The Dark Knight Rises Should "Realism" be lightened up a bit?

[General Vulcun]

Who is to say that when these characters eventually do match up that it has to be a merger of the worlds established in each franchise? A JL film that has all the heroes coming together can be a franchise all itself. It doesn't mean that when there is one that it will be the Batman that Nolan has created, or the next versions of Superman, Green Lantern, etc. It can do whatever it wants with the characters and their world without having any ties at all to each hero's respective franchises.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if the worlds created feature only the one superhero or several superheroes, because it really is all about what works best for the character with the kind of story the want to tell. I happen to like Nolan's decision to keep Batman in his own universe because that makes the character unique. That said, I don't hate the idea of a Batman in a world with other heroes, and would welcome it if the next creative team chooses to go that route.

But is it a necessity that the heroes blend into other franchises? I really don't think it is, especially at this point. Batman is really the only franchise to find its legs right now, and the verdict is still waiting on the new Green Lantern and Superman movies, as well as the rest to come. I say it's best to let each franchise establish and re-establish itself before they appear together. Not just from a financial standpoint, because the JL movies could make a ton more money if they start out with their own franchises first, but also the solo franchises allow the audience to familiarize themselves with each character so that when it comes to a merged franchise the audience doesn't have to play catch up; they'll know these other heroes well, maybe even as well as they know Batman or Superman.

Either way, it's not a major issue whether a creative team decides that Batman, Superman, or whoever exists in a world whether they on are the only heroes, because a separate franchise featuring all the characters can just be created anyways. But I personally don't see it as a mistake on Nolan's part for taking the possibility of other heroes out of his Batman films, because it really doesn't seem to play apart in the story he's trying to tell.

 

[Mr. Earle]

**** what Marvel are doing. What they're doing isn't a proven success. They've got a hit in Iron Man and a miss in Hulk, what if Cap Am and Thor crash and burn? Avengers suddenly becomes Iron Man 3?

Yeah, maybe Cap and Thor will suck. Maybe B3 will suck too. So?

Think about what's best for film though, you can either keep everything confined into one narrow area for each character, suffocating artistic license and potentially great ideas for the sake of a single continuity, or you can give each character their own canvas to paint in with no restrictions.

I dont get your point. They re going to establish a movie continuity which wont be as long as the comics one so it will be simpler and easier to handle. And they re bound to reboot everything in a decade at most anyway.
So what does it hurt if you have a Batman, a Superman, a GL and a Flash franchise with each one having its own stories but a bigger story building up in the background of each one? The bigger story will be then be explored in the JL or Superman/Batman movie without troubling the individual franchises further.

Flash, action comedy

Flash isnt comedy in the comics but something tells me that that's how they'll use him in the movies. I liked JLU Wally, and i think that the JL definitely needs a younger, funner guy like him. He trully helped bond all the members together. In the comics they usually use Booster for the comic relief. Just discussing this, not saying that you re wrong or anything.

there's 5 different type of films there each capable of bringing something totally unique to the screen, and that's why you keep the character separate from each other.

Their differences is why i love the JL, because they play against each other and act as each other's foil. Dark vs light, vigilante not killing vs immortal warrior, brain vs brawn, etc. Watch JL animated. It will make you love the JL.

The nice thing about BB and TDK and even Superman Returns is that I could go to see them with friends who didn't care about the source material.

So they can watch superhero movies without caring for the source material but a superhero team up will confuse them? I dont get it. Why can they watch Superman vs Lex, but not Superman and his bro, Batman fight... oh i dunno... Ras?

I think that there is a risk of stigmatizing the whole genre by fusing all these properties together.

Why?

I have to admit that I find the prospect of what Marvel are trying to do with their movies to be depressingly homogeneous and rather tedious.

Why is it tedious? If anything it makes more sense than the JL. All the heroes are in NY (wait... Favs relocated IM to LA, but anyway he's still in SHIELD and his father was in the SS program), most of the members are technology based and i hear that even Thor will be technology based (somehow Norse gods are gods because of their tech or something), and the SS program and the common threat of the Hulk will make the Avengers make a lot of sense.

 

[IBRAH08]

I have to admit that I find the prospect of what Marvel are trying to do with their movies to be depressingly homogeneous and rather tedious. Who, other than comicbook fans, really wants to see all of these costumed eccentrics in ensemble? I am the only person I know who actively reads current comicbooks. The nice thing about BB and TDK and even Superman Returns is that I could go to see them with friends who didn't care about the source material. I think that there is a risk of stigmatizing the whole genre by fusing all these properties together.

I know lots of people who read comics. And I think the GA will be happy to see all the heroes being awesome on screen it's just like any other comic movie

 

[IBRAH08]

They've got a hit in Iron Man and a miss in Hulk, what if Cap Am and Thor crash and burn? Avengers suddenly becomes Iron Man 3?

Not all the characters in the JLA are as popular as some of the others so should they just cancel that title???

The comics are flawed in that respect but can get away with it due to the nature of the medium.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What flaw?? not saying you are wrong I'm just not sure what you are talking about.

Batman- gritty crime drama, .

But Batman isn't just confined to the gritty crime drama. Some of his best stories are much more fantastical.

 

[weezerspider]

I wouldn't call TIH a miss. For the most part, people liked it. People just didn't see it. I know a lot of people who saw it a full year later and loved it.

Also, Marvel characters have generally had a lot of success recently. Sure, X-men isn't a Marvel Studios film, but their Marvel characters. Same with Spiderman. So you have The Spiderman franchise, the X-men franchise, The Blade franchise, and IM who have all had success. Of course there is also The two recent Punisher films, the FF films. DD and Hulk films. These films weren't very success(TIH was somewhat of one), but they succeeded in keeping the Marvel name out there. Now look at DC the last decade. Superman Returns, BB, TDK, Watchmen.... Is that it? Out of those films the only one that was highly successful was TDK. BB and MAYBE Watchmen(Counting DVD sales) are both successes, but eh... not very big. I know a lot of people who heard of BB AFTER seeing TDK. The point is, Marvel's way ahead of DC in the filming industry. What works for them, may work for DC in the future, but DC is in stage 1, when Marvel's already at stage 10. Basically, it might not work for DC right now. I think introducing a lot of the Justice League in the Justice League is a bad idea. Also, I think they should wait until Nolan's Bat films are over because its clear that Batman is alone in his world.

 

[Crook]

^ Lemme point you to this thread...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=335294

FYI, nobody in the general audience can discern between Marvel and DC.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Also, I think they should wait until Nolan's Bat films are over because its clear that Batman is alone in his world.

I agree with this.

 

[Bathead]

^ Lemme point you to this thread...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=335294

FYI, nobody in the general audience can discern between Marvel and DC.

I remember once where Howard Stern (a self-proclaimed comics guru) and crew believed Captain America to be part of the Justice League. I suspect the GA has a similar level of ignorance abour comics in general, but, to be fair, they're not geeks like us, you can't expect otherwise. The GA will accept just about anything they're given in a comic-book movie without the high level of kvetching that we comics geeks do.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I remember watching an MTV special on "Spider-Man 2" in which Suchin Pak (?) REPEATEDLY referred to Spider-Man as the protector of "Gotham". Non-comic readers don't know.
I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

 

[IBRAH08]

I remember watching an MTV special on "Spider-Man 2" in which Suchin Pak (?) REPEATEDLY referred to Spider-Man as the protector of "Gotham". Non-comic readers don't know.
I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

This. THis is one damn good post.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think Chris Nolan gives a flying fudge what the audience will or won't buy. There's a ton of unbelievable stuff in Begins and TDK.

