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

[Anita18]

2) What Nolan wants and what is in his films are two completely different things, as I wrote previously. He might very well be against Supes being in his Batman's world, but there's nothing in his films that explicitly forbid that from happening.

I think the very angle that Nolan took in his films forbid it from happening in his franchise. When they started to write BB and shoot it, it was something they had to consider. So they mandated that Batman existed in a world without other superheroes, because that positions the audience into the kind of universe that the character is operating in, and how the other characters plausibly react to him. I think it's also why BB and TDK resonate so powerfully for me personally, because I had never seen that angle before.

Once a new director comes in, he's free to bring in a new screenwriter and then they can write their movie fresh from another angle, but not necessarily have to reboot the whole storyline up to that point. There's nothing in there that actually specifies that no superheroes can ever exist in this version's Gotham. It's just the abstract feeling that the movie has, and I think it would do Nolan's franchise a disservice if he were shoe-horned into putting another superhero in there if the first two movies have that feeling that it shouldn't happen.

In the comics there is editorial mandate, instructing writers on what they can and cant do, helping them keep the continuity, etc. And i think its good because the character isnt the writers' or the directors'. They are borrowing him/her to do a story and leave him/her for the next guy to carry on. Why should some director do his extreme take on the characters and then force us into another reboot? I want a balanced take on Batman that goes on after the first director leaves and which would shrug off a potential bad film and keep going (Spiderman for example could have gone on).

Right, but I'd be surprised if they went into super-specifics. It should be pretty basic stuff like make sure he has the cowl and cape, and that he doesn't kill people and use guns. Beyond that, there has to be artistic license. And there are Elseworlds stories too.

And I don't see how Nolan's Batman is all that far off from Frank Miller's realistic take in Year One or TLH. Just because you like other interpretations doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Or that it isn't canon.

 

[lixdexia]

I'd pick a Joker, a Ras... and some other story. I assume that you re implying that Nolan picked the best villains, i.e the more realistic ones and run with them. So we could easily see his Batman take on Manbat like BTAS batman does.

i'm not, i said nothing about villians. i said pick two that provide a clear and encompassing picture of batman's world and a clear narative. i'm not even asking you to work in an engaging portrayal of batman's personality.

The thing is that everything besides the Tumbler and the microwave emitter is impossibly realistic to the point that this cant happen. Its the whole directional style. Begins had a certain comic book atmosphere to it, while TDK was sterile and grim like Heat. Perhaps B3 will be more like BB but with TDK's success i doubt it. Nolan's realism is even harming the character. Example: He wasnt intimidating in TDK. So we conclude Bruce is stupid for dressing up like that. Nolan didnt even play by his own rules he set in BB, which stated that Bruce is trying to intimidate his opponents by dressing up like that. Even Nolan's own rules couldnt hold under TDK's uber realism.

no it's not. the magic cape, zip-line grapnel gun, sonar vision, etc. are all very fantastic.
and who concluded that bruce dressing like a bat was stupid? i didn't, no one else i know did (well, at least not within the confines of the film) that's your baggage that you're laying on the movie.
and how is he not trying to intimidate people in tdk? just because he doesn't talk about it every 5 minutes doesn't mean he's not doing it.

Like i said above: "my bad, i should have been clearer". Batman doesnt need SM to validate himself, but he doesnt need to cut him off to pretentiously act like some sophisticated crime drama character. He is a cheesy superhero dressed as a bat. Why deny us the possibility of some other director who isnt afraid of the genre giving us a WF movie?The majority of the GA doesnt know about Gotham Knight and i doubt Nolan considers it in continuity.
OK, fair point.

who said the ban was permanent? it's just not happening while the franchises are still setting up shop (which is weird for a franchise to still be setting up shop on the 3rd movie, but since all reports lead to batman3 being a direct and near immediate sequel it still counts as a year one movie.) if you think for a second that wb isn't planing a worlds finest and justice league movie somewhere in the back of their collective heads then you're insane.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I still maintain that despite his brilliance, Nolan touches the franchise only as far as his arrogance will let him and he doesnt embrace it for what it is. Its one thing to restrict what you adapt because you have to cater to the moviegoing audience or because of the differences between the mediums and another to shy away because you re too "serious" a director to do a proper superhero movie. I love deep themes just as long as the franchise stays true to what it really is.

The fact of the matter is that Nolan became super famous and super rich when he made a superhero movie. Bale too. Its no coincidence that everybody who wants to be somebody wants to be in a superhero movie, unless they just happen to be superhero geeks like Reynolds and Evans (who lets face it arent enjoying the best of careers).

Nolan: But someone like moi, a refined and intellectual director from Britain doing a cheesy superhero movie so that big studios will then trust me for more worthwhile projects and serious movies? Goddamnit... OK. So what if i grab onto its crime drama aspects? I mean, Batman's story is a crime drama too, right? Maybe i should remove the cape too, its so cheesy. (Nolan actually suggested this)

Goyer: "Hey **** you man! The cape stays!"

