Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More

[Everyman]

I like your ideas about the Penguin and Two-Face, and most of them could work in sequels of the current movie continuity.

 

[Herr Logan]

I like your ideas about the Penguin and Two-Face, and most of them could work in sequels of the current movie continuity.

Thanks, Everyman.

I've been composing ideas based on the premise that it's another restart, rather than a continuation, but I could imagine using what's been made so far.

Rachel Dawes would not be featured in a sequel at all if I had my way, though. If she even mentioned, it would be brief and to the point, and would have absolutely nothing to do with the Joker killing her and needlessly and tritely making it "personal" between himseld and the Batman. Harvey Dent would be elected District Attorney, and James Gordon would move up to Captain early in the film. Seems rushed, I know, but it wasn't my idea to make him a sergeant in 'Begins' instead of a lieutenant.

The Joker would be the main villain of the second movie, and he'd have his full costume and persona, taking a lot of queues from the Animated Series and especially 'Mask of the Phantasm.' The Joker was excellent in that.

I'd call the sequel 'Batman Is Not Amused'.

[Jack Nicholson] Do I look like I'm joking? [/Jack Nicholson]

 

[Zaphod]

Herr, your concept for Cobblepot already having served some jailtime in the re-start is fair enough, and makes sense seeing as how by this way you could exhibit Batman's detective-skills even further by having him dig up such dirt on Penguin before his first intrusion of the birded menace's hideout. Having already read your concept for the Batman's first and second meeting off The Penguin (and enjoyed it thoroughly I might add) I still beleive wholeheartedly that there should be flying-umbrella's someway down the line. It would suit the second movie best perhaps, if when the Batman went to hit-up Oswald for information, the Penguin, remembering his last run-in with the Bat and the sheer terror it caused him, flee's by way of umbrella in panic (since he still has his back to cover, he wouldn't be completely legite). Batman takes chase, utilizing his grappling-gun and fiber-cape (should he have this by the second movie?), eventually bringing down Cobblepot and asking him why he fled if he was so reformed? The Penguin could retort in his usual manner, in an attempt to make it seem like mere panic and instinct, before the Batman forces what he wants to know out of him.

While I have no bones about you wanting Joker in the second movie instead of Scarecrow, could you share you reasoning? I assume you want to cover the following ground in terms of arch-rivals:

Penguin
Joker
Scarecrow
Two Face

Not to mention the crime bosses and GCPD corruption that the Batman would be unearthing throughout all of this.

 

[Herr Logan]

Herr, your concept for Cobblepot already having served some jailtime in the re-start is fair enough, and makes sense seeing as how by this way you could exhibit Batman's detective-skills even further by having him dig up such dirt on Penguin before his first intrusion of the birded menace's hideout. Having already read your concept for the Batman's first and second meeting off The Penguin (and enjoyed it thoroughly I might add) I still beleive wholeheartedly that there should be flying-umbrella's someway down the line. It would suit the second movie best perhaps, if when the Batman went to hit-up Oswald for information, the Penguin, remembering his last run-in with the Bat and the sheer terror it caused him, flee's by way of umbrella in panic (since he still has his back to cover, he wouldn't be completely legite). Batman takes chase, utilizing his grappling-gun and fiber-cape (should he have this by the second movie?), eventually bringing down Cobblepot and asking him why he fled if he was so reformed? The Penguin could retort in his usual manner, in an attempt to make it seem like mere panic and instinct, before the Batman forces what he wants to know out of him.

While I have no bones about you wanting Joker in the second movie instead of Scarecrow, could you share you reasoning? I assume you want to cover the following ground in terms of arch-rivals:

Penguin
Joker
Scarecrow
Two Face

Not to mention the crime bosses and GCPD corruption that the Batman would be unearthing throughout all of this.

Well, the Joker came before the Scarecrow, put simply, and while I'm fine with putting Cobblepot in before Joker if the first movie is going to deal primarily with sane, corrupt people, I don't want to screw the entire flow up. The Joker is something people are going to expect, and I don't feel it's right to make them wait for more than one movie. Besides, the Joker isn't going to die in this franchise (even if it seems like he might have in a fall or an explosion, but if there's no body, then he's presumed alive). He's going to reappear in once capacity or another, so I want him out and about as soon as is plausible after the "first year" of the Batman's crusade.

I'd want Two-Face in the third movie, and if the Scarecrow wasn't in the first, he should be in the third. I want Two-Face solidified as a villain right after the Joker, since Dent had a limited amount of time after the Batman emerged before he had his "accident" in court.

I guess a Penguin flying sequence would be okay. It would show that he's made his own modifications in preparation for the Batman, just as the reverse was true in the first movie. If the Batman asks him why he fled unless he was guilty of something, the Penguin could say that he's as terrified of him and the rest of Gotham, which the Batman doesn't really believe and all it does is serve as a delaying tactic.

I had no plans to use the cape/glider thing, actually. I figure in at least one of the movies, he'll use an actual hang-glider for a long-range swoop over the city, but he doesn't need it for the most part. His cape is already supposed to slow his falls. Perhaps it could come in after the first movie, I don't know.

 

[Everyman]

Thanks, Everyman.

I've been composing ideas based on the premise that it's another restart, rather than a continuation, but I could imagine using what's been made so far.

Rachel Dawes would not be featured in a sequel at all if I had my way, though. If she even mentioned, it would be brief and to the point, and would have absolutely nothing to do with the Joker killing her and needlessly and tritely making it "personal" between himseld and the Batman. Harvey Dent would be elected District Attorney, and James Gordon would move up to Captain early in the film. Seems rushed, I know, but it wasn't my idea to make him a sergeant in 'Begins' instead of a lieutenant.

The Joker would be the main villain of the second movie, and he'd have his full costume and persona, taking a lot of queues from the Animated Series and especially 'Mask of the Phantasm.' The Joker was excellent in that.

I'd call the sequel 'Batman Is Not Amused'.

[Jack Nicholson] Do I look like I'm joking? [/Jack Nicholson]

I think Rachel was unecessary in Batman Begins, not a bad character per se, but the love interest got in the way of the story and there was nothing Rachel said or did that couldn't have been said or done by somebody else. I think Batman works better with doomed and/or conflictual love (Catwoman, Talia).

 

[Herr Logan]

I think Rachel was unecessary in Batman Begins, not a bad character per se, but the love interest got in the way of the story and there was nothing Rachel said or did that couldn't have been said or done by somebody else. I think Batman works better with doomed and/or conflictual love (Catwoman, Talia).

Exactly.

Technically, Dawes was the objct of a doomed love. But regardless, it was superfluous and an insult to the audience. It was specifically mandated by Warner Brothers Studios, too.

In any case, I wouldn't have had any love interest whatsoever in a first movie for the Batman. Perhaps a fleeting glimpse of Catwoman on the rooftops observing the Batman, but that's it. The Batman has real work to be done and won't allow love to get in his way. While I would certainly develop a dynamic between the Batman and Catwoman in a later movie, that's a minor aspect. Talia at least fits into a real story, since R'as Al Ghul's main interest in him is to make him marry Talia. If there was enough room in a franchise, I'd bring them into it.

