I thank the heavens every night for Dini's arrival.
Manbat it's not only cheesy, but the worst idea ever, which is funny because someone in DC may have thought it was "clever".
The Joker is not cheesy under any standards, not for me. In the Silver Age? Sure. Bu the form we know and love couldn't be more subversive.

I can understand if you prefer more down to earth stories but you have to acknowledge that Batman is after all a superhero story. You are basically rejecting half of his rogues gallery as cheesy. I assume you dont like him in the JL either so that means you only accept the portion of the mythos that is as grounded as the nolanverse... Fair enough. I gotta tell you that you're missing out though.

Batman also has the rogues gallery with the least non-human, superpowered villains. Please, bring me a single mainstream superhero that beats him in that aspect, I beg you.

I never really counted because i only cared for the potential of the characters and not whether they are superpowered or not so that i can label them as cheesy.

And he remains the most sensible mainstream hero we know, in spite of those mistakes.

Mistakes? Those were different times and those stories were perfect for then. Besides, havent you gotten bored of seeing Batman punching mobsters yet?

You brought the popularity of the solo titles, I brough All-Star's impopularity.

Actually All-Star has been one of the best selling DC titles at times. It's still a piece of crap though and not because of Robin, but because of Batman. Fancy that!

Batman is sometimes sci-fi too, and it can work within realistic parameters too. It's more versatile. Green Lantern is sci-fi spinned out of control. The visuals are way tackier too. It's very good you're able to let that pass and enjoy the ride, of course, but don't pretend everyone should do the same.

Batman is my favourite superhero but i also like Superman, GL, Flash, Ironman, Spiderman and other superheroes and enjoy them for the different things they offer. Its like how i can enjoy both the Godfather movies and scifi ones like Star Trek.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Wait. So Superman threw people into their own bullets and killed until 1984? That was the era of the first crisis correct? Whoa. That's interesting.

Nay he didn't kill until 1984. I wasn't that sharp here. Just saying that there is major break betwen post and pre-crisis and the early Superman is also completely different... So Superman's changed a lot (not for the better IMO)

 

[Rodrigo90]

I cant make head nor tale of this thread anymoret:

So Im just going to come out with my thoughts.

Is it wise for Batman to have a kid sidekick hanging around him,in his current situation? I dont know why,but Im getting a distinct feeling that 3 is going to be based heavily on TDKR in some ways

In the novel,Batman is in a situation where he is wanted by the police,now its the same with the movies. But that situation in TDKR didnt stop him from having a child sidekick with him. Robin (Carrie Kelly) was jumping out of windows to avoid police,beating up Jokers thugs and driving the Goddamn Batmobile. I have visions of certain aspects,not just the police situation,will be used in 3 from TDKR. I hope Im wrong,but Miller's work was (back in the day) strong and they will probably use more of it

Bruce retiring from Batman will probably be another element used.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Nay he didn't kill until 1984. I wasn't that sharp here. Just saying that there is major break betwen post and pre-crisis and the early Superman is also completely different... So Superman's changed a lot (not for the better IMO)

Batman used to shoot guns and even kill some of his enemies too. There's almost no difference there.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Of course. Every reader has a direct line to the great, powerful decision making brain at DC; I carry mine in my back left pocket. Classic costuming has been abandoned many times for many characters; it rarely sticks because the fans often do not want it to.

I know, I wouldn't want them to change their costumes in the comics either. What's done is done. Coincidently, the movieogoers keep getting their "back-pocket reasons" to the box-office for bat-movies that have never used completely faithful batsuits. Are we going to conclude that Batman is different in that aspect from almost every other superhero in the big screen? Yes or no, I'm fine with either answer.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but even if I do, I absolutely do not agree that it is necessary to "criticize" or "undermine" these elements to make them viable. Frankly, there's absolutely zero problem with relishing absurdity. In fact, I bet Grant Morrison has that printed on his business card.

Grant Morrison
Relishing Absurdity​

Please note I don't mean "absurd" as opposed to "realistic". I mean as a mark of random world-building. When ridiculous ideas are supposed to be taken for granted and pass as cool instead of being parodical or linked to great concepts (which is what Morrison does in the not absurd "Arkham Asylum"), then it becomes cheesy.