Nolan: So the Long Halloween, huh? Its perfect.

Goyer: Its a terribly overrated story about a case that the world's greatest detective never solved because of all the ******ed red hairings that Loeb threw in to confuse the readers. To give you a clue, during Hush he would go online and see if the readers had guessed who he was and then go out of his way to put a neon sign of a red hairing pointing towards another character.

Nolan: Yes, but TLH is a crime drama and its realistic and if my majesty says that its great, people will think so too. Nobody will notice that the king was nude all along.

Goyer: TLH is pretentious. Like Million Dollar Baby or any other oscar-bait movie, its made in a specific way to gain acclaim without having much substance. I mean... so she got paralyzed and everyone but her coach hates her. So what? There are stories out there a million times better than TLH.

Nolan: Pretentious is my middle name. If i make a "serious" superhero movie no one will dare put me in the same category as Favreau, Bay, Schumacher, etc.

Goyer: Dude, you re doing an action film about a guy dressed like a bat.


Maybe i am wrong about Nolan, but in case i am right, dont you just wish that someone from DC would step in and reign him in? DC should know about their characters because they ve been using them for years. I dont expect a director to instantly love or embrace everything about the character but like adapting a Harry Potter movie, he shouldnt be able to leave elements or characters out on whim, just like you cant leave Hermione out of a HP movie. I understand that its a different medium and a different audience, but its one thing to leave the Mandarin out because he's ******ed even for the comics (when was the last time they used him there? Before Extremis for sure) and another to do an extreme take on the character because you deem the franchise cheesy or whatever.

 

[Anita18]

Perhaps B3 will be more like BB but with TDK's success i doubt it. Nolan's realism is even harming the character. Example: He wasnt intimidating in TDK. So we conclude Bruce is stupid for dressing up like that. Nolan didnt even play by his own rules he set in BB, which stated that Bruce is trying to intimidate his opponents by dressing up like that. Even Nolan's own rules couldnt hold under TDK's uber realism.

Your opinion and interpretation. Not others'.

In my view Batman in TDK was not meant to mainly intimidate, but serve as a symbol. They'd only gone over the theme of fear, I don't know, a gazillion times in BB, didn't they? TDK was about heroes and symbols and order.

I still maintain that despite his brilliance, Nolan touches the franchise only as far as his arrogance will let him and he doesnt embrace it for what it is. Its one thing to restrict what you adapt because you have to cater to the moviegoing audience or because of the differences between the mediums and another to shy away because you re too "serious" a director to do a proper superhero movie. I love deep themes just as long as the franchise stays true to what it really is.

The fact of the matter is that Nolan became super famous and super rich when he made a superhero movie. Bale too. Its no coincidence that everybody who wants to be somebody wants to be in a superhero movie, unless they just happen to be superhero geeks like Reynolds and Evans (who lets face it arent enjoying the best of careers).

Nolan: But someone like moi, a refined and intellectual director from Britain doing a cheesy superhero movie so that big studios will then trust me for more worthwhile projects and serious movies? Goddamnit... OK. So what if i grab onto its crime drama aspects? I mean, Batman's story is a crime drama too, right? Maybe i should remove the cape too, its so cheesy. (Nolan actually suggested this)

Goyer: "Hey **** you man! The cape stays!"

Nolan: So the Long Halloween, huh? Its perfect.

Goyer: Its a terribly overrated story about a case that the world's greatest detective never solved because of all the ******ed red hairings that Loeb threw in to confuse the readers. To give you a clue, during Hush he would go online and see if the readers had guessed who he was and then go out of his way to put a neon sign of a red hairing pointing towards another character.

Nolan: Yes, but TLH is a crime drama and its realistic and if my majesty says that its great, people will think so too. Nobody will notice that the king was nude all along.

Goyer: TLH is pretentious. Like Million Dollar Baby or any other oscar-bait movie, its made in a specific way to gain acclaim without having much substance. I mean... so she got paralyzed and everyone but her coach hates her. So what? There are stories out there a million times better than TLH.

Nolan: Pretentious is my middle name. If i make a "serious" superhero movie no one will dare put me in the same category as Favreau, Bay, Schumacher, etc.

Goyer: Dude, you re doing an action film about a guy dressed like a bat.

Maybe i am wrong about Nolan, but in case i am right, dont you just wish that someone from DC would step in and reign him in? DC should know about their characters because they ve been using them for years. I dont expect a director to instantly love or embrace everything about the character but like adapting a Harry Potter movie, he shouldnt be able to leave elements or characters out on whim, just like you cant leave Hermione out of a HP movie. I understand that its a different medium and a different audience, but its one thing to leave the Mandarin out because he's ******ed even for the comics (when was the last time they used him there? Before Extremis for sure) and another to do an extreme take on the character because you deem the franchise cheesy or whatever.