Truth is, the best way to represent the Batman would be a live-action, one-hour TV series that stayed closer to the source material than even the Animate Series. There's very little that would be difficult in that, budget-wise. It would be a real psychological crime drama with fighting, swinging and detective work. All the major villains and ideas could be explored without the need to make every little thing lead into a big finale. Take the Animated Series, expand it to an hour, and darken it so that it's more in line with the Post-Crisis comics (and can get into real forensics work that involves blood and bullets and stuff they can't focus on too much in kids' cartoons).

 

[Cullen]

Exactly.

Technically, Dawes was the objct of a doomed love. But regardless, it was superfluous and an insult to the audience. It was specifically mandated by Warner Brothers Studios, too.

In any case, I wouldn't have had any love interest whatsoever in a first movie for the Batman. Perhaps a fleeting glimpse of Catwoman on the rooftops observing the Batman, but that's it. The Batman has real work to be done and won't allow love to get in his way. While I would certainly develop a dynamic between the Batman and Catwoman in a later movie, that's a minor aspect. Talia at least fits into a real story, since R'as Al Ghul's main interest in him is to make him marry Talia. If there was enough room in a franchise, I'd bring them into it.

Truth is, the best way to represent the Batman would be a live-action, one-hour TV series that stayed closer to the source material than even the Animate Series. There's very little that would be difficult in that, budget-wise. It would be a real psychological crime drama with fighting, swinging and detective work. All the major villains and ideas could be explored without the need to make every little thing lead into a big finale. Take the Animated Series, expand it to an hour, and darken it so that it's more in line with the Post-Crisis comics (and can get into real forensics work that involves blood and bullets and stuff they can't focus on too much in kids' cartoons).

I didn't find the romance in "Batman Begins" that bad, m'self. At least it was set up better than in any of the other "Bat-films." I wasn't needed, of course, but I didn't feel my IQ dropping while it happened (unlike so many movie romances.)

I'm also not partial to the whole post-Crisis Batman, darkening things up bit.The world doesn't need CSI: Batman. Darker than the cartoon, more violent than the cartoon (i.e. deaths instead of just the threat of death)? Sure. But not to the point it takes away from the story.

Bear in mind this stems from a lifetime of watching horror movies. Blood, gore, bodies on the floor does nothing for me anymore. I lean towards forties-fifties style film noir Batman, where the violence was plenty real without being excessive.

But that's just me.

 

[Everyman]

Truth is, the best way to represent the Batman would be a live-action, one-hour TV series that stayed closer to the source material than even the Animate Series. There's very little that would be difficult in that, budget-wise. It would be a real psychological crime drama with fighting, swinging and detective work. All the major villains and ideas could be explored without the need to make every little thing lead into a big finale. Take the Animated Series, expand it to an hour, and darken it so that it's more in line with the Post-Crisis comics (and can get into real forensics work that involves blood and bullets and stuff they can't focus on too much in kids' cartoons).

It's funny, I always thought that it should have been considered more seriously by WB. Problem is, I think they consider tv series with superheroes not serious enough. The source material and t be more precise the format of the source material is more easily adaptable on tv. You could make real complex intrigues and story archs, make something very close to the comic book while cleaning the storyline and continuity of all the superfluous elements and inconsistencies. Batman isn't the only superhero who could benefit from it. I think Daredevil would have been perfect for a series as well, and even Iron Man.

 

[Herr Logan]

I didn't find the romance in "Batman Begins" that bad, m'self. At least it was set up better than in any of the other "Bat-films." I wasn't needed, of course, but I didn't feel my IQ dropping while it happened (unlike so many movie romances.)

It was insulting, nonetheless. There was no need for it whatsoever, and it can be seen as a waste of resources as well. By putting Harvey Dent in that role (or Finch's role, with Finch's actor in the Assistant D.A. role, rather), more real storytelling could have been done, without the blissfully few minutes of empty, shallow space. No matter how soft the blow, it's still a smack in the face of not only fans, but people who came to see a story that works above the level of a 15 year-old's attention span.

I'm also not partial to the whole post-Crisis Batman, darkening things up bit.The world doesn't need CSI: Batman. Darker than the cartoon, more violent than the cartoon (i.e. deaths instead of just the threat of death)? Sure. But not to the point it takes away from the story.

Bear in mind this stems from a lifetime of watching horror movies. Blood, gore, bodies on the floor does nothing for me anymore. I lean towards forties-fifties style film noir Batman, where the violence was plenty real without being excessive.

But that's just me.

Pre-Crisis Batman was very much about detective work, although it wasn't allowed for realistic violence and crime scenes to be featured in Seal-approved comics back then. I'm not suggesting an abundance of gory violence, nor am I suggesting an excessive amount of formulaic forensics scenes. I just think it's important to show that the Batman has the intelligence, resources and will to solve crimes as well as throw punches and scare people. Almost every episode should feature some form of detective work, but it doesn't always have to be the same thing every episode. The show would eventually, barring premature cancellation, cover every type of detective work (except for a good deal of police bureaucratic procedures, although those would be shown on the part of the police on the show). Hell, the Animated Series did that quite a lot, but they weren't allowed (presumably) to show crime scenes where violence took place and blood was apparent.

I would absolutely want the tone to be noirish, but not solely limited to that. The Animated Series, again, covered almost all of the important aspects of the Batman mythos and balanced a good number of themes. Even the darker aspects of the Batman's condition were touched on, although most episodes ended on a more optimistic note than the moments where the Batman despaired. I'd want to cover every important aspect as well. I would translate and expand upon the events shown in the 1989 Denny O'Neil story 'The Man Who Falls,' which show him forging documents that somehow allowed him to leave Gotham at the age of 14 and go on his globe-trotting mission to learn what he needed to begin his mission, and some of the instructors he studied under (Kirigi, a martial arts master in the mountains of Korea; Henri Ducard, a brutal and cunning bounty hunter; every reputable detective in the world, etc.). He also trained with the FBI for six weeks and visited numerous college campuses. This isn't necessarily in order.

This would play out from Year One to well past the adoption and training of Robin (who'd be a teenager at the time of his training in this series-- or in a movie-- not a young child). All the major villains would get their turn.

That's all for right now.

 

[Herr Logan]

It's funny, I always thought that it should have been considered more seriously by WB. Problem is, I think they consider tv series with superheroes not serious enough. The source material and t be more precise the format of the source material is more easily adaptable on tv. You could make real complex intrigues and story archs, make something very close to the comic book while cleaning the storyline and continuity of all the superfluous elements and inconsistencies. Batman isn't the only superhero who could benefit from it. I think Daredevil would have been perfect for a series as well, and even Iron Man.

Exactly. It is the best medium for long-term superhero sagas, and I don't know why they can't commit to making a serious full-length TV show for the Batman.

