The Dark Knight Nolan needs more imagination.

[zanos]

Did Donner's SUPERMAN make his Superman look any more ridiculous because he clearly set it in the real world? 'Course not.

Um, Superman is an alien and has powers. By virtue his very character is special already. The audience doesn't need to be convinced of it regardless of what setting you put him in. Batman doesn't have that luxury.

Nonsense. It makes him seem that much more extraordinary. In BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS, it's almost like he grew out of the scenery - he seemed like he belonged. In BATMAN BEGINS, he's something remarkable.

If by extraordinary you mean silly looking in his "Bat" costume then yes he's extraordinary alright. You're right about the old crappy Batman films though. He did belong. Burton built a world Batman could live in. That is simply not the case in BB.

 

[El Payaso]

You know what, man. Why dont YOU try getting tasered in the face? Then you can call Crane a chump for going out like that.

You know what man, I'll write 25 better endings for Scarecrow where he dissapears into the shadows on his fire-spitting horse without screaming like a school girl.

 

[ultimatefan]

You know what man, I'll write 25 better endings for Scarecrow where he dissapears into the shadows on his fire-spitting horse without screaming like a school girl.

And not a single one of them would fit the character. Scarecrow is an illusion. He´s a fragile man who uses psychological manipulation to look more intimidating than he really is. Deep down, he´s a man who´d be defeated by a girl. Perfectly fitting ending.

 

[Hunter Rider]

And not a single one of them would fit the character. Scarecrow is an illusion. He´s a fragile man who uses psychological manipulation to look more intimidating than he really is. Deep down, he´s a man who´d be defeated by a girl. Perfectly fitting ending.

I agree

 

[El Payaso]

And not a single one of them would fit the character. Scarecrow is an illusion. He´s a fragile man who uses psychological manipulation to look more intimidating than he really is. Deep down, he´s a man who´d be defeated by a girl. Perfectly fitting ending.

Batman is also an illusion (a legend.) The suit, the gadgets, the cape. He also uses psychological manipulation - the suit, the voice, flying - to look more intimidating than he really is.

But he's just a man, so I guess it would be a perfectly fitting thing for you if he slips in a banana peel now and then just to show the man behind the mask.

Writers and directors are not there just to think 'what would really happen?,' but they create a fantasy that shows the best of every character in every situation. If Scarecrow is gonna be unmasked as just a man, then do it with class.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Batman is also an illusion (a legend.) The suit, the gadgets, the cape. He also uses psychological manipulation - the suit, the voice, flying - to look more intimidating than he really is.

But he's just a man, so I guess it would be a perfectly fitting thing for you if he slips in a banana peel now and then just to show the man behind the mask.

Batman is a fully trained warrior,Scarecrow by nature is a cowardly ***** who preys on the weak with his gas

 

[Agentsands77]

Um, Superman is an alien and has powers. By virtue his very character is special already. The audience doesn't need to be convinced of it regardless of what setting you put him in. Batman doesn't have that luxury.

Well, considering most people were fine with Batman in BATMAN BEGINS, I'd say they don't really need to worry about making that happen.

If by extraordinary you mean silly looking in his "Bat" costume then yes he's extraordinary alright.

So I suppose BATMAN: YEAR ONE (ten times more grounded and gritty than BEGINS) makes Batman look silly.

You're right about the old crappy Batman films though. He did belong.

And that's exactly the problem. All of a sudden Batman's ordinary, rather than extraordinary. Batman is supposed to be something new, something the like of which no-one's ever seen before, something amazing. When you've got a setting that's just as bizarre as he is, it takes a bit away from that.

 

[dark_b]

Batman is also an illusion (a legend.) The suit, the gadgets, the cape. He also uses psychological manipulation - the suit, the voice, flying - to look more intimidating than he really is.

But he's just a man, so I guess it would be a perfectly fitting thing for you if he slips in a banana peel now and then just to show the man behind the mask.

Writers and directors are not there just to think 'what would really happen?,' but they create a fantasy that shows the best of every character in every situation. If Scarecrow is gonna be unmasked as just a man, then do it with class.

what?
bale is a badass. he is a muthaf...... he can kickass. thats the difference.

 

[ultimatefan]

Batman is also an illusion (a legend.) The suit, the gadgets, the cape. He also uses psychological manipulation - the suit, the voice, flying - to look more intimidating than he really is.

But he's just a man, so I guess it would be a perfectly fitting thing for you if he slips in a banana peel now and then just to show the man behind the mask.

Writers and directors are not there just to think 'what would really happen?,' but they create a fantasy that shows the best of every character in every situation. If Scarecrow is gonna be unmasked as just a man, then do it with class.

The difference is, Bruce actually trained to become a badass. His fighting skills are real, not psychological manipulation The psychological manipulation is to be perceived as more than a man, but still a strong man. He´s still not the same character as Scarecrow.

Scarecrow is MEANT to be physically fragile. Has always been. Bruce Wayne is buff, Jonathan Crane is skinny. That´s part of his psychosis, a compensation for his physical fragility. Being physically humiliated is the most fitting punishment. Seriously, put the two in the same league is a gross misinterpretation.