Aaaaalllrighty then.

 

[lixdexia]

I think the very angle that Nolan took in his films forbid it from happening in his franchise. When they started to write BB and shoot it, it was something they had to consider. So they mandated that Batman existed in a world without other superheroes, because that positions the audience into the kind of universe that the character is operating in, and how the other characters plausibly react to him. I think it's also why BB and TDK resonate so powerfully for me personally, because I had never seen that angle before.
And I don't see how Nolan's Batman is all that far off from Frank Miller's realistic take in Year One or TLH. Just because you like other interpretations doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Or that it isn't canon.

ircc what he said was that batman simply had to be the first superhero for the symbolism to work. if superman was already saving the day when batman showed up then what effect does dressing up like a bat even have? why not just dress up as superman at that point as that'd be what you were trying to evoke?

and it's not different, it's exactly the same.

***** whine moan groan

can you please stop resorting to slander (or is it liable...does a forum count as print?) when your argument gets cut out from underneath you? it kills whatever credibility your alleged point may have had.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You don't need cameos or nods to do this. Timm's JLU takes place in the same universe as BTAS and STAS. Neither of the latter two had to resort to easter eggs to set it up. You cross that bridge when you get to it, not before.

Agreed. Since they arent planning a JL or WF movie yet, there is no need for cameos. They would be nice though if done discreetly. Say Clark is still a teenager and discovers his powers and as such, he does what anyone would do in his place: Fly around the world. What if he flies over Gotham?

Just an example. I am not implying its necessary.

You're misinterpreting his words. Neither Batman nor GL are involved in the Superman project, so it makes no sense to make them a priority for that film. Do you think writers are consciously taking into account other heroes, who have no part in their story, when they're creating a narrative? I bet you they aren't.

Agreed.

I will keep saying it until people understand it; the "door being closed" is not dictated by the creator's intent or opinion, but by the material he creates. Nolan could do whatever the hell he wants with Supes. As long as it is modern and not abnormally stylistic (i.e. Burton), that door to other superheroes cannot be closed by the inherent nature of the adapted material. Regardless of what he thinks.

If I have, it was only in reference to Diana. No one else. Call me more imaginative, but I can easily picture any of the other JL members functioning within the "confines" of Nolan's universe.

Its hard for me to do that no matter how hard i want to. Begins had a certain mystical atmosphere to it, but TDK was totally sterile. You could say that TDK is like how Year One exists in the comics canon. But how will Nolan leave the franchise? Will he give a finite ending? He certainly feels that its his batman and not his run on Batman.

I refuse to repeat the same point I've made countless times on the subject. I don't know how else to write it; Nolan has not done anything different from any other writer/director who has had the opportunity to work on Batman. None. Batman would not be who he is today if writers catered to a particular set of rules. We can settle this very quickly: do you think 1940 Batman is even remotely the same as 2010 Batman? If not, then please avoid being hypocritical and criticize everyone who "dared" to write Batman differently from Bob Kane and Bill Finger.

No, batman has changed over the course of those 70 years. But here we re talking about a few years. How will you introduce Superman when the Joker isnt even permawhite and Ras' immortality is in question? A flying alien in the Nolanverse? Hm....

It is all fiction, and as such, can never have a finite conclusion. You're under the impression Nolan's vision carries limited avenues of stories. I'm telling you you're wrong and unimaginative. If I ask you to count the number of Batman comics that featured non-superpowered antagonists, and whose setting in that one story is as relatively grounded as Nolan's, you won't be getting back to me for a very long while.

I agree, but again, we re talking about a few years in between those films and Nolan already realismed the **** out of everything unrealistic about any character he used.

 

[Mr. Earle]

i'm not, i said nothing about villians. i said pick two that provide a clear and encompassing picture of batman's world and a clear narative. i'm not even asking you to work in an engaging portrayal of batman's personality.

To what end? I thought you were trying to make a point about Nolan. I am sorry but i cant remember more than 5-6 BTAS episodes so i couldnt do this. I think that i would definitely pick the one where we see why Dick left Bruce and became Nightwing and in the end Tim explains to him how important he was to Bruce and how Bruce actually has a heart.

There was another great episode where Bruce hires a reformed Ventriloquist at Wayne Ent.

no it's not. the magic cape, zip-line grapnel gun, sonar vision, etc. are all very fantastic.

Like Anita says in the first post of this page, Nolan's films have this certain aura about them.

and who concluded that bruce dressing like a bat was stupid? i didn't, no one else i know did (well, at least not within the confines of the film) that's your baggage that you're laying on the movie.
and how is he not trying to intimidate people in tdk? just because he doesn't talk about it every 5 minutes doesn't mean he's not doing it.