And to tell the truth, Morrison's works go more often than not into meta-literature, even sometimes parodying itself. But yes, he does what you say a lot, when his content makes sense he tries his style to do the opposite. But the guy's not a no-nonsense. It's not conventional, but it's not random. You make it sound worse than he is. What was so absurd about Batman & Son, for instance? And about the definitely fantastic stories, like those involving the Lazarus Pit, well, Morrison didn't introduce fantasy in the bat-world, he was just exploiting it. As I see it, for a long time now he has tried to give old random, unjustified elements from a mythos a much tighter explanation and background, like the alternative Batman personality in R.I.P. or the Joker's super-sanity theory. Actually, I don't like all of them, but I give credit to him from knowing the inherent problems of a 70 years continuity and addressing them.

I'm not sure I see how the publication history is relevant to the fictional timeline.

The fictional timeline still has Captain America since the fourties. He preceeded many superheroes, in a time when the form of the Marvel Universe as we know it now was not in place.

There are plenty of completely ludicrous and flamboyant dress uniforms in use in law enforcement. The Canadian Mounted Police, for example.

Those are still in for tradition-keeping and cultural protection. They were once normal regular outwear. Superhero suits never were, not even in their fictional world.

In any case, here's the thing about absurd fashion: all fashion is absurd.

Another thing about fashion... it never makes big leaps. The ones that do are for artistic catwalks and never stick around.

No, I don't consider it to be ludicrous that crazy people who go out into the night to fight crime dress crazy, because sane people dress crazy every day, everywhere.

I know. And yet, in some titles, many characters treat those superheros as if they were sane and normal, and for all we are given, they probably are!
But hey, if we shut our mouths about dominoe masks, glasses or hair fringes concealing identity, we can accept about anything, right?

****, I'd wear a lightning bolt on my chest in a second, so I can't really fault the Flash for wearing one, can I?

You would be parodying a cultural item known in our universe. That's why people get it (and you're still being pretty normal about it, not fighting crime). I can understand the same thing with Barry Allen, but Jay Garrick came up with the idea all by himself! And of all things, he based it on circus performers and the god Hermes! I get it, the Flash is super-powered, he doesn't need to have all that functionality, but still, wouldn't people treat him more like a freak?
Such is the problem of linking it to fashion: it works if there are previous references around for the protagonist, but without that it's a bit of a stretch to see him came up with it himself (I hate that so much in the first Spider-Man movie).

Granted, not every hero is going to be an exhibitionist (those designing for female supers really need to figure this out), which is why the advent of practical and understated designs has been a good thing for some heroes.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Saint]

I know, I wouldn't want them to change their costumes in the comics either. What's done is done. Coincidently, the movieogoers keep getting their "back-pocket reasons" to the box-office for bat-movies that have never used completely faithful batsuits. Are we going to conclude that Batman is different in that aspect from almost every other superhero in the big screen? Yes or no, I'm fine with either answer.

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Please note I don't mean "absurd" as opposed to "realistic". I mean as a mark of random world-building. When ridiculous ideas are supposed to be taken for granted and pass as cool instead of being parodical or linked to great concepts (which is what Morrison does in the not absurd "Arkham Asylum"), then it becomes cheesy.

The next logical step is for you to present arguments on what constitutes a "Great concept," so as to negate "cheese."

It's not conventional, but it's not random.

Who ever said anything about anything being random?

As I see it, for a long time now he has tried to give old random, unjustified elements from a mythos a much tighter explanation and background,

Ha. You should really read Johns' Green Lantern.

The fictional timeline still has Captain America since the fourties. He preceeded many superheroes, in a time when the form of the Marvel Universe as we know it now was not in place.

I don't understand how we're still talking about this. I've already told you that other masked heroes predate Captain America in the Marvel Universe.

Those are still in for tradition-keeping and cultural protection. They were once normal regular outwear. Superhero suits never were, not even in their fictional world.

I don't see how this is meaningful. The fashion trends that led to Superhero costume design were not common wear, that's true. So what?

Another thing about fashion... it never makes big leaps. The ones that do are for artistic catwalks and never stick around.