 

[batmaluco]

X

 

[zanos]

Well, considering most people were fine with Batman in BATMAN BEGINS, I'd say they don't really need to worry about making that happen.

People don't know any better. People used to love Batman89 as well. Now it's a source of ridicule.

So I suppose BATMAN: YEAR ONE (ten times more grounded and gritty than BEGINS) makes Batman look silly.

No because you're talking about a comic book.

And that's exactly the problem. All of a sudden Batman's ordinary, rather than extraordinary. Batman is supposed to be something new, something the like of which no-one's ever seen before, something amazing. When you've got a setting that's just as bizarre as he is, it takes a bit away from that.

Funny how this was far from being the case in TAS. Batman can be just as extraordinary within the context of the world you write him into. Making his world real doesn't absolutely nothing to accomplish that and can have the complete opposite effect.

 

[Agentsands77]

People don't know any better.

Well, that's interesting. First you say a real setting makes it so the audience won't buy it, but then you say the audience won't know the difference. You can't have it both ways.

People used to love Batman89 as well. Now it's a source of ridicule.

Most people seem to still hold B89 in respect. I'm hardly its biggest fan, but I'd never ridicule it, and it's certainly deserving of respect for what it did in changing attitudes towards Batman and superheroes.

No because you're talking about a comic book.

Care to explain why realism will work on a page but not on a screen?

Funny how this was far from being the case in TAS. Batman can be just as extraordinary within the context of the world you write him into.

Well, there's a HUGE difference between the stylized noir world of TAS and the overdesigned, bizarre world Burton created for his two films.

And it's not like the world of BATMAN BEGINS was absolutely real. It was stylized, and clearly a fantasy version of the world we know, complete with secret societies of ninjas and so on.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

And not a single one of them would fit the character. Scarecrow is an illusion. He´s a fragile man who uses psychological manipulation to look more intimidating than he really is. Deep down, he´s a man who´d be defeated by a girl. Perfectly fitting ending.

That's pretty ignorant to say. I am completely fine with the ending in Begins but that doesn't prevent me from being opened to other endings.

 

[zanos]

Well, that's interesting. First you say a real setting makes it so the audience won't buy it, but then you say the audience won't know the difference. You can't have it both ways.

Most ppl have only been exposed to Batman in one silly form or another. Audiences may have been willing to accept a man in a funny batsuit in a real world setting because they preferred a serious film for once and not necessarily because they thought this was the only way Batman could be represented in a film.

Most people seem to still hold B89 in respect. I'm hardly its biggest fan, but I'd never ridicule it, and it's certainly deserving of respect for what it did in changing attitudes towards Batman and superheroes.

Most ppl? Maybe the casual movie goer but I'd hardly say that's the case on in regards to fans of the comic book character.

Care to explain why realism will work on a page but not on a screen?

The medium of comic books are completely different. No one reading a comic book is going to question why Batman can swing thru the air and leap from building to building, etc. no matter how "real" you attempt to make the story. It's still Batman. Not so when you attempt to the do same in a live action film. The more real you make something on screen the more the audience will begin to question every little aspect that doesn't quite make sense. Nolan doesn't enhance Batman's qualities as a fantasy character. He attempts to cover it up with fancy gadgets. He doesn't truly understand how to make a real comicbook film.

Well, there's a HUGE difference between the stylized noir world of TAS and the overdesigned, bizarre world Burton created for his two films.

I never brought up Burton but there really isn't a difference in direction, just in style.

And it's not like the world of BATMAN BEGINS was absolutely real. It was stylized, and clearly a fantasy version of the world we know, complete with secret societies of ninjas and so on.

Sure, it's a fictionalized world but it's hardly so over the top in it's nature to call it a fantasy one. Especially to the point I'd be willing to believe a grown man would dress like a bat to fight crime and succeed. That's absurd.

 

[ultimatefan]

Well, that's interesting. First you say a real setting makes it so the audience won't buy it, but then you say the audience won't know the difference. You can't have it both ways.


Most people seem to still hold B89 in respect. I'm hardly its biggest fan, but I'd never ridicule it, and it's certainly deserving of respect for what it did in changing attitudes towards Batman and superheroes.


Care to explain why realism will work on a page but not on a screen?


Well, there's a HUGE difference between the stylized noir world of TAS and the overdesigned, bizarre world Burton created for his two films.

And it's not like the world of BATMAN BEGINS was absolutely real. It was stylized, and clearly a fantasy version of the world we know, complete with secret societies of ninjas and so on.

Yeah, people are way too black or white here. I never said I hate Batman 89, I really like a lot of it, I own the SE dammit, but I don´t feel as happy with it as a portrayal of Batman than I do with BB. Just that. And I don´t think most fans "ridicule" it either, just because we don´t think it´s a masterpiece doesn´t mean we hate it.

 

[ultimatefan]

That's pretty ignorant to say. I am completely fine with the ending in Begins but that doesn't prevent me from being opened to other endings.