He was intimidating in TDK? I dont think so. He was intimidating because people feared what he could do, not because of his suit. He had to break Maroni's legs to scare him, the copycats had identical cowls to his own, and generally the whole creature of the night aspect which is so important to the character was lost. Gordon interrogated the Joker in darkness but Batman under heavy lighting and he didnt even kill the lights of his own penthouse!

 

[Anita18]

ircc what he said was that batman simply had to be the first superhero for the symbolism to work. if superman was already saving the day when batman showed up then what effect does dressing up like a bat even have? why not just dress up as superman at that point as that'd be what you were trying to invoke?

Right, that's what he said explicitly. But I feel that also goes further, that any other superhero shouldn't exist in his Batman films because of what you mentioned. And also because yes, of how realistic it is. BB and TDK are not realistic just because he's got a fetish for it, there's a very legitimate reason. He wants to be a pretentious artist and say something about our own society (and the human experience) through his films, and that's more powerfully done if the conflict, the atmosphere feels more real to us. So he brings us the Joker and terrorism, which obviously conjures up the emotions we all had after 9/11.

I understand that some of you don't like that sort of pretentious crap. (I happen to eat it up.) But Nolan's almost done anyway.

can you please stop resorting to slander (or is it liable...does a forum count as print?) when your argument gets cut out from underneath you? it kills whatever credibility your alleged point may have had.

It's not slander, it's hilariousness.

Its hard for me to do that no matter how hard i want to. Begins had a certain mystical atmosphere to it, but TDK was totally sterile. You could say that TDK is like how Year One exists in the comics canon. But how will Nolan leave the franchise? Will he give a finite ending? He certainly feels that its his batman and not his run on Batman.

Er, if he felt it was was "his" Batman to do whatever with, why did he even bother bring Goyer on board?

 

[Crook]

I think the very angle that Nolan took in his films forbid it from happening in his franchise. When they started to write BB and shoot it, it was something they had to consider. So they mandated that Batman existed in a world without other superheroes, because that positions the audience into the kind of universe that the character is operating in, and how the other characters plausibly react to him. I think it's also why BB and TDK resonate so powerfully for me personally, because I had never seen that angle before.

The mandate resulted as a desire for Batman to spearhead the costumed hero persona, not to specifically exclude superpowered heroes. It's clear that Nolan and Goyer are set on focusing on Batman's influence on his world. Becoming a symbol to which everyone looks up to is somewhat diminished if Bats were not the first to do it. Given that the DC world (on film) is practically non-existent anyway, Nolan probably felt he wasn't limited in this area and made Bats the first superhero. There is nothing to suggest there can't be superheroes after him.

I still maintain that despite his brilliance, Nolan touches the franchise only as far as his arrogance will let him and he doesnt embrace it for what it is. Its one thing to restrict what you adapt because you have to cater to the moviegoing audience or because of the differences between the mediums and another to shy away because you re too "serious" a director to do a proper superhero movie. I love deep themes just as long as the franchise stays true to what it really is.

Let me ask you a straightforward question: were Frank Miller and Alan Moore "arrogant" or failed to "embrace" the source material when they made Y1 and TKJ?

They are both very grounded works that featured little to no far-fetched concepts (I'd argue it was much less than Nolan's films). They both took their own creative liberties to what was the accepted norm (and canon). They are both self-contained stories and have no follow-ups from their authors. And (like TDK) they are one of the most highly praised and popular Batman stories of all time.

I want to know how Nolan is different in each of these cases.

 

[Mr. Earle]

can you please stop resorting to slander (or is it liable...does a forum count as print?) when your argument gets cut out from underneath you? it kills whatever credibility your alleged point may have had.

Slander?
1) That's what I conclude about Nolan's relationship with Batman from everything i've read and seen. I could be wrong, but IIRC Returntovoid feels the same way.

Returntovoid and Macleod where are you? Why am i holding the fort on my own?

2) Even if that isnt true about Nolan, it could be true about some other director. My point is that DC should supervise how their characters are adapted. Its the director's job to know how the film industry works, but 99% of the directors arent comicbook fans and like Nolan, they could be prejudiced. Hell, even i was prejudiced at first and it took some time for me to embrace Robin and Batman in the JL.

Your opinion and interpretation. Not others'.

Of course.

In my view Batman in TDK was not meant to mainly intimidate, but serve as a symbol. They'd only gone over the theme of fear, I don't know, a gazillion times in BB, didn't they? TDK was about heroes and symbols and order.

They didnt have to go over the "fear" theme again, but Batman is intimidating. Say you make a superman movie and the theme is power and how one handles it. Does that mean that superman should be powerless in the sequel? Nolan spent 1 hour in Begins to explain why Batman dresses like that and how supposedly its effective. I didnt want another lecture on fear, just for Batman to scare his opponents and be the creature of the night he set out to be. I did not get that in TDK.

Aaaaalllrighty then.

From that i get that you frown upon that post of mine. Its full of hyperbole and assumptions, but its an example with which i am trying to back up my arguement that DC should oversee their movies whether you believe those things about Nolan or not.

I do to a certain extent, but again that's not the point.

 

[Crook]

Right, that's what he said explicitly. But I feel that also goes further, that any other superhero shouldn't exist in his Batman films because of what you mentioned. And also because yes, of how realistic it is. BB and TDK are not realistic just because he's got a fetish for it, there's a very legitimate reason. He wants to be a pretentious artist and say something about our own society (and the human experience) through his films, and that's more powerfully done if the conflict, the atmosphere feels more real to us. So he brings us the Joker and terrorism, which obviously conjures up the emotions we all had after 9/11.

If by 'atmosphere' you mean setting, then I'm going to go ahead and call bullcrap. Audience captivation has proven to exist in all areas of the real-fantasy spectrum. The most successful films in Hollywood steer towards the fantasy-oriented, in fact.

It is the human emotion and struggle that creates the tangibility necessary for the viewer to care. Not the environment.

 

[lixdexia]

To what end? I thought you were trying to make a point about Nolan. I am sorry but i cant remember more than 5-6 BTAS episodes so i couldnt do this. I think that i would definitely pick the one where we see why Dick left Bruce and became Nightwing and in the end Tim explains to him how important he was to Bruce and how Bruce actually has a heart.

There was another great episode where Bruce hires a reformed Ventriloquist at Wayne Ent. Another great episode.

my end is to prove that you can't do all the things you want the movies to do in 2 stories. case in point, the 2 episodes you chose "old wounds" and "double talk" lack every bit of the fantasy you've been clamoring for thus far. there are no flying men, no mutated monsters, no cross overs with other franchises. just guys with guns (and a radio wave machine not unlike bb's microwave emitter) and alot of pathos. yet you clearly identify these 2 stories as batman and reject tdk for taking the same approach.

Like Anita says in the first post of this page, Nolan's films have this certain aura about them.

an "aura" is subjective. regardless it does not discount the inherent fantasy in the items i mentioned.

He was intimidating in TDK? I dont think so. He was intimidating because people feared what he could do, not because of his suit. He had to break Maroni's legs to scare him, the copycats had identical cowls to his own, and generally the whole creature of the night aspect which is so important to the character was lost. Gordon interrogated the Joker in darkness but Batman under heavy lighting and he didnt even kill the lights of his own penthouse!

THERE IT IS! that's the crux of every argument you've had in this thread. you're not arguing batman, you're arguing your interpretation of batman, and if you'd just admit that i'd have alot more respect for you.

also, how is this perception diferent from the comics? is it the suit that does the intimating there? i assure you it's not. it's the threat of batman that does the intimidating, the visage is just a que that the threat is imminent.

 

[Anita18]

If by 'atmosphere' you mean setting, then I'm going to go ahead and call bullcrap. Audience captivation has proven to exist in all areas of the real-fantasy spectrum. The most successful films in Hollywood steer towards the fantasy-oriented, in fact.

It is the human emotion and struggle that creates the tangibility necessary for the viewer to care. Not the environment.

Sure viewers can care about the characters no matter what the genre or how fantastical things get. But for TDK in particular, Nolan went after a feeling that was very tangible, because such a deep-seated fear of terrorism is unique to our own real modern experience.

 

[lixdexia]

Right, that's what he said explicitly. But I feel that also goes further, that any other superhero shouldn't exist in his Batman films because of what you mentioned. And also because yes, of how realistic it is. BB and TDK are not realistic just because he's got a fetish for it, there's a very legitimate reason. He wants to be a pretentious artist and say something about our own society (and the human experience) through his films, and that's more powerfully done if the conflict, the atmosphere feels more real to us. So he brings us the Joker and terrorism, which obviously conjures up the emotions we all had after 9/11.

I understand that some of you don't like that sort of pretentious crap. (I happen to eat it up.) But Nolan's almost done anyway.


It's not slander, it's hilariousness.


Er, if he felt it was was "his" Batman to do whatever with, why did he even bother bring Goyer on board?

fair enough. you just need to go ahead and realize you love me though, otherwise all this sexual tension is never going to subsice

Slander?
1) That's what I conclude about Nolan's relationship with Batman from everything i've read and seen. I could be wrong, but IIRC Returntovoid feels the same way.

so if i were to concluded based on my interactions with you that you felt for instance that the color green was an illusion and should no longer be recognised as a color, and then presented that to other people as you view you don't feel that would be defaming or slanderous?

also, other people sharing an opinion doesn't make it correct.

 

[Crook]

Agreed. Since they arent planning a JL or WF movie yet, there is no need for cameos. They would be nice though if done discreetly. Say Clark is still a teenager and discovers his powers and as such, he does what anyone would do in his place: Fly around the world. What if he flies over Gotham?