The following is just my stream-of-consciousness thoughts on this subject and are not meant to invalidate what you said at all. Just so you know.
---
Daredevil and Iron Man would be good in TV shows if the makers were committed, but I would understand why it wouldn't be a top priority. Both of those characters fight superpowered villains and criminals with ourlandish and expensive equipment. Something tells me that if they did attempt those as shows, it would end up looking like crap. Not because it has to, but because, without significant funding, the writing tends to be dumbed down so as to compliment the crappy special effects. I mean, 'Mutant X', 'Birds of Prey' and 'Nightman' are good examples of formulaic, badly written attempts at superhero shows. It's like, because they can't do the action without it looking childish and cartoony, they feel they can't go beyond cartoon writing (not that there haven't been well-written cartoons, as the Batman series proved). It somehow gets pigeon-holed with an audience demographic it shouldn't be pandering to. It thinks it's a cartoon, but it isn't a cartoon, and that dissonance drives it insane and creates some defective hybrid show that can't succeed in the long run. That's my theory, anyway..

The same could easily happen with the Batman, but at least they wouldn't have the excuse that they truly feel compelled to dumb it down because of all the superpowers. Also, unlike Daredevil, they wouldn't have an easy way to tie every hero mission into the personal or professional life of the civilian identity. You know that if they made Daredevil into a show, everything Daredevil did would be tied to Murdock's cases, and while that's a good chunk of the actual Daredevil mythos, it would be extremely tedious after a while on network TV. I'm no expert on Iron Man, but I guess the same would be true. Stark's business attracts bad guys. And of course, Stark's own inventions would be used by made-for-TV villains and attributed to already existing villains. They actually did some of that in the Batman Animated Series, too, but it wasn't overkill. The reason it couldn't ever be justified for the Batman is that Bruce Wayne barely has a day job. He isn't like Tony Stark in that regard.

I know one character I wouldn't even consider pitching for a live-action show: Spider-Man. There's no way in hell they would do that right. It's the easiest franchise to faithfully make into both movies and TV shows, storywise, but it would be too much to ask for special effects that would be worthy of Spider-Man and his villains, and thus, if my little theory has any validity (and I don't know if it does), it would that twisted hybrid of cartoon and live action.

New Thought:
You know what, on second thought, Daredevil could easily work special effects-wise on TV. I guess most of his most prominent villains are either human or just aren't superpowered to the point of most of Spider-Man's villains. The Owl, Mr. Fear, Gladiator, Purple Man, Bullseye, the Kingpin... they could be done. Hell, even Stilt Man could be done, and a good chunk of villains could just be human mobsters. Forget what I said about the special effects budget. Daredevil is probably Marvel's best bet for a (relatively) prominent vigilante with limited powers and a rogue's gallery with limited powers, in a live-action show. For Kingpin, however, I wouldn't tolerate anything less than a pasty-skinned, bald man who stands over 6 feet, looks in costume like he weighs over 300 lbs and can do fight scenes as well. To rate true credibility, they need to find faces and costumes that match the characters, or it looks like they aren't really trying.

I remember seeing in some thread that tries to invalidate superhero/supervillain costumes a discussion about Bullseye. One poster tried to make the others understand that Bullseye isn't trying to keep a low profile and doesn't care if he's more noticable in costume. The undesputable fact is that he actually feels naked without the costume, and the one he usually wore is almost completely armored with Kevlar. He wears a bullseye on his forehead because he gets off on giving his targets or enemies a clear shot, even though he's usually too fast to be hit by gunfire and, again, his costume is Kevlar. Even in the movie, Bullseye said he wanted a fu<king costume. How disappointing that they didn't give him one, and instead used the now-very-tired trenchcoat motif. Hell, even I wear a trenchcoat, and yes, it was partially inspired by the movie 'Blade,' but that's no excuse to trade functional uniforms for something popularized by 'The Matrix.' Bullseye doesn't look stupid in a black, Kevlar bodysuit with a bullseye on his forehead, and only cowards balk at using his true look.

Damn. That's a lot of late-night rambling. I apologize for the lack of cohesiveness. Thanks a lot for posting, and I do agree with what you said. While I don't trust the people who control what gets aired on TV, I'm more than happy to hear whatever thoughts you have for these shows.

 

[Everyman]

I don't know why I mentionned Iron man really, I don't know much about him, I just thought that the fx could for him could be done relatively well in an ongoing series, and maybe the format of a tv show would be better to show Tony Stark's growing alcoholism and his heart problems.

I agree with you on Daredevil. You can make a good story arch just having DD investigating on the Kingpin, and once he discovers who it is, you can make another story arch just to bring him down. A t.v. series format makes it more suitable to develop the antagonism between the hero and the villain(s). You can also have a few good side stories, stand alone episodes, more supervillains and mobsters, etc. Budget-wise, like you I don't Daredevil or his foes require expensive fx to be believable, and a good deal of the action would take place in court, not in high-tech labs or distant planets or medieval castle. The only problem would be to cast the Kingpin I think. I don,t know of many actors who have the body and the acting skills to play him. Brendan Gleeson maybe, but he isn't exactly a t.v. actor.

 

[Herr Logan]

I don't know why I mentionned Iron man really, I don't know much about him, I just thought that the fx could for him could be done relatively well in an ongoing series, and maybe the format of a tv show would be better to show Tony Stark's growing alcoholism and his heart problems. I agree with you on Daredevil. You can make a good story arch just having DD investigating on the Kingpin, and once he discovers who it is, you can make another story arch just to bring him down. You can also have a few good side stories, stand alone episodes, more supervillains and mobsters, etc.

I think that could really work. I would definitely want Daredevil to be shown equal screen time as Murdock, because I'm so sick of these live action shows where the hero gets in costume (or in fighting form, as with the Hulk series from the 70's and 80's) twice out of an entire hour for formulaic fight scenes.
I'd like for Daredevil's costume to be a thin bodysuit laced with Kevlar, not leather. He should be able to wear it under his clothes and do a quick-change when necessary. It should be a somwhat dark red, but not maroon. I'd also like the show not to be too dark in tone. Daredevil should make wisecracks, but also throw down hard when the situation calls for it. He should not be willing to kill, ever.

I know a couple of posters on these boards had the idea for a Daredevil show and started plotting it. One of them is a moron who wants to use 'Smallville' as an archetype for... I don't even remember, Spider-Man, Daredevil or Batman. Doesn't matter, the very idea of making another superhero show in that model is disgusting. Either way, the other one may or may not have given up on it.

I know I saw Zev write the opening scene of a Daredevil movie. It was pretty brutal, but it could work.

The only problem would be to cast the Kingpin I think.

If Martin Short can play Jiminy Glick on a regular basis and Mike Meyers can play Fat Bastard, I think they can make someone look like the Kingpin. It would be best if they could make a physique-altering bodysuit that could resemble actual flesh so that Fisk could be shown exercising against master matrial artists and club-wielding thugs, but he'd be in his suit most of the time.
There are hundreds of actors who haven't even been discovered yet, and I'm positive that if they wanted to find someone who fit the bill, they could. Most performance problems result from bad writing and bad directing, but yeah, it would take some searching and a little training to find a proper Kingpin.


EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do think there would be a real need for special effects and a decent budget. I just don't think it would exceed that of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'

 

[Zev]

Oh, Daredevil was BORN to be an FX series, a la The Shield. Daredevil is an intristically edgy and interesting character because, deep down, other superheroes consider themselves good people (hell, other SUPERVILLAINS probably consider themselves good people). He doesn't... which is why he dresses like the devil!

It was basically made for big season-long arcs. The Elektra Saga, Born Again, even Bendis's work... all great meta-plots that could easily be grist for a whole season by any show-runner of real merit (hey, if even cheesy old Battlestar Galatica can be turned into great TV, I see no reason why pre-Goddamn-Batman Frank Miller can't get the same treatment). It wouldn't be a freak-of-the-week series like every other superhero series ever, but rather more like The Practice, with Matt, Foggy, and Karen taking on a case, investigating it (here's where Daredevil does his thing), and having unresolved sexual tension while doing so (well, not between Foggy and Matt... unless the show's on Bravo of course).

The supporting cast would be, as mentioned, Matt, Foggy, and Karen; along with Ben Urich and maybe Detective Manolis. And Wilson Fisk as the Lionel Luthor of the series, masquerading as a wealthy philantrophist trying to clean up Hell's Kitchen (while he's really trying to [insert sinister scheme with very bad results for the good people of the Kitchen here]). Hell, you could even have him and Matt working together before Matt learned his new friend was really the Kingpin (this would all be in the premiere, no reason to drag out the "is he evil? Yes, yes he is" for-fricking-ever).

Effects budget would mostly be stuntwork to show Daredevil jumping around the city, "Shadow-vision" (which is one of the few things the movie did right and I'd like to see it once in a while before Daredevil does something particularly cool), and the occasional Big Bad. I say occasional because I don't want freaks of the week, I want Daredevil to have a real problem on his hands when Bullseye or Typhoid Mary stops by. If Daredevil wants to beat Typhoid Mary, it's going to take a few episodes to do it (less for, say, Stilt-Man).

And oh, think of the season closers! Elektra dying and Daredevil dropping Bullseye, Daredevil versus Nuke in the burning ruins of Hell's Kitchen, Daredevil finally beating Kingpin and declaring himself the NEW Kingpin... Shame it's never going to happen.

 

[Everyman]

It could work so well. You could see the Kingpin as a real menace, you could have a whole storyline of Elektra falling into the darkside so to speak, have real moral conflicts with Daredevil's vow of not taking a human life... There is potential for real character development. One of the many problems with the movie was that everything was too rushed. Events were rushed, characters were barely developed, etc. A series wouldn't have the time constraint and could be more than a glorified videoclip.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Oh, Daredevil was BORN to be an FX series, a la The Shield. Daredevil is an intristically edgy and interesting character because, deep down, other superheroes consider themselves good people (hell, other SUPERVILLAINS probably consider themselves good people). He doesn't... which is why he dresses like the devil!

It was basically made for big season-long arcs. The Elektra Saga, Born Again, even Bendis's work... all great meta-plots that could easily be grist for a whole season by any show-runner of real merit (hey, if even cheesy old Battlestar Galatica can be turned into great TV, I see no reason why pre-Goddamn-Batman Frank Miller can't get the same treatment). It wouldn't be a freak-of-the-week series like every other superhero series ever, but rather more like The Practice, with Matt, Foggy, and Karen taking on a case, investigating it (here's where Daredevil does his thing), and having unresolved sexual tension while doing so (well, not between Foggy and Matt... unless the show's on Bravo of course).

The supporting cast would be, as mentioned, Matt, Foggy, and Karen; along with Ben Urich and maybe Detective Manolis. And Wilson Fisk as the Lionel Luthor of the series, masquerading as a wealthy philantrophist trying to clean up Hell's Kitchen (while he's really trying to [insert sinister scheme with very bad results for the good people of the Kitchen here]). Hell, you could even have him and Matt working together before Matt learned his new friend was really the Kingpin (this would all be in the premiere, no reason to drag out the "is he evil? Yes, yes he is" for-fricking-ever).

Effects budget would mostly be stuntwork to show Daredevil jumping around the city, "Shadow-vision" (which is one of the few things the movie did right and I'd like to see it once in a while before Daredevil does something particularly cool), and the occasional Big Bad. I say occasional because I don't want freaks of the week, I want Daredevil to have a real problem on his hands when Bullseye or Typhoid Mary stops by. If Daredevil wants to beat Typhoid Mary, it's going to take a few episodes to do it (less for, say, Stilt-Man).

And oh, think of the season closers! Elektra dying and Daredevil dropping Bullseye, Daredevil versus Nuke in the burning ruins of Hell's Kitchen, Daredevil finally beating Kingpin and declaring himself the NEW Kingpin... Shame it's never going to happen.

That would have been incredible.

 

[cerealkiller182]

IIf Martin Short can play Jiminy Glick on a regular basis and Mike Meyers can play Fat Bastard, I think they can make someone look like the Kingpin.

Jiminy Glic and Fat Bastard are stupid looking though. They are jokes. I dont think that a fat suit on anybody would be taken seriously.

 

[Herr Logan]

Oh, Daredevil was BORN to be an FX series, a la The Shield. Daredevil is an intristically edgy and interesting character because, deep down, other superheroes consider themselves good people (hell, other SUPERVILLAINS probably consider themselves good people). He doesn't... which is why he dresses like the devil!

I actually disagree about that last statement. Devil costume or not, Daredevil has always (before Bendis and his adorable attempts to be edgy and "real") been a goody two-shoes. Even during-- hell, especially during-- Frank Miller's run. Miller had Daredevil show some hardcore restraint. He risked his life to save Bullseye on the slight chance that his homicidal behavior stemmed from a brain tumor (surprise, surprise, Horn-Head, he's as much of a scumbag post-op as before), and he even tried to save the bastard after he'd killed Elektra. He's also maintained a blind faith in the law from the beginning. These are things I personally look down upon, but it would be hypocritical of me to sanction anything less than this kind of childish idealism in any Daredevil adaptation. The guy is a hypocrite (moreso than most crime-fighters) and a fool (like most crime-fighters). Still, he sticks to his convictions (and acquittals, hah hah!) and, whether or not he outright says or voiceovers what kind of person he is, he clings tenaciously to his ideals and expectations of what a good person is, which leads me to believe that he basically believes he is a good person.

He of course demands more from himself, but he's not like the Batman in this way, which is what you likened him to earlier with the statement in question. The Batman does what he does out of compulsion, and he knows he isn't taking the highest ground. Daredevil believes he is taking the highest ground he can while still being effective. Daredevil can read people more easily than the Batman, and that's why the Batman relies more on psychological manipulation and more extensive invasions of privacy. Despite a few gritty storylines and tragedies, Daredevil wears rose-colored glasses, and that's why he's not as grim and dirty as the Batman. He wears the costume for the same reasons as that other hero, though, to inspire fear. He can talk a good game and pretend he's a ruthless creature of the night, but he's a straight-up White Hat and all his old enemies know it. The only reason a knowledgable enemy would think that Daredevil would actually kill them is because they know they have it coming, and every killer has to start somewhere.

In summation, I would insist on Daredevil's idealism--annoying as it is-- being in the forefront, while still maintaining a gritty, cynical atmosphere for the city in which he operations. That's the contrast, right there. Most people have their hearts hardened and have lost hope, but the man in the devil costume hasn't let it ruin his ideals. Not yet.

It was basically made for big season-long arcs. The Elektra Saga, Born Again, even Bendis's work... all great meta-plots that could easily be grist for a whole season by any show-runner of real merit (hey, if even cheesy old Battlestar Galatica can be turned into great TV, I see no reason why pre-Goddamn-Batman Frank Miller can't get the same treatment). It wouldn't be a freak-of-the-week series like every other superhero series ever, but rather more like The Practice, with Matt, Foggy, and Karen taking on a case, investigating it (here's where Daredevil does his thing), and having unresolved sexual tension while doing so (well, not between Foggy and Matt... unless the show's on Bravo of course).

The supporting cast would be, as mentioned, Matt, Foggy, and Karen; along with Ben Urich and maybe Detective Manolis. And Wilson Fisk as the Lionel Luthor of the series, masquerading as a wealthy philantrophist trying to clean up Hell's Kitchen (while he's really trying to [insert sinister scheme with very bad results for the good people of the Kitchen here]). Hell, you could even have him and Matt working together before Matt learned his new friend was really the Kingpin (this would all be in the premiere, no reason to drag out the "is he evil? Yes, yes he is" for-fricking-ever).

One difference I would want between Nelson & Murdock and the lawyers on 'The Practice' is that they only represent people they know are innocent. On the other hand, didn't that rule become standard for the comics only after Foggy Nelson learned who Matt was? I know that even into the 80's, Murdock was taking guilty clients ('The Death of Jean DeWolf'). Maybe this isn't a feasable way to go. I just find it really, really hard to imagine Murdock knowing his client is a scumbag, and still giving a superb defense. Maybe Daredevil would investigate the activities of the defendant's alleged accomplices? Maybe he'd do his very best in court and then go after the acquitted criminal when he inevitably offends again?

I think perhaps the Season 1 should show Matt and Foggy as part of a fancy law firm that takes guilty clients with a lot of money. By the end of the first season, they'd accumulated enough money to start their own two-man law firm-- Nelson & Murdock-- where they can choose all of their clients at their own discretion. Karen could be an administrative employee who worked at their old firm and goes with them in Season 2.

I really, really did not like how they portrayed Foggy Nelson in the Daredevil movie. He's not a sleazy guy who just wants money and doesn't care who gets set free to harm more people. He's an idealist, too. He just doesn't have the innate ability to tell who's lying and who isn't, and isn't nearly as good at playing to the jury at a trial. I want Foggy to be on the same page as Matt, and when they get their chance, they do things their way, not the typical high-priced lawyer way. It's a reduction in pay and accomodations, but it's what they want to do.

I'd have Murdock and Nelson each have their particular strengths they bring to the trial. Foggy would be very good at research and composing logical, poignant arguments in a short period of time (I've seen that of him in the comics a few times), and Matt has the people skills (due to his powers), is deeply intuitive with both people and tracking down evidence (again, because of his powers) and is the one who speaks in court for opening and closing arguments, if not the whole trial. I'd have Foggy defer to Matt a lot with choosing clients, since he knows Matt's intuition rarely ever steers them wrong.

Effects budget would mostly be stuntwork to show Daredevil jumping around the city, "Shadow-vision" (which is one of the few things the movie did right and I'd like to see it once in a while before Daredevil does something particularly cool), and the occasional Big Bad. I say occasional because I don't want freaks of the week, I want Daredevil to have a real problem on his hands when Bullseye or Typhoid Mary stops by. If Daredevil wants to beat Typhoid Mary, it's going to take a few episodes to do it (less for, say, Stilt-Man).

It sounds to me when you say "freaks of the week" you're evoking 'Smallville'. Yeah, nothing from that show should carry over, except the basic premise of heroes and villains.

I would want all of the villains from Daredevil who could be translated with the utmost faithfulness in the show. That means costumes, gimmicks, powers if they got 'em, etc. Doesn't mean it can't be written well and not embarrassingly. Sure, Stilt-Man seems ridiculous, but so are many real criminals, and if I remember correctly, Daredevil came to meet Stilt-Man through a lawsuit and the villain had much more than hydraulic pants as weapons. He'd be chock full o' fancy gadgets, and that would take some special effects work, but it doesn't have to be campy.

Hell, I can even tolerate Bendis' Ultimate Enforcers. I would have Montana carry a whip (certainly not a damn lasso) and I guess Fancy Dan would have guns as well as martial arts. I'd have them appear regularly throughout the series, changing affiliations as various mob bosses and supervillains (like Mr. Fear) got locked up or otherwise made unavailable to sign paychecks.

And oh, think of the season closers! Elektra dying and Daredevil dropping Bullseye, Daredevil versus Nuke in the burning ruins of Hell's Kitchen, Daredevil finally beating Kingpin and declaring himself the NEW Kingpin... Shame it's never going to happen.

That last one shouldn't happen until several seasons have passed. Hell, I could do without Bendis' "contributions" altogether. Admittedly, his Daredevil stuff has been his best work in Marvel (i.e. it's been the least harmful and outrageous batch changes to the Marvel Universe).

Despite a few of my disagreements, I like a lot of your ideas. Thanks for posting, Zev.

 

[Herr Logan]

Jiminy Glic and Fat Bastard are stupid looking though. They are jokes. I dont think that a fat suit on anybody would be taken seriously.

They're meant to be stupid looking. A much better example (which I didn't think of at the time) is the Juggernaut (the muscle-suit, not the fetish garments) from 'X-Men 3'. Change the dimensions of the bodysuit and make it look like real flesh, and you can make a proper-looking Kingpin.

If the stunts and special effects for Fisk are done right (there wouldn't be that many, compared to other villains), people will take him seriously.

 

[Zev]

They're meant to be stupid looking. A much better example (which I didn't think of at the time) is the Juggernaut (the muscle-suit, not the fetish garments) from 'X-Men 3'. Change the dimensions of the bodysuit and make it look like real flesh, and you can make a proper-looking Kingpin.

If the stunts and special effects for Fisk are done right (there wouldn't be that many, compared to other villains), people will take him seriously.

Or, for instance, Mr. Hyde from the LXG movie. That was all make-up.

 

[Herr Logan]

Or, for instance, Mr. Hyde from the LXG movie. That was all make-up.

All of it? I did think of him just now but I thought it was just the arms for some reason.

Good call.

 

[Zev]

I actually disagree about that last statement. Devil costume or not, Daredevil has always (before Bendis and his adorable attempts to be edgy and "real") been a goody two-shoes. Even during-- hell, especially during-- Frank Miller's run. Miller had Daredevil show some hardcore restraint. He risked his life to save Bullseye on the slight chance that his homicidal behavior stemmed from a brain tumor (surprise, surprise, Horn-Head, he's as much of a scumbag post-op as before), and he even tried to save the bastard after he'd killed Elektra. He's also maintained a blind faith in the law from the beginning. These are things I personally look down upon, but it would be hypocritical of me to sanction anything less than this kind of childish idealism in any Daredevil adaptation. The guy is a hypocrite (moreso than most crime-fighters) and a fool (like most crime-fighters). Still, he sticks to his convictions (and acquittals, hah hah!) and, whether or not he outright says or voiceovers what kind of person he is, he clings tenaciously to his ideals and expectations of what a good person is, which leads me to believe that he basically believes he is a good person.

I guess we're going to have to disagree, but I see Daredevil believing in that he's already damned (he disobeys his father's wishes on a nightly basis, he was responsible for an innocent woman's death if you go with Man Without Fear, which I do except for the stupid Elektra bits and the end where it devolves into a cliched action movie wannabe with Matt Murdock racking up a Schwarzeneggerian body count), even though he really isn't. It's a whole Catholic guilt thing and the pay-off is in Born Again when he finally just says "Why bother?" and then eventually attains his own sort of redemption and salvation.

In summation, I would insist on Daredevil's idealism--annoying as it is-- being in the forefront, while still maintaining a gritty, cynical atmosphere for the city in which he operations. That's the contrast, right there. Most people have their hearts hardened and have lost hope, but the man in the devil costume hasn't let it ruin his ideals. Not yet.

I see Matt as having ideals for Hell's Kitchen and for his friends (which is why he should be VERY adamant about not letting his nightlife crossover into the day), but considering himself beyond redemption and thus offering himself up as sort of a sacrifice. After all, both you and I see him as quitting a profitable, cushy life at a reputable law firm to hang out with the scum of the earth. Why he does what he does should be at the crux of the series and a great source for drama.

One difference I would want between Nelson & Murdock and the lawyers on 'The Practice' is that they only represent people they know are innocent. On the other hand, didn't that rule become standard for the comics only after Foggy Nelson learned who Matt was? I know that even into the 80's, Murdock was taking guilty clients ('The Death of Jean DeWolf'). Maybe this isn't a feasable way to go. I just find it really, really hard to imagine Murdock knowing his client is a scumbag, and still giving a superb defense. Maybe Daredevil would investigate the activities of the defendant's alleged accomplices? Maybe he'd do his very best in court and then go after the acquitted criminal when he inevitably offends again?

I'd see his legal activites more as an attempt to help the community. If some kid slips up and gets into a gang, he's going to try to get him off a charge of robbing a liquor store, but he's also going to try and help that kid get off the street. He's going to pay a visit to the parents, either as Matt if they're nice or as Daredevil if they're not. He doesn't have the resources of Bruce Wayne, he can't offer everyone a scholarship or a job at Wayne Industries, but he is a well-respected figure in the community (after the premiere, in which he both sets up the law firm and does something noble to win a good percentage of the Kitchen over to his side) and can pull some strings... maybe even with other superheroes. How much fun would it be to see him pay a visit to Reed Richards and introduce him to a young inventor?

I think perhaps the Season 1 should show Matt and Foggy as part of a fancy law firm that takes guilty clients with a lot of money. By the end of the first season, they'd accumulated enough money to start their own two-man law firm-- Nelson & Murdock-- where they can choose all of their clients at their own discretion. Karen could be an administrative employee who worked at their old firm and goes with them in Season 2.

I would prefer that all happen during the pilot, just to get it out of the way and into the meat of the show right away. Of course, later you could do a story arc where Nelson & Murdock fold up and they have to go back to the Big Leagues.

I really, really did not like how they portrayed Foggy Nelson in the Daredevil movie. He's not a sleazy guy who just wants money and doesn't care who gets set free to harm more people. He's an idealist, too. He just doesn't have the innate ability to tell who's lying and who isn't, and isn't nearly as good at playing to the jury at a trial. I want Foggy to be on the same page as Matt, and when they get their chance, they do things their way, not the typical high-priced lawyer way. It's a reduction in pay and accomodations, but it's what they want to do.

I'd have Murdock and Nelson each have their particular strengths they bring to the trial. Foggy would be very good at research and composing logical, poignant arguments in a short period of time (I've seen that of him in the comics a few times), and Matt has the people skills (due to his powers), is deeply intuitive with both people and tracking down evidence (again, because of his powers) and is the one who speaks in court for opening and closing arguments, if not the whole trial. I'd have Foggy defer to Matt a lot with choosing clients, since he knows Matt's intuition rarely ever steers them wrong.

That all sounds good.

It sounds to me when you say "freaks of the week" you're evoking 'Smallville'. Yeah, nothing from that show should carry over, except the basic premise of heroes and villains.

Exactly.

I would want all of the villains from Daredevil who could be translated with the utmost faithfulness in the show. That means costumes, gimmicks, powers if they got 'em, etc. Doesn't mean it can't be written well and not embarrassingly. Sure, Stilt-Man seems ridiculous, but so are many real criminals, and if I remember correctly, Daredevil came to meet Stilt-Man through a lawsuit and the villain had much more than hydraulic pants as weapons. He'd be chock full o' fancy gadgets, and that would take some special effects work, but it doesn't have to be campy.

Well, except for the Matador. Because, seriously... poor Hornhead has one of the worst Rogue's Gallery in comics. But just so long as they get the five or so decent villains right (and really, all I need for Owl is the HAIR. You can give me the hair, can't you?), I'll be satisfied.

That last one shouldn't happen until several seasons have passed. Hell, I could do without Bendis' "contributions" altogether. Admittedly, his Daredevil stuff has been his best work in Marvel (i.e. it's been the least harmful and outrageous batch changes to the Marvel Universe).

Despite a few of my disagreements, I like a lot of your ideas. Thanks for posting, Zev.

Well, I don't want the "Daredevil Vs. Kingpin" stuff to drag on for too long. Eventually it gets to the point where Kingpin has pulled so much crap that the audience will wonder why Daredevil doesn't just put a cap in his ass (or stand aside when the Punisher, who should be another recurring guest star and excellent foil to DD, shows up) or will start thinking Matt is incompetent for never being able to get any dirt on the man who's behind most of the villainous shenanigans.

I prefer that every season brings something new, a change to the status quo that keeps people tuning in, like Buffy or Angel. If season one is a Moonlighting-esque "will they or won't they?" between Matt and Karen, it should end with them finally Giving In To Their Burning Desires... and then Elektra should come along (or come back, depending on what flashbacks have shown) in season two to add more spice to the pot. By the end of the series, Matt should have won. Hell's Kitchen is a nicer place to live than it was when he first got there. Sure, the struggle never really ends... but that doesn't mean he can't make headway.