I don´t mean I´m not open to other endings, just ones written by El Payaso...t:

 

[Agentsands77]

Most ppl? Maybe the casual movie goer but I'd hardly say that's the case on in regards to fans of the comic book character.

In general, I've found comic book fans to be fairly respectful of BATMAN '89.

The more real you make something on screen the more the audience will begin to question every little aspect that doesn't quite make sense.

That may have been the case with you and your subjective experience, and I am sorry it had that effect.

But for me, and for other people I know, it did not have that effect - in fact, it had the complete opposite. I was able to buy into the world and idea of Batman even more because it was presented in a recognizeable way, with a recognizeable texture. That's what BATMAN BEGINS was about, as Nolan suggested:

"Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Spy Who Loved Me, the first Star Wars. These are the films when I was seven years old that came about, and they created entire worlds that you believed in, and they had a very tactile, realistic, concrete sense of place and texture and, though they were all dealing with fantastic, outrageous material, they were all extreme exaggerations with idealistic heroes, but they had a recognizable taste and smell—we believe in the reality of what we see for two hours. We're never let off the hook, we're on that rollercoaster and we're not looking at a cartoon. I would get asked all the time about Batman as a comic book and I would say, well, it's not a comic book, it's just a movie, the way that Star Wars wasn't just science fiction and Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't just a cartoon serial."

What you are trying to pass off as a cause-and-effect rule (make the setting realistic, people buy it less), clearly isn't true, or at least absolute, because so many people feel the other way.

 

[dark_b]

Most ppl have only been exposed to Batman in one silly form or another. Audiences may have been willing to accept a man in a funny batsuit in a real world setting because they preferred a serious film for once and not necessarily because they thought this was the only way Batman could be represented in a film.



Most ppl? Maybe the casual movie goer but I'd hardly say that's the case on in regards to fans of the comic book character.



The medium of comic books are completely different. No one reading a comic book is going to question why Batman can swing thru the air and leap from building to building, etc. no matter how "real" you attempt to make the story. It's still Batman. Not so when you attempt to the do same in a live action film. The more real you make something on screen the more the audience will begin to question every little aspect that doesn't quite make sense. Nolan doesn't enhance Batman's qualities as a fantasy character. He attempts to cover it up with fancy gadgets. He doesn't truly understand how to make a real comicbook film.



I never brought up Burton but there really isn't a difference in direction, just in style.



Sure, it's a fictionalized world but it's hardly so over the top in it's nature to call it a fantasy one. Especially to the point I'd be willing to believe a grown man would dress like a bat to fight crime and succeed. That's absurd.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don´t mean I´m not open to other endings, just ones written by El Payaso...t:

I bet Ellie's ending would include the introduction and quick and painful death of Dick Grayson

 

[zanos]

 

[Visionary]

How cute, they're rolling eyes at each other.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It would be a good idea to make that device useful. Specially for a movie's climax you know, where things are supposed to be more dangerous than before.

And things WERE more dangerous. Crane's gas had been used to flood the Narrows, and the inmates of Arkham had been released into the wild. Apart from Batman, Gordon, and Dawes, everybody else on the island was completely zonked with fear gas. What you're saying is you wish that Scarecrow had had more to do in the climax, I guess. But he wasn't the main villain in BB; that was Ra's. And Batman's big showdown... the one that was more important to his story in this film, was with Ra's.

We can also have Superman beating Lex Luthor, the human, in 5 seconds. It would make sense also.

Scarecrow's role in BB is comparable to Lex Luthor in Superman 2. Discuss.

You despise the character. If you had said say this in the first place,...

On the contrary, Scarecrow is one of my favorite Batman rogues. But the character as I know him is useless in a fight.

 

[thegameq]

Did Donner's SUPERMAN make his Superman look any more ridiculous because he clearly set it in the real world? 'Course not.

There was nothing realistic about SM:TM. That film and the SM films are bed mates. Both those films are a classic case of films not trying to be more than they were intended to be; comicbook fantasy films.

BB and the X-franchise, now those two are in the same category. Both films were trying to be more than they were intended. Singer totally took the J out of joy with his X-films. He took one of the greatest comicbooks, with some of the greatest characters and stories and wasted them all on an ego trip.

Nolan just made a very good film, sans the comicbook fantasy and visual stylization that has come to be identified with Batman's world.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't get why so many people think BB was realistic. It wasn't, in any way.

Okay, so Nolan explained how some things worked....that was pretty much it.

I mean, we had a microwave emitter that vaporizes water, but somehow doesn't vaporize the water in humans?

A secret organization that's in the buisness of destroying entire cities? Batman one-arm curling a man? A dude in a Batman costume gliding around a city? A high intense car chase (with a car that can jump onto roofs) and many crashes where miraculously no police officer is killed? An entire city enveloped in a synthesized fear gas?

None of that is realistic. Nolan only made Batman appear semi realistic, but that movie was in no way realistic.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I mean, we had a microwave emitter that vaporizes water, but somehow doesn't vaporize the water in humans?

.

Plotholet: