The entire essence, blah blah. More purist talk. Im honestly sick of that ******** around here. It's so juvenile. It's film, his interpretation, get over it. Thank god Nolan went the direction he did with Rises otherwise we would have had the same old stupid ending where Batman's on a rooftop "Batman lives forever as Bruce Wayne". Thank GOD he had the balls to give the character a beautiful ending instead of doing something boring. Something we'll see at the end of every Batman film for the rest of eternity. Ughh.
BTW Jonah had a massive amount of control with Rises. Just as much as TDK.
The "essence of batman". Ive been on this planet longer than u have buddy, like most of us here, and probably been a fan of this character for longer and ur gonna try to post things over and over like you know the essence of him more than David Goyer, Michael Uslan (who ADORED the ending to Rises), hell even if Jett is an A-Hole...he and the others ive listed have been hardcore fans of this character for 40 to 60 years of Batmans 75 year existence. And of course YOU know the essence more than they do. Or you at least don't think the ending served any purpose? Give me a break.
They can do what they want with Batman. Same with Burton. Nolan or any future director can END their story however they want because comics don't have an ending. That's not ego on their part, that is simply being an artist who is doing their interpretation of the character because they're able to and because it is not the comics so they can do things the comics can't do.
Ah, more lectures about me being a purist.
I find it funny how you assume that getting the essence of a character right is rocket science. It isn't. Keeping the essence of Batman =/= things being 100% accurate. One can do
major alterations to a character in his interpretation and I would still be fine with it as long as the essence is there.
Let's take Ra's al Ghul in BB for example. That Ra's is not the same Ra's of the comics. It is Nolan's own interpretation of Ra's. He has an entire different goal and even different tactics than the Ra's of the comics. He also is the head of the League of Shadows as opposed to the League of Assassins. However, the essence of the character is still there. The essence of Ra's would be the lines he crosses in order to get what he wants, the fact that he isn't afraid of killing whoever gets in the way, the fact that he believes he is doing the right thing even if sacrifices are made, and the fact that he wants Bruce to be his successor. All those things are still there in BB despite that Ra's being an entirely different character.
Another example is Batman in The Dark Knight Returns. The Dark Knight Returns portrayed Batman as a psychotic madman on a ridiculous level. However, Frank Miller still respected the essence of Batman in that book (and
ONLY in that book; his later work on Batman is another story) by staying true to the message behind Batman and by still staying true to Batman's no-kill policy. I will use one specific scene to prove my point, though there are many other scenes in the book that I could've used to do so. At one point in the story, the Joker pushes Batman to his full limits by finally getting him to use a gun - the one weapon he would never use - to avoid the GCPD. That is a limit that Batman has never touched before. As Batman uses the gun, he looks at the smile on the Joker's corpse and says "Stop laughing". It was a scene that added to the Batman/Joker dynamic and to the theme of guns. Despite being something Batman wouldn't do, the essence was there due to those reasons. It wasn't Miller saying "**** this, let's make my Batman use guns willy nilly cuz that's cool!"
Man of Steel is another example. To my knowledge, the idea of Kal-El being the first natural-born Kryptonian in centuries is not from the comics. However, the essence of Superman is still there because it ties into the idea of Kal-El being a symbol of hope, which is what Superman has always been a symbol of. Lois Lane knowing his identity from the start is not the direction I would've went personally but it still stays true to the essence of their relationship because their feelings and the way they act around each other is still intact. Superman kills Zod, something he would never do. However, that scene in which it happens still stays true to the essence of Superman by having Superman fall on his knees and weep for what he did, which is exactly what the Superman from the comics would do if he was in that situation. By doing that, they stayed true to the essence of Superman.
Having the essence of a character there is not rocket science. It does not mean that things have to be 100% accurate and straight-off-the-page or else the essence is lacking. The essence
is indeed present if things do turn out being completely accurate down to the bone, but it is not completely necessary for things to be completely accurate in order for the essence to be present. Getting the essence right is simple. All it takes is to have a few
simple and
basic things in there.
In TDKR's case, the essence is not there. The whole message of the film goes completely against the message of Batman. If I was to write down on a piece of paper what the message and meaning of Batman was, TDKR would contradict every single one of those points. It is not that TDKR ignored those points or gave its own spin on those points. It is that TDKR deliberately went
against all those points. The message of TDKR and the message of Batman are the complete opposite of one another. TDKR is hot while Batman is cold. When you make an entire film with the message that anyone can be Batman and that Bruce
should outgrow Batman, that is not keeping the essence there. That is going against the very essence of Batman. Things don't have to be 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that you can completely go against the very essence of something.
When did I say that I get Batman more than Goyer and everyone else here? I never made such statement. I could care less what other people think. I am an individual and I come to conclusions based on my own knowledge and judgments. I don't have to be some puppet or bandwagoner that goes around agreeing with everything Goyer and other people say. Also, it
is possible for even the greatest people out there to screw up. I never stated that guys like Goyer don't get Batman but even if Goyer knew Batman better than anyone else in the world, that wouldn't mean he would never screw up with Batman because nobody is perfect. People drop the ball sometimes and that is fine. Even Bruce Timm had a few moments during Batman TAS where I thought Batman did something I don't picture him doing.