Again, this doesn't seem meaningful. The superhero set is a fringe society. It's not necessary that their dress become mainstream any more than it's necessary that the ludicrous costumes worn by runway models become mainstream. If the difference between the mainstream and the superhero fringe is more exaggerated than examples in the real world, well, welcome to fiction.

I know. And yet, in some titles, many characters treat those superheros as if they were sane and normal, and for all we are given, they probably are!

I'm not really sure what comics you're reading.

You would be parodying a cultural item known in our universe.

No, I wouldn't. I would be wearing it on my chest because I appreciate and understand the power of iconography. No parody is involved. I think you really need to start thinking outside this parody box of yours.

That's why people get it

Nonsense: people "get it" because iconography is universal. It has been used since man first started creating pictures. We put our icons on flags and on the hoods of our cars, we wear them around our necks and we print them on our shirts. We display them for all sorts of different reasons, hardly the least of which is because we believe in what they represent, or because they have special meaning to us. The lightning bolt has a special meaning to the Flash, and no, it's no more absurd for him to wear the symbol of something that gave him power on his chest than it is for a man to wear the crucifix of the Holy Super Carpenter (and his father, Phantom Cloud Man) around his neck.

Haha, I just realized that religious tradition is infinitely more absurd than any superhero convention.

Such is the problem of linking it to fashion: it works if there are previous references around for the protagonist,

There are previous references. You just listed them. That you think it's odd he chose them, well... so what? I think it's odd that people intentionally stretch out their earlobes, yet, here we are.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Not when the protagonist is the master. Look at House. He has a team of employees, Cuddy and Wilson, but its always about him.

False. You should have said instead: "Not when the story is in episodic format and long enough", like House is. Many episodes are self-contained stories, and there are plenty of assistant-centric ones, especially when the one is question is having a learning experience. I think you already knew this, since in House is fairly evident. Compare this season's premiere (House-centric) to episodes like "Lucky Thirteen" (Thirteen) or "Joy" (Cuddy) or "Epic Fail" (Foreman).
If you think (like me) that three movies is not really long, and that every film (being a self-contained story) is like an episode, then you'll see where I'm going with this...

Bruce hasnt been a loner for quite a long time now. Same with Superman being the last survivor of Krypton. Hell, there's a new Krypton now (or something like that, i have to catch up)!

Read the context of the phrase, I wasn't complaining about that. I've said several times now how I think that endless stories need to introduce new lasting elements all the time. But I was making a point of comparison: he says the first Robin was introduced to ground Batman, yet they keep bringing new side-kicks in. How many are they now? I don't know if we could call Black Canary and Huntress actual protegés, but we're seeing now our fifth Robin. Aren't they worried of a surplus?
Ooorrr... maybe the point never was to ground Batman, but just to keep the story flowing bringing new characters to profit from... exactly like Harley's purpose.

But the standard batsuit that Batman uses in 90% of the comics ever printed has been the same. All the changes your refer to dont change anything. So what if the grey is darker, or if he used to have spikes at the end of his shoulders? He always looked pretty much the same = ridiculous by real world standards but fearsome by comic book ones.

When compared to the changed Supes or Wonder Woman have had, they are radical suit changes, only paling in comparison to The Flash.

I can understand if you prefer more down to earth stories but you have to acknowledge that Batman is after all a superhero story. You are basically rejecting half of his rogues gallery as cheesy. I assume you dont like him in the JL either so that means you only accept the portion of the mythos that is as grounded as the nolanverse... Fair enough. I gotta tell you that you're missing out though.

I don't. I just don't enjoy them as much. It's not because they're fantastical, nothing to do with that, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan!

But, then again, that is masterwork world-building. I only hate it when they are take the most simplistic ideas and try to make them look cool, trying to compensate for their obvious lacking but coming off as completely cheesy and rehashed, underestimating the reader in the process. I like tight narratives, well-delivered themes and good world-building. I think the conclusion of Battlestar Galactica and its god-awful world-building-disrupting elements ruined a perfectly good series. To me, that's the mark of laziness.

I never really counted because i only cared for the potential of the characters and not whether they are superpowered or not so that i can label them as cheesy.

The two concepts are intrinsecally related. It's surprising how many authors write cheesy super-powered characters because they think any rules apply to them.