Just an example. I am not implying its necessary.

And that's fine. Again, I don't see Nolan's vision as prohibiting to that type of scene.

Its hard for me to do that no matter how hard i want to. Begins had a certain mystical atmosphere to it, but TDK was totally sterile. You could say that TDK is like how Year One exists in the comics canon.

The atmosphere and tone follows the story, first and foremost. You weren't going to have the mystical feeling of BB because TDK is approaching the universe from a different and evolved angle. The most important part is that they are still part of that same universe, regardless of these differences.

But how will Nolan leave the franchise? Will he give a finite ending? He certainly feels that its his batman and not his run on Batman.

Unless Batman dies, it doesn't matter. That is the only way it'll ever be finite.

No, batman has changed over the course of those 70 years. But here we re talking about a few years.

That's avoiding the crux of the issue. At the point and time these creators made these changes, they were diverting from the accepted norm and guidelines set by their predecessors. It doesn't matter if it was different from a Batman story 20 years ago, it was still different from a Batman story from that very same month. Time is of no consequence.

How will you introduce Superman when the Joker isnt even permawhite and Ras' immortality is in question? A flying alien in the Nolanverse? Hm....

It's not my problem if you can't envision it. To be honest I think you're beyond biased against Nolan's vision, and that's the sole reason for refusing fantasy elements to be inserted; you just plain don't want it to be associated with Nolan.

'lixdexia' has already called out your incongruent arguments surrounding BTAS/TNBA episodes. And I've read your praises for the fantasy-oriented Batman comics. The very same comics that are IN CANON with the realistic Batman stories.

The issue isn't about the material or Nolan. It's that you can look backwards (realism preceding fantasy) but can't look forward (fantasy succeeding realism).

Sure viewers can care about the characters no matter what the genre or how fantastical things get. But for TDK in particular, Nolan went after a feeling that was very tangible, because such a deep-seated fear of terrorism is unique to our own real modern experience.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the setting which I was addressing. A terrorist plot that plagues societal fears is just as workable in a modern metropolitan city, as it is in a futuristic dystopia.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Er, if he felt it was was "his" Batman to do whatever with, why did he even bother bring Goyer on board?

His and his team's. I dont think he'll be comfortable if another director picks it up after him.

Let me ask you a straightforward question: were Frank Miller and Alan Moore "arrogant" or failed to "embrace" the source material when they made Y1 and TKJ?

They are both very grounded works that featured little to no far-fetched concepts (I'd argue it was much less than Nolan's films). They both took their own creative liberties to what was the accepted norm (and canon). They are both self-contained stories and have no follow-ups from their authors. And (like TDK) they are one of the most highly praised and popular Batman stories of all time.

I want to know how Nolan is different in each of these cases.

OK, you've made this point in your previous post and you've changed my mind. I admitted this in my response to that post of yours as well. As far as Nolan's movies go, we are almost in agreement (Ras' immortality in question, no permawhite), but taking into account everything else he says and does, i feel that Nolan is a bit ashamed to be doing comicbook movies.

Of course Nolan is clever and is very careful about his statements so when Nolan says: "Robin is in a crib somewhere", Bale outright says what they both mean: "If they introduce Robin, i'm outta here!" Then there's that rumor that he was going to remove the cape and grapple gun but Goyer convinced him otherwise, etc...

 

[Mr. Earle]

my end is to prove that you can't do all the things you want the movies to do in 2 stories. case in point, the 2 episodes you chose "old wounds" and "double talk" lack every bit of the fantasy you've been clamoring for thus far. there are no flying men, no mutated monsters, no cross overs with other franchises. just guys with guns (and a radio wave machine not unlike bb's microwave emitter) and alot of pathos. yet you clearly identify these 2 stories as batman and reject tdk for taking the same approach.

an "aura" is subjective. regardless it does not discount the inherent fantasy in the items i mentioned.

So? Me and lots of others feel that TDK's realism was stifling. Its not just the story, its everything the film exudes, and while BB had a superhero feeling to it, TDK had none. In fact it went so far as to counter BB since Batman wasnt even scary in TDK in my opinion.

THERE IT IS! that's the crux of every argument you've had in this thread. you're not arguing batman, you're arguing your interpretation of batman, and if you'd just admit that i'd have alot more respect for you.

It was a figure of speech. After that sentence i presented my arguements on why Batman was no longer a creature of the night in TDK. Here, read again:

He was intimidating because people feared what he could do, not because of his suit. He had to break Maroni's legs to scare him, the copycats had identical cowls to his own, and generally the whole creature of the night aspect which is so important to the character was lost. Gordon interrogated the Joker in darkness but Batman under heavy lighting and he didnt even kill the lights of his own penthouse!

also, how is this perception diferent from the comics? is it the suit that does the intimating there? i assure you it's not. it's the threat of batman that does the intimidating, the visage is just a que that the threat is imminent.

