Nolan's Gotham vs. Singer's Metropolis

[Jack Bauer]

Aside from Burton/Schumacher/Timm verisons of Gotham and the past versions of Metropolis. Which you rather live in? Nolan's? or Singer's?

 

[Octoberist]

there wasn't much to Singer's Metropolis.

Nolan showed you alot: the police department, the Narrows/ Arkham, Downtown, the harbor,etc. It's Chicago with a mix of the future and the dreariness of Se7en.

Singer didn't have alot of establishing shots, which made his film almost clausicphobic.

 

[Steelsheen]

i'd rather live in Metropolis, Singer's or whoever's vision.

i've lived in old cities. its crappy. there's always a problem with plumbing.

Spoiler

although Wayne's shack in the hills aint so bad

just testing the new spoiler tags

 

[chosen1]

as far as safety?

you know where everyones going to go.

 

[That-Guy]

I voted for Nolan's Gotham. It was everything Gotham should be... dark and menacing, but REAL looking and not like something out of f**king Cool World (i.e. Joel Schumacher's Gotham). However, I really did love Singer's Daily Planet (he may have gotten some things wrong, but he got that one perfect).

 

[Spike_x1]

Nolan's Gotham.

It was old school and dark as Gotham should rightly be, but it still looked like it could exist in the real world.

Singer's Metropolis wasn't nearly as impressive as the City of Tomorrow should be. Metropolis should be on the cutting edge of technology and that should be evident from its architecture. It should also be utterly massive in scale, both horizontally and vertically.

In SR, Metropolis just looked... well, ordinary. There was nothing impressive or special about it at all.

 

[The Sage]

I loved Singer's Metropolis. It was a great reflection of the old comics and the Fleischer cartoons which I'm a fan of. Nolan's Gotham City was great, but I think it looked too much like a real city and it was way too bright at night for Gotham.

 

[CConn]

I loved Singer's Metropolis. It was a great reflection of the old comics and the Fleischer cartoons which I'm a fan of. Nolan's Gotham City was great, but I think it looked too much like a real city and it was way too bright at night for Gotham.

Those are pretty much my feelings.

 

[Steelsheen]

folks you do know the quetion was where would you all want to live right?

 

[Tempest19]

folks you do know the quetion was where would you all want to live right?

Lol, yeah- that's what I think too.... unless, it meant what city did you like more?

Loved Nolan's Gotham City, but live there? Heck, I'm not insane- that's one really dangerous place to live. More dangerous than New York City and that's saying something- trust me.

Would feel alot safer living in Metropolis.

I forgot where this contrast came from, but Gotham is New York City at night while Metropolis is New York City during the day.

 

[Steelsheen]

I forgot where this contrast came from, but Gotham is New York City at night while Metropolis is New York City during the day.

well i said so on several occasions . but i'm pretty sure its been referrenced in comicbooks and literature elsewhere.

 

[Spike_x1]

During the daytime, Gotham didn't look bad at all. In fact, it looked really advanced and hyper-modern when we saw it in the daylight, what with Wayne Tower and the multi-level train (some of the night shots were really impressive too, actually). It's just the fact that the majority of times we saw it was at night and in crappy parts of town, like the Narrows.

Even with the question being "Which you rather live in?" I'd still pick Nolan's Gotham over Singer's boring Metropolis, which just looked like an ordinary city with no real visual flare to it at all.

 

[CConn]

Even with the question being "Which you rather live in?" I'd still pick Nolan's Gotham over Singer's boring Metropolis, which just looked like an ordinary city with no real visual flare to it at all.

But that's exactly what Nolan's Gotham was. Unless you're talking about the Narrow's - a place you would not want to live in - Gotham was simply Chichago with a monorail.

 

[The Sage]

Even with the question being "Which you rather live in?" I'd still pick Nolan's Gotham over Singer's boring Metropolis, which just looked like an ordinary city with no real visual flare to it at all.

That's interesting. I think it's the exact opposite, that Nolan's Gotham looks like an ordinary city with no flair while Singer's Metropolis is more stylish.

 

[gregtestagent]

Rather live in? well, Singer's because all you really have to worry about is tremendous catastrophies that will eventually be undone or halted by Superman. With Batman, you have an even smaller guarantee that you make it out alive if your caught in a Gotham crisis.

 

[matrix_ghost]

If this a question of :
1) which city do you prefer from a cinematic story POV ? or
2) Which city would you really live in ?

If it's the first then i'd easily go for Nolan's Gotham since it does look like a real city. With slums and bums and the bad wiring. It just looks real.

IF it's the second , i'd easily live in Metropolis. Imagine Supes fighting robbers , saving people from natural disasters and accidental deaths .
Hell yeah , there's nothing tofear about in Metropolis

 

[Superman \S/]

Singer's Metropolis.