It's his vision of Batman. Same as Sam Raimi had his vision of Spider-Man, which strayed from the comics in so many aspects. Ditto for Bryan Singer with the X-Men.

It's got nothing to do with what the audience will believe or not. They're going into a comic book movie. Audiences are not expecting to see events they'd see on the 6 O'Clock news. And Chris Nolan and WB sure as hell know this.

 

[lixdexia]

I don't think Chris Nolan gives a flying fudge what the audience will or won't buy. There's a ton of unbelievable stuff in Begins and TDK.

It's his vision of Batman. Same as Sam Raimi had his vision of Spider-Man, which strayed from the comics in so many aspects. Ditto for Bryan Singer with the X-Men.

It's got nothing to do with what the audience will believe or not. They're going into a comic book movie. Audiences are not expecting to see events they'd see on the 6 O'Clock news. And Chris Nolan and WB sure as hell know this.

yes.

folks are telling the story they want to tell, and the only regulations they have to adhere to are "does it serve the story" and "will it make money"

 

[akfj]

I don't think Chris Nolan gives a flying fudge what the audience will or won't buy. There's a ton of unbelievable stuff in Begins and TDK.

It's his vision of Batman. Same as Sam Raimi had his vision of Spider-Man, which strayed from the comics in so many aspects. Ditto for Bryan Singer with the X-Men.

It's got nothing to do with what the audience will believe or not. They're going into a comic book movie. Audiences are not expecting to see events they'd see on the 6 O'Clock news. And Chris Nolan and WB sure as hell know this.

That's what I don't get about people pushing for a certain director to take over a franchise. For example, someone may want Guillermo del Toro to take over the Batman franchise after Nolan, but how do you know he's going to give you the Batman movie you want? Every director that has been hired to direct a Batman movie has gone in with the intention making a Batman movie that adheres to their own vision and that isn't bound by the current Batman comics of the time. That goes for Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, Darren Aronofsky, and Christopher Nolan. So, you hire Guillermo del Toro and you get Guillermo del Toro's Batman, you hire David Fincher and you get David Fincher's Batman, and so on.

There's also different combinations that can occur for filmmakers across the superhero genre. Bad filmmakers can make comic book movies that are very faithful, and good filmmakers can make comic book movies that are not very faithful. Ideally, I suppose what the fans want is a great filmmaker making a totally comics-accurate film, but that has yet to happen, unless someone can point one out to me.

 

[lixdexia]

That's what I don't get about people pushing for a certain director to take over a franchise. For example, someone may want Guillermo del Toro to take over the Batman franchise after Nolan, but how do you know he's going to give you the Batman movie you want? Every director that has been hired to direct a Batman movie has gone in with the intention making a Batman movie that adheres to their own vision and that isn't bound by the current Batman comics of the time. That goes for Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, Darren Aronofsky, and Christopher Nolan. So, you hire Guillermo del Toro and you get Guillermo del Toro's Batman, you hire David Fincher and you get David Fincher's Batman, and so on.

There's also different combinations that can occur for filmmakers across the superhero genre. Bad filmmakers can make comic book movies that are very faithful, and good filmmakers can make comic book movies that are not very faithful. Ideally, I suppose what the fans want is a great filmmaker making a totally comics-accurate film, but that has yet to happen, unless someone can point one out to me.

robert rodriguez (sp?) and sin city. damn near panel for panel. but the ting there was that since sin city was a fairly small universe they could directly adapt about 1/3 to 1/2 of it in 2 1/2 hrs, which isn't the case with many of the superhero franchises getting movies at the moment.

 

[General Vulcun]

A) a realistic Batman is an acceptable version of the character (see Year One, and to a lesser degree TDKR), and B) the realistic version is one Nolan is a fan of. If he wants to make his Batman films like this, like others said, he has every right to.

I'm actually starting to get the impression that some think Nolan *really* only does one film at a time, and that by going in this direction he has "backed himself into a corner" over what kind of villains he can use. I'm fairly certain that when Nolan and Goyer got together back in 2002/2003 they knew what kind of villains they wanted for a trilogy. Even if some fans want a Man-bat or a Clayface in this world, I'm sure Nolan already knew what the villains would be for each film before him & his bro and Goyer even sat down to start writing the script. The only change now may be how much The Joker is included in the 3rd one, if at all (I believe he will be there but not necessarily on screen).

Point is, if Nolan already knows what kind of villains both help tell the story best and fit in with his style, then what would it matter if they aren't more fantastical if Nolan didn't think they best fit what he needed to get the best out of these stories? And besides, and I'm sure this has been mentioned before, future directors aren't tied down to Nolan's vision. They don't have to stick with it if hey don't want to (they have their own vision of Batman & his world), and they can go more fantastical if that's what they wish.

And I don't see Nolan's Batman as a wasted opportunity if he's able to tell the stories the way he wants them, and, most importantly, if they are still very much Batman. Which they are.

 

[akfj]

robert rodriguez (sp?) and sin city. damn near panel for panel. but the ting there was that since sin city was a fairly small universe they could directly adapt about 1/3 to 1/2 of it in 2 1/2 hrs, which isn't the case with many of the superhero franchises getting movies at the moment.

Ah yes, forgot about that one. But you're right, that one didn't have years and years of stories attached to it and the graphic novel series itself already had a reputation of being cinematic in its approach.

 

[weezerspider]

I remember watching an MTV special on "Spider-Man 2" in which Suchin Pak (?) REPEATEDLY referred to Spider-Man as the protector of "Gotham". Non-comic readers don't know.
I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

You are right that the GA can accept the fantasy Batman. You are quite wrong in thinking BB's and TDK's "realism" is because of the GA. Thats Nolan's vision of Batman. To be honest, I've loved this type of "Batman crime-drama" we get in TDK. Its like Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and several BTAS episodes I watched as a kid. Nolan's vision is different, but when people refer to TDK as Heat 2: Batman, I don't think that is a bad thing. There are many many many Batman stories that have that style. There are also many many many Batman stories that don't. So when it comes down to it, it just depends on what Batman you prefer. I'd like to see a more comic-book styled Batman franchise in the past, but I want Nolan to finish his vision, and for the record, I love his vision.

Edit: Personally, my dream Batman film would take the best of both styles, because I love the gritty, detective Batman stories, but I also love the comic book, more superhero type stories.

 

[General Vulcun]

Edit: Personally, my dream Batman film would take the best of both styles, because I love the gritty, detective Batman stories, but I also love the comic book, more superhero type stories.

This would be my ideal Batman, too. It's why I'm personally behind Guillermo Del Toro to succeed Nolan, I just loved how he blended the real and the fantastical in Pan's Labryinth, and I think he may be a Batman fan to boot (he sighted the glasgow smile in Pan`s Labryinth as an inspiration from The Joker, I think.) Too bad, though, that he has a lot on his plate with The Hobbit movies and maybe that adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness. I think he`d be a perfect choice.

 

[returntovoid]

I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

I couldn't agree more with this.

 

[IBRAH08]

You are right that the GA can accept the fantasy Batman. You are quite wrong in thinking BB's and TDK's "realism" is because of the GA. Thats Nolan's vision of Batman. To be honest, I've loved this type of "Batman crime-drama" we get in TDK. Its like Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and several BTAS episodes I watched as a kid. Nolan's vision is different, but when people refer to TDK as Heat 2: Batman, I don't think that is a bad thing. There are many many many Batman stories that have that style. There are also many many many Batman stories that don't. So when it comes down to it, it just depends on what Batman you prefer. I'd like to see a more comic-book styled Batman franchise in the past, but I want Nolan to finish his vision, and for the record, I love his vision.

Edit: Personally, my dream Batman film would take the best of both styles, because I love the gritty, detective Batman stories, but I also love the comic book, more superhero type stories.