Mistakes? Those were different times and those stories were perfect for then. Besides, havent you gotten bored of seeing Batman punching mobsters yet?

Not enough to be excited about him punching musical instruments.

Actually All-Star has been one of the best selling DC titles at times. It's still a piece of crap though and not because of Robin, but because of Batman. Fancy that!

This is absolutely true. Next to that Batman, no Robin makes him look bad. I read the whole thing thinking that wasn't the real Batman. It reminded me of a Begins' Ducard, except also a *****e. Everybody knows Miller is senile anyway. But a point can be made there... sells are not always indicative of fan support.

Batman is my favourite superhero but i also like Superman, GL, Flash, Ironman, Spiderman and other superheroes and enjoy them for the different things they offer. Its like how i can enjoy both the Godfather movies and scifi ones like Star Trek.

I enjoy Star Trek too, but I can also admit it's cheesy. I also like Pirates Of The Caribbean, all three. It's called "guilty pleasure".

 

[GaiusBaltar]

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Two things:
1. If you only take sells in consideration, then wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting the bat-films to keep their current line of suits, resigning to more faithful designs?
If that's the case: 2. Why do you think Batman should get this special treatment?

The next logical step is for you to present arguments on what constitutes a "Great concept," so as to negate "cheese."

Basically anything thought provoking and stimulant, not cringe-worthy. Of course, this all in the eye of the beholder. I've presented my views on what cheese is for me. Filter that and the rest is what I consider good concepts.

Who ever said anything about anything being random?

Uhmmmm... me?
"I don't mean "absurd" as opposed to "realistic". I mean as a mark of random world-building."

Ha. You should really read Johns' Green Lantern.

I love Johns, mainly because of his character writing, which he is wonderful at. But most of what he brought to the series in terms of mythology-making was purely trying to fix mistakes and fill holes. I am loving the Black Lanterns more than ever (who said that is not the coolest color? t and in Rebirth at least he tried to leave the nonsense about yellow behind with the fear anomaly. But there's only so much a good writer can do.
Although yeah, I have to give credit where credit is due: he's awesome. Johns's mythology revisions in GL have been way better than Morrison's equal attempts in Batman. So far it has been steps in the right direction, but IMHO, more have to be made. Like Morrison, he needs to leave the Silver Age behind and pretend it never existed.

I don't understand how we're still talking about this. I've already told you that other masked heroes predate Captain America in the Marvel Universe.

Nope, the only prior masked hero in the Marvel Universe is Phantom Rider, who was basically a cowboy in a mask and a cape. Then we have Captain America. Big leap, huh?
Maybe you're talking about a different Marvel universe. If they've done a "Ultimate Captain America", let me know.

Again, this doesn't seem meaningful. The superhero set is a fringe society. It's not necessary that their dress become mainstream any more than it's necessary that the ludicrous costumes worn by runway models become mainstream. If the difference between the mainstream and the superhero fringe is more exaggerated than examples in the real world, well, welcome to fiction.

Fringe society? Fringe?? You could make a small country only with all the costumed characters in Civil Wars.
An argument can be made about fashion working there like a snowball, but the question remains: where the hell did all that come from? At least Watchmen has some brilliant explanations, but mainstream readers would never be comfortable with the idea.

I'm not really sure what comics you're reading.

Example:
Batman's public perception as a freak > Green Arrow's >>>>>>>>>>> Wonder Woman's.
In fact, Wonder Woman's life in "Man's World" is a big mess, and she works much better in the JL than solo. No wonder Whedon gave up.

No, I wouldn't. I would be wearing it on my chest because I appreciate and understand the power of iconography. No parody is involved. I think you really need to start thinking outside this parody box of yours.

Touché, change parodying for "referencing" then. There's still a precedent, which is the biggest part of my point.

Nonsense: people "get it" because iconography is universal. It has been used since man first started creating pictures. We put our icons on flags and on the hoods of our cars, we wear them around our necks and we print them on our shirts. We display them for all sorts of different reasons, hardly the least of which is because we believe in what they represent, or because they have special meaning to us. The lightning bolt has a special meaning to the Flash, and no, it's no more absurd for him to wear the symbol of something that gave him power on his chest than it is for a man to wear the crucifix of the Holy Super Carpenter (and his father, Phantom Cloud Man) around his neck.