 

[Cullen]

GAAAAAH!!!
Two hours of work, including research and everything, and I was logged out before I was done! All that work, all that time wasted! My Brillance! My Brilliance! God, why must my Brilliance ever be lost forever more!

No. This is too much. Cullen go sulk now. Sulk big time. I'll try again once my shattered ego is restored.

it was sooooo good... shakespere would have wept blood... the hack...

 

[Herr Logan]

GAAAAAH!!!
Two hours of work, including research and everything, and I was logged out before I was done! All that work, all that time wasted! My Brillance! My Brilliance! God, why must my Brilliance ever be lost forever more!

No. This is too much. Cullen go sulk now. Sulk big time. I'll try again once my shattered ego is restored.

it was sooooo good... shakespere would have wept blood... the hack...

Two hours of work and research on a post for this thread, you mean?

If so, my heart goes out to you, Cullen. Your loyalty (despite the frequent insolence) and determination are appreciated.

Here ya go, big guy:

Zev, I'll address your last post when I'm not so damn tired, and thanks for posting. For now, let me just say that-- what happened between Lemanski and Vendrell on 'The Shield' tonight? I saw that coming a mile away. Not the actual method, but, yeah, I saw that coming. Good show. Not as good as last week's, however, but nothing they can show on even FX can surpass a look at Gina Torres' ass. Nothing!

 

[Cullen]

"Frequent insolence?" Moi? Surely you jest. Je suis mais un homme humble menant une vie humble. Ce que vous voyez pendant que l'insolence est mais ma supériorité normale venant à travers.

(For the record, I don't speak more than two words of French, so all of that may well be grammatically incorrect. Of course, I mess up English grammar half the time, so that's all par for the course...)

Thanks for the pie by the way. I appreciated that.

Probably didn't deserve it. And you might regret going through the effort after reading this post.

It was insulting, nonetheless. There was no need for it whatsoever, and it can be seen as a waste of resources as well. By putting Harvey Dent in that role (or Finch's role, with Finch's actor in the Assistant D.A. role, rather), more real storytelling could have been done, without the blissfully few minutes of empty, shallow space. No matter how soft the blow, it's still a smack in the face of not only fans, but people who came to see a story that works above the level of a 15 year-old's attention span.

I agree that the Dawes role could have been filled by Harvey Dent (for the D.A. stuff) and Leslie Thopmkins (for the Bruce Wayne stuff). It may well have been better over all.

The thing is is that the presence of Rachel Dawes doesn't offend me in the slightest for three reasons.

First, she fills three roles at once. Again, she acts as Dent and Thompkins, as well as the love interest. You and I might roll our eyes at the need for a love interest, but bear in mind the film makers don't have to satisfy just the fans' needs. They have to satisfy studio execs., producers, and God alone knows who else. These people want a love interest. They believe the movie audience needs a love interest. They've been insisting on it since the start of movies. Check out the original King Kong, you'll see what I mean.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be the case. Sadly, this isn't a perfect world.

Second, as Dawes fills those three roles, she becomes, at least from my perspective, a far more interesting character than any of the previous movie love interests. She's active in the storyline, is a force within the overall investigation (albeit a minor one), and is less a damsel in distress than a hero in her own right.

On this, she actually has a relationship with Bruce, instead of a love-at-first sight type nonsense. That alone is worth cheering about (and is the only reason I put Dawes over the Burton Catwoman.)

Finally, while fidelity to the comics is admirable and a worthy goal, the filmmakers should be allowed the chance to expand and perhaps improve on the mythos. Remember that Alfred was portly until the movie serial made him thin, Superman was invincible until the radio series created Kryptonite, and Mr. Freeze was a Bond-type villain until B:TAS gave him a back story. All three improved and enhanced the mythoses (mythoi?) they touched.

Now do I think Dawes's addition as a new character is worthy to be included with the aforementioned trio of changes? Hell no. Even I have limits. But I don't begrudge them the chance to make their own modification to Batman's history. At some point they might make a change/addition worth keeping.

On your "slap in the face", I obviously disagree. In any case, I say it's better that than the knee to the nuts that is "Batman and Robin" and "The Batman". Crap like that could still happen to the series.

On your "level of a 15 year-old's attention span", I have absolutely no idea what you mean. At 15 I was reading Moby Dick, Dracula, and the works of H. P. Lovecraft. Not to mention Julius Caeser. None of which is suitable for the attention deprived.

Pre-Crisis Batman was very much about detective work, although it wasn't allowed for realistic violence and crime scenes to be featured in Seal-approved comics back then. I'm not suggesting an abundance of gory violence, nor am I suggesting an excessive amount of formulaic forensics scenes. I just think it's important to show that the Batman has the intelligence, resources and will to solve crimes as well as throw punches and scare people. Almost every episode should feature some form of detective work, but it doesn't always have to be the same thing every episode. The show would eventually, barring premature cancellation, cover every type of detective work (except for a good deal of police bureaucratic procedures, although those would be shown on the part of the police on the show). Hell, the Animated Series did that quite a lot, but they weren't allowed (presumably) to show crime scenes where violence took place and blood was apparent.

Your description of the TV series sounds most excellent.

I would absolutely want the tone to be noirish, but not solely limited to that. The Animated Series, again, covered almost all of the important aspects of the Batman mythos and balanced a good number of themes. Even the darker aspects of the Batman's condition were touched on, although most episodes ended on a more optimistic note than the moments where the Batman despaired. I'd want to cover every important aspect as well. I would translate and expand upon the events shown in the 1989 Denny O'Neil story 'The Man Who Falls,' which show him forging documents that somehow allowed him to leave Gotham at the age of 14 and go on his globe-trotting mission to learn what he needed to begin his mission, and some of the instructors he studied under (Kirigi, a martial arts master in the mountains of Korea; Henri Ducard, a brutal and cunning bounty hunter; every reputable detective in the world, etc.). He also trained with the FBI for six weeks and visited numerous college campuses. This isn't necessarily in order.

Having read "The Man Who Falls", I wish that more of it was in "Batman Begins." Good stuff.

This would play out from Year One to well past the adoption and training of Robin (who'd be a teenager at the time of his training in this series-- or in a movie-- not a young child). All the major villains would get their turn.
That's all for right now.

All well and good. One hopes for Silver St. Cloud to be the love interest, but that's just me being me.

P.S. - The board did it to me again! Luckly I backed myself up this time...

 

[Herr Logan]

"Frequent insolence?" Moi? Surely you jest. Je suis mais un homme humble menant une vie humble. Ce que vous voyez pendant que l'insolence est mais ma supériorité normale venant à travers.

(For the record, I don't speak more than two words of French, so all of that may well be grammatically incorrect. Of course, I mess up English grammar half the time, so that's all par for the course...)

Thanks for the pie by the way. I appreciated that.