It does really annoy me though when members of the GA (who I know don't read comics etc) talk to me about how they really prefer this "real" take on Batman. I'm like when you haven't seen anything else well done, so you don't know that. I fear that the GA will get locked in to this mindset and miss out on some great stories and stick us non GA-ers with one batman interpretation.

 

[jmc]

If a story featuring a Batman respectful of the mythology resonates with people who aren't comic fans on a wide scale I fail to see the problem.

 

[SuperFerret]

I remember watching an MTV special on "Spider-Man 2" in which Suchin Pak (?) REPEATEDLY referred to Spider-Man as the protector of "Gotham". Non-comic readers don't know.
I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

Great post, but I really must interject on one point. Spider-Man DOES defend Gotham, as "Gotham" is still used as a nickname for New York City. Just thought I'd point that out, despite my reluctance to come to MTV's defense.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I remember watching an MTV special on "Spider-Man 2" in which Suchin Pak (?) REPEATEDLY referred to Spider-Man as the protector of "Gotham". Non-comic readers don't know.
I think realism should be lightened up because it's mainly being pushed in favor of the GA, & the GA doesn't care. They are not rallying at the studios for superheroes to be more believable. Sure they may question & dispute certain things like the Hulk extinguishing the fir & Betty emerging unharmed or the Green Goblin hearing Spider-Man's blood hit the floor, but they'll let it go. The same way they get over John McClain or Martin Riggs emerging from their respective chaotic conflicts alive. It may be far-fetched or even implausible but it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of the film. But I think the source material is being compromised more than it should. And they don't care. The GA watched SUperman do all kinds of implausible things from reversing time with inconsistent results, to randomly fluctuating powers according to need. They flock to movies like Star Wars, Avatar, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Terminator, Star Trek & NUMEROUS others that are COMPLETELY unrealistic. Laser swords. Cybernetic limbs that work as well as real ones. Schools of Wizardry. Time travel. CGI dream worlds designed to keep us asleep. The list goes on & on. And they don't care. The filmmakers are using this BS about what the GA will & won't buy as an excuse to impose their own views based on what they can & can't believe. And there's just too many compromises being made. We forgive it because we're psyched about these characters finally making it to film, and when you're adapting something written 40-60 years ago, some things are gonna be altered. But I don't want to see something like "The Ultimates" on the big screen because somebody finds them more believable than the Avengers.

The only thing i'd like to add is that (in my opinion of course), they shouldnt make Batman look like a fairy tale, like Burton's was. Just have more unrealistic elements and a more over the top Gotham.

You are right that the GA can accept the fantasy Batman. You are quite wrong in thinking BB's and TDK's "realism" is because of the GA. Thats Nolan's vision of Batman. To be honest, I've loved this type of "Batman crime-drama" we get in TDK. Its like Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and several BTAS episodes I watched as a kid. Nolan's vision is different, but when people refer to TDK as Heat 2: Batman, I don't think that is a bad thing. There are many many many Batman stories that have that style. There are also many many many Batman stories that don't. So when it comes down to it, it just depends on what Batman you prefer. I'd like to see a more comic-book styled Batman franchise in the past, but I want Nolan to finish his vision, and for the record, I love his vision.

Edit: Personally, my dream Batman film would take the best of both styles, because I love the gritty, detective Batman stories, but I also love the comic book, more superhero type stories.

The thing is that those realistic comic books are just realistic stories in the comics canon. Batman was bound to battle mobsters or other realistic villains at some point. The thing is that Nolan's Batman cant go any further than that, and that forbids him from appearing in a World's Finest movie, a JL movie, or hell meet the other half of his rogues gallery.

 

[returntovoid]

like Burton's was.

What did you exactly think was wrong with Burton's Batman films???

I actually think Batman Begins is better than The Dark Knight but then I also think that Burton films are better than The Dark Knight.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I like it.