Okay, but we're not talking about the significance of the bolt here, we're talking about in what form it's presented, and a big, red/yellow spandex suit with a mask is not really something a regular, non-geeky guy like Garrick would come up with.

That sort of stuff require some suspension of disbelief, and when you take a step back or two you end up thinking.. "yeah, that's cheesy". If that affects you too much or not, that's another business.

Haha, I just realized that religious tradition is infinitely more absurd than any superhero convention.

Even risking getting banned along with you... amen to that.

 

[Harleen Quinzel]

I personally cannot see Robin in the third Batman film, as I still think it is too early in Bruce's 'career' for him.

 

[Mr. Earle]

it is for a man to wear the crucifix of the Holy Super Carpenter (and his father, Phantom Cloud Man) around his neck.

False. You should have said instead: "Not when the story is in episodic format and long enough", like House is. Many episodes are self-contained stories, and there are plenty of assistant-centric ones, especially when the one is question is having a learning experience. I think you already knew this, since in House is fairly evident. Compare this season's premiere (House-centric) to episodes like "Lucky Thirteen" (Thirteen) or "Joy" (Cuddy) or "Epic Fail" (Foreman).

Yeah, sometimes it is about House's assistants, as it often is about Robin. But House and Batman get the lion's share of screentime/"pagetime".

If you think (like me) that three movies is not really long, and that every film (being a self-contained story) is like an episode, then you'll see where I'm going with this...

Yeah, but its a 2.5 hours long episode, so you have enough time for both Batman and Robin.

Ooorrr... maybe the point never was to ground Batman, but just to keep the story flowing bringing new characters to profit from... exactly like Harley's purpose.

Since this is an ongoing story that has been going for decades, which they try to keep fresh, i am going to go with this explanation.

When compared to the changed Supes or Wonder Woman have had, they are radical suit changes, only paling in comparison to The Flash.

So, who cares if he's had more costume changes? Does it really matter?

Not enough to be excited about him punching musical instruments.

There is a middle ground you know. Manbat and Clayface, JL stories, etc.

But a point can be made there... sells are not always indicative of fan support.

I guess you re right.

I am loving the Black Lanterns more than ever (who said that is not the coolest color? t

When it comes to Lanterns, Yellow, Orange and Red are a lot cooler! t:

Like Morrison, he needs to leave the Silver Age behind and pretend it never existed.

I really liked most of the Silver Age stuff that Morrison did. Besides, the weirder stuff (like Bat-mite) could be explained as the rumblings of a broken mind since Batman was having a breakdown (because of the Black Glove) when he was revisiting his past.

 

[Saint]

Two things:
1. If you only take sells in consideration, then wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting the bat-films to keep their current line of suits, resigning to more faithful designs?

No, because they've never been provided with any alternative. They can't buy what hasn't been made.

Basically anything thought provoking and stimulant, not cringe-worthy.

What you've said here is "A great concept is a concept that is great."

I love Johns, mainly because of his character writing, which he is wonderful at. But most of what he brought to the series in terms of mythology-making was purely trying to fix mistakes and fill holes.

Which you just praised Morrison for, so...

Like Morrison, he needs to leave the Silver Age behind and pretend it never existed.

Wait, what? What Morrison has done is print "I LOVE THE SILVER AGE" in big, bold red letters all over his comics, followed by the addendum "And I want it to be in continuity again."

An argument can be made about fashion working there like a snowball, but the question remains: where the hell did all that come from? At least Watchmen has some brilliant explanations, but mainstream readers would never be comfortable with the idea.

We already know where it came from: the same place the people who created these heroes took it from.

Touché, change parodying for "referencing" then. There's still a precedent, which is the biggest part of my point.

Of course there's precedent, and there's precedent in the fictional world as well, unless you want to argue that iconography does not exist in their world; that they have no flags, badges, logos...

Okay, but we're not talking about the significance of the bolt here, we're talking about in what form it's presented, and a big, red/yellow spandex suit with a mask is not really something a regular, non-geeky guy like Garrick would come up with.