Yes its the suit that's intimidating there. Its a ridiculous suit but the laws of the franchise state that it is scary. If you suspend your disbelief for Superman's flight, Batman asks that you do the same for his costume.

Since his suit in the comics is ridiculous, i am not going to base my arguement on batman's equally ridiculous armour in TDK. It was Nolan that destroyed his creature status more so than the suit.

So here we see Alfred (freaking Alfred!!!) scared of Bruce because the batsuit makes him scary:
[YT]t3EAwaX17sw[/YT]
And then there is a scene in "JL: The new frontier" where Batman scares a little kid he's trying to save, so later he does some changes to his suit because "he set out to scare criminals, not kids". Apparently his Kane/Finger suit (gloves up to his wrists, long devilish bat ears) was so goddamn scary that he changed it to his current suit with the longer gloves and shorter ears that is supposedly scary, but not making you piss yourself scary. Its a comic book character who lives in a comic book world. Real life logic doesnt apply and that's why people who dismiss Robin with the arguement that it would be child abuse in the real world miss the point.

 

[Anita18]

His and his team's. I dont think he'll be comfortable if another director picks it up after him.

Frankly I'll think he'll be a little tired of doing Batman movies for more than 10 years and be ready to move on. Inception is an example of the crazy non-Batman ideas he has. I think Nolan is too good of a director to be caught up in just doing comic book movies for the rest of his life. I have no clue why or what he'll be doing with Supes, that's for sure.

OK, you've made this point in your previous post and you've changed my mind. I admitted this in my response to that post of yours as well. As far as Nolan's movies go, we are almost in agreement (Ras' immortality in question, no permawhite), but taking into account everything else he says and does, i feel that Nolan is a bit ashamed to be doing comicbook movies.

Then why the eff did he go to WB with his BB premise in the first place? Sure he didn't want to make a formulaic superhero movie (which most of them were in the first place, let's be honest), but that's all I get from him.

So? Me and lots of others feel that TDK's realism was stifling. Its not just the story, its everything the film exudes, and while BB had a superhero feeling to it, TDK had none. In fact it went so far as to counter BB since Batman wasnt even scary in TDK in my opinion.

That's because it didn't serve the story. Batman, in TDK, is a symbol of hope. Some criminals are still scared of him (did you miss the first 10 minutes of TDK?), but because he beats people up, not because he looks scary. The movie had enough going on to be focusing on how scary and intimidating Batman is.

 

[Crook]

OK, you've made this point in your previous post and you've changed my mind. I admitted this in my response to that post of yours as well. As far as Nolan's movies go, we are almost in agreement (Ras' immortality in question, no permawhite), but taking into account everything else he says and does, i feel that Nolan is a bit ashamed to be doing comicbook movies.

Ashamed of making comic book movies? Hardly. I think he's quite proud of his two projects and it shows by the amount of care he's put into them (it wouldn't exist otherwise). Nolan was never a studio puppet. Now more than ever, he's cemented himself a path to be one of cinema's great modern directors. Batman is not something he needs. But he's coming back again because he sees potential in the material. I don't know how you could possibly turn that as a negative against the man. He clearly has love for the franchise, however his fandom may differ from yours. No one put a gun to his head, he was the one that asked WB for the franchise and actively sought out Goyer to make it with him.

Is he averse or ashamed of certain aspects in the comics? Absolutely. But who isn't? Surely there are particular areas exclusive to the genre or mythos that you aren't a fan of and would like to have no association with?

Of course Nolan is clever and is very careful about his statements so when Nolan says: "Robin is in a crib somewhere", Bale outright says what they both mean: "If they introduce Robin, i'm outta here!" Then there's that rumor that he was going to remove the cape and grapple gun but Goyer convinced him otherwise, etc...

The rumors should be taken as such, rumors. Until there's actual evidence, I won't comment on it further. Especially when they never came to pass anyway.

As for Nolan and Bale's statements; stemmed from ignorance. That's really all there is to say. It's evident to me with the little they've said they haven't actually explored the very characters they're criticizing. So I can't fault them for not knowing that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And that's fine. Again, I don't see Nolan's vision as prohibiting to that type of scene.


The atmosphere and tone follows the story, first and foremost. You weren't going to have the mystical feeling of BB because TDK is approaching the universe from a different and evolved angle. The most important part is that they are still part of that same universe, regardless of these differences.


Unless Batman dies, it doesn't matter. That is the only way it'll ever be finite.


That's avoiding the crux of the issue. At the point and time these creators made these changes, they were diverting from the accepted norm and guidelines set by their predecessors. It doesn't matter if it was different from a Batman story 20 years ago, it was still different from a Batman story from that very same month. Time is of no consequence.


It's not my problem if you can't envision it. To be honest I think you're beyond biased against Nolan's vision, and that's the sole reason for refusing fantasy elements to be inserted; you just plain don't want it to be associated with Nolan.