Probably didn't deserve it. And you might regret going through the effort after reading this post.
I agree that the Dawes role could have been filled by Harvey Dent (for the D.A. stuff) and Leslie Thopmkins (for the Bruce Wayne stuff). It may well have been better over all.

The thing is is that the presence of Rachel Dawes doesn't offend me in the slightest for three reasons.

First, she fills three roles at once. Again, she acts as Dent and Thompkins, as well as the love interest. You and I might roll our eyes at the need for a love interest, but bear in mind the film makers don't have to satisfy just the fans' needs. They have to satisfy studio execs., producers, and God alone knows who else. These people want a love interest. They believe the movie audience needs a love interest. They've been insisting on it since the start of movies. Check out the original King Kong, you'll see what I mean.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be the case. Sadly, this isn't a perfect world.

Second, as Dawes fills those three roles, she becomes, at least from my perspective, a far more interesting character than any of the previous movie love interests. She's active in the storyline, is a force within the overall investigation (albeit a minor one), and is less a damsel in distress than a hero in her own right.

On this, she actually has a relationship with Bruce, instead of a love-at-first sight type nonsense. That alone is worth cheering about (and is the only reason I put Dawes over the Burton Catwoman.)

Finally, while fidelity to the comics is admirable and a worthy goal, the filmmakers should be allowed the chance to expand and perhaps improve on the mythos. Remember that Alfred was portly until the movie serial made him thin, Superman was invincible until the radio series created Kryptonite, and Mr. Freeze was a Bond-type villain until B:TAS gave him a back story. All three improved and enhanced the mythoses (mythoi?) they touched.

Now do I think Dawes's addition as a new character is worthy to be included with the aforementioned trio of changes? Hell no. Even I have limits. But I don't begrudge them the chance to make their own modification to Batman's history. At some point they might make a change/addition worth keeping.

On your "slap in the face", I obviously disagree. In any case, I say it's better that than the knee to the nuts that is "Batman and Robin" and "The Batman". Crap like that could still happen to the series.

On your "level of a 15 year-old's attention span", I have absolutely no idea what you mean. At 15 I was reading Moby Dick, Dracula, and the works of H. P. Lovecraft. Not to mention Julius Caeser. None of which is suitable for the attention deprived.
Your description of the TV series sounds most excellent.
Having read "The Man Who Falls", I wish that more of it was in "Batman Begins." Good stuff.
All well and good. One hopes for Silver St. Cloud to be the love interest, but that's just me being me.

P.S. - The board did it to me again! Luckly I backed myself up this time...

Cullen, while I enjoy a healthy dose of disagreement, that part in bold is part of a line of reasoning that is not to be discussed in here. The maxim of this thread assumes outright that "faithful = good," and there's a lot of room for changes even within those guidelines. Pandering for the sake of pandering is not allowed here. I don't care what the studios tend to demand. I myself was babbling about the harsh realities of TV the other night, but I put a disclaimer beforehand, saying I wouldn't insist on or against anything except the faithfulness of the ideas proposed. It is my not-so-humble opinion that most major superhero franchises can be successfully and faithfully made into either movies or TV series. Certain franchises aren't meant to be in certain media, however (ex. 'V for Vendetta' probably shouldn't have been a movie, but instead a TV miniseries). I mentioned in my "reality rant" earlier that Spider-Man would be far too expensive to be made into a high-quality live-action TV series, and so because I firmly believe it is the easiest superhero franchise to faithfully and successfully bring to the public for profit, I think the best elements can be condensed into movies.

If someone wants to choose a particular era of a supehero franchise and imagine a faithful movie or TV or other media adaptation (ex. Pre-Crisis anything), then I've got no call to stop them. My personal preference is for Post-Crisis Batman, and the ideas I've been discussing are in line with that. I won't budge in the slightest on certain rules regarding that, but that is just one section of Batman history, and while I strongly feel the vast majority of everything done in Marvel Comics in the last seven or so years should just not count as canon, I wouldn't say that about the DC Universe pre-1986. Hell, I don't even know most of that history. Anyway, if you want to propose an adaptation of an era in Batman comics that did have room for superfluous love interests and where Bruce Wayne was a person instead of a facade to draw attention from the Batman's original identity, fire away. If you wanted to put Batwoman and her neice, the original Bat-Girl in a 50's/60's era-based story, I can't say anything about it except "not my cup o' tea," and since you already know that fact, there's not much point in me saying it in the future.

But don't expect me to ever accept Rachel Dawes and her ilk on an intellectual level, much less a preference. She didn't belong. She isn't part of the mythos. There's a limited amount of room in a movie franchise and it's their duty at money-spending art-creators to use it wisely. They didn't even see fit to fill that role with Silver St. Cloud or Julie Madison. Instead, they left out Harvey Dent and wasted out time with a tacked-on love interest that will obviously go nowhere. And because they wrongfully put her in the story, hundreds of plebeians on other boards are demanding that she be killed off by the Joker, not because they hate her and think she should be here, but because they're so willfully unfamiliar with the character of the Batman that they think it needs to be "personal" with the Joker right from the beginning for there to be any emotional intensity. God forbid they realize that the Batman hated the Joker early on just because he was a greedy, evil killer who was everything he stood against. Hell, they think the Batman shouldn't have lenses because they need to see his "emotional intensity" during a fight.
They don't get it, and I'm not interested in pleasing them, I'm interested in faithful products that are written and directed intelligently all the way through. There can be a superhero adaptation that is both intelligent and unfaithful, but ideas for those don't belong here.

I don't want to hear anything as disgustingly vapid as "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" in a Batman story ever again. At least not coming from the Batman. That was a completely unnecessary line, and the very idea of saying it in that context goes against the character of the Batman. Bruce Wayne has resigned himself to be a fool in the eyes of the public, because he's got more important things to do than impress women with strong moral convictions. Bruce Wayne is a tool, and the Batman has work to do. The Batman doesn't need validation from anyone, except for possibly Alfred. He doesn't care that Leslie Thompkins hates violence, he doesn't care that Lucius Fox (the real one) thinks he's an idiot, and he doesn't care that he can't keep a relationship going. That's not the focus. Bruce Wayne is a hideously disturbed, brilliant child in the body of a full-grown man, so we'd be better off without any romance scenes. Are we supposed to want a woman to resign herself to the same darkness that he has long ago? They're better off without him, so it would be nice if we weren't distracted by that teeny-bopper crap and were able to watch a real detective story with some good action.

Seriously, I meant what I said up at the top. Characters like Rachel Dawes and Chocolate Cake Girl are presumed to be bad by the premise of this thread. If that doesn't seem overly inclusive, that may be why there are such a small number of people that post in here at all, much less frequently. It's better off that way. In any case, you're within the target demographic for this thread regardless, because you know a good deal of comic history and want to see it put on film faithfully.
I'm not asking for extremely rigid mimicry of the comics (unless it's a cohesive graphic novel or limited series like 'V for Vendetta' or 'Watchmen'-- I won't budge on those in the slightest). I am saying that useless, extraneous characters and themes should be cut out completely.

Thus endeth the rant. For now...