Why not? Regular, non-geeky guys dress up like idiots and go to hockey games with their faces painted. All Jay Garrick did was put a lightning bolt on a red sweater and wear a funny hat.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Wait, what? What Morrison has done is print "I LOVE THE SILVER AGE" in big, bold red letters all over his comics, followed by the addendum "And I want it to be in continuity again."

I think he means that both Morrison and Johns need to leave the Silver Age behind. Probably...

 

[Cain]

People like Morrison and Johns making ALL Superman, Batman and Green Lantern comics for example canonical somehow someway is one of the most freshly inventive things in it's simplicity because it gives people no more reasons to use the tired excuse of "DC history is too convoluted" when trying to critique DC. Now they have to critique based on the strengths and execution of the ACTUAL stories like it always should've been in the first place and not because "it's too intimidating to even read cause it's oh so convoluted".

 

[Mr. Earle]

Agreed. Your avatar is awesome btw. I watched that episode a few hours ago.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

No, because they've never been provided with any alternative. They can't buy what hasn't been made.

The same could be said about adapted suits for other franchises. And I know this is going to get you all enraged, but people already saw "Dead End". Yes, is not faithfulness in its most attractive form, but then again, the same can be said about the current suits, cuz' the only direction of improvement doesn't have to gravitate towards more comic-book similarities. And I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

What you've said here is "A great concept is a concept that is great."

I also said it depends on each other's subjectivity, which you cleverly left out. I've also been saying like "For me" like a million times in this thread.

Which you just praised Morrison for, so...

I praised Johns too, whlie complaining about the messed up mythology of GL, which tries to pass as sci-fi when its outright fantasy. I also said there's only so much Johns can do.

Wait, what? What Morrison has done is print "I LOVE THE SILVER AGE" in big, bold red letters all over his comics, followed by the addendum "And I want it to be in continuity again."

Obviously you misunderstood. Mr. Earle got it right.

Of course there's precedent, and there's precedent in the fictional world as well, unless you want to argue that iconography does not exist in their world; that they have no flags, badges, logos...

The only one that keeps bringing the subject to iconic emblems is you. I'm talking about the whole appearance.

Why not? Regular, non-geeky guys dress up like idiots and go to hockey games with their faces painted. All Jay Garrick did was put a lightning bolt on a red sweater and wear a funny hat.

You're right. I guessed I expected more from a scientist. The likes of Barry Allen can dress all in the goofiness they want.

 

[GaiusBaltar]

Yeah, sometimes it is about House's assistants, as it often is about Robin. But House and Batman get the lion's share of screentime/"pagetime".

I want the third a possible last Nolan chapter to be solely about Batman, without compromises.

Since this is an ongoing story that has been going for decades, which they try to keep fresh, i am going to go with this explanation.

Thank you.

So, who cares if he's had more costume changes? Does it really matter?

Nope, not really, but it would make an argument for the possible reason of him being having the less faithful looks in movies. It's less ingrained in people's conscience. Note that this isn't really the argument I support, I just think that's why the topic got in the discussion.

There is a middle ground you know. Manbat and Clayface, JL stories, etc.

Which I enjoy more, proportionally.

When it comes to Lanterns, Yellow, Orange and Red are a lot cooler! t:

Let me guess, you don't like boy scouts.

I really liked most of the Silver Age stuff that Morrison did.

I know, but some of his unifying theories are hard to swallow. I remeber reading about Joker's "super sanity" in AA and thinking "Ha! I saw what you did there!".

 

[Mr. Earle]

Let me guess, you don't like boy scouts.

What i meant is that the Black Lanterns are pretty cool, but considering that they are zombies, Red, Orange and Yellow Lanterns are a lot cooler.
Atrocitus, Larfleeze and Sinestro are some of my favourite comic book characters.

About your debate with Saint, i'll just say that the flashy suits are a major element of the american comic books, the same way.... uh... robots are to anime or whatever. There are of course superheroes with discreet suits, but to be honest, they dont look as cool. These are imaginary characters doing impossible feats. They have to have impossible outfits. I mean, even Hercules, one of the first superheroes, conceived back in ancient Greece, wore a lion's head and skin!
So it shouldnt matter what superheroes would wear in real life because they arent real, they are imaginary. And in their imaginary world, half the population is a superhero or a supervillain dressed in spandex.