'lixdexia' has already called out your incongruent arguments surrounding BTAS/TNBA episodes. And I've read your praises for the fantasy-oriented Batman comics. The very same comics that are IN CANON with the realistic Batman stories.

The issue isn't about the material or Nolan. It's that you can look backwards (realism preceding fantasy) but can't look forward (fantasy succeeding realism).

I already conceded to these arguements of yours. Its not your fault though since i was late to respond and you already posted this post. Just pointing out that i did. Yes, i was prejudiced against Nolan after TDK but you re right that he's doing nothing different from what comic book writers are doing.

However:
1) i still think that he is prejudiced against superheroes and the cheese that goes with them.
2) I still find fault with many of his decisions like allowing his realism to destroy Batman's creature status which Nolan himself built, the gaudy TDK batsuit, batman under heavy lights when he could have killed them, etc.
3) I disagree with this:

That's avoiding the crux of the issue. At the point and time these creators made these changes, they were diverting from the accepted norm and guidelines set by their predecessors. It doesn't matter if it was different from a Batman story 20 years ago, it was still different from a Batman story from that very same month. Time is of no consequence.

There have been changes and refinements over the years and yes each comic book writer puts his personal stamp on his work, but they dont change the characters the way Nolan has done unless some big Crisis occurs.

I am OK with taking liberties, but Nolan realismed everything. I already mentioned Ras' immortality and Joker's permawhite. Can you continue the story? Yes. Can you still do a JL movie? Sure, but i am not OK with how Nolan has twisted the characters to his tastes. The next director (if there is a next director) will probably pick new villains. What if he has a camp fetish? Wouldnt it have been better if Nolan took liberties with the stories but not with the characters?

Like you and Anita say, the setting doesnt effect how the story and characters appeal to the audience. I agree but apparently Nolan doesnt because he obviously found an obstacle in Ras' immortality.

 

[lixdexia]

So? Me and lots of others feel that TDK's realism was stifling. Its not just the story, its everything the film exudes, and while BB had a superhero feeling to it, TDK had none. In fact it went so far as to counter BB since Batman wasnt even scary in TDK in my opinion.
It was a figure of speech. After that sentence i presented my arguements on why Batman was no longer a creature of the night in TDK. Here, read again:

that doesn't make it wrong though. again, if you would just stop arguing that batman in tdk is flat out wrong and that instead it simply isn't your taste or idea of what a batman movie should be then i have no issue with you.

Yes its the suit that's intimidating there. Its a ridiculous suit but the laws of the franchise state that it is scary. If you suspend your disbelief for Superman's flight, Batman asks that you do the same for his costume.

Since his suit in the comics is ridiculous, i am not going to base my arguement on batman's equally ridiculous armour in TDK. It was Nolan that destroyed his creature status more so than the suit.

So here we see Alfred (freaking Alfred!!!) scared of Bruce because the batsuit makes him scary:
[YT]t3EAwaX17sw[/YT]
And then there is a scene in "JL: The new frontier" where Batman scares a little kid he's trying to save, so later he does some changes to his suit because "he set out to scare criminals, not kids". Apparently his Kane/Finger suit (gloves up to his wrists, long devilish bat ears) was so goddamn scary that he changed it to his current suit with the longer gloves and shorter ears that is supposedly scary, but not making you piss yourself scary. Its a comic book character who lives in a comic book world. Real life logic doesnt apply and that's why people who dismiss Robin with the arguement that it would be child abuse in the real world miss the point.

lets stick with new frontier and that quote here. " i set out to scare criminals, not kids." ok, so if it is in fact the costume that creates the fear how then is it that batman can have a costume that is simultaneously terrifying to nare-do-wells yet entirely kid friendly? he can't, it's a paradox. therefore there must be something more to the intimidation than just a costume. also, "jl:the new frontier" isn't nearly as good as "the new frontier" the comic it's based on. i suspect (and please correct me if i'm wrong) that you've only recently (i.e. within the last 3-4 yrs) begun reading the actual comics and not just basing everything off of television shows and movies. that would explain to me your somewhat limited view of how batman is percieved among other things. if this is the case i and many other posters here would be happy to suggest books for you to read that will help broaden your understandingt:

that's not to say that your opinions are necessarily wrong, they're not, just a bit under-informed

 

[Crook]

1) i still think that he is prejudiced against superheroes and the cheese that goes with them.

Well...ok. I think we all know that. A lot of today's most respected comic book writers are in the same exact boat. What is this leading to? I'm assuming you have a point behind this?

2) I still find fault with many of his decisions like allowing his realism to destroy Batman's creature status which Nolan himself built, the gaudy TDK batsuit, batman under heavy lights when he could have killed them, etc.

Deconstructing the mythical nature of the Batman image had nothing to do with realism (if it were, it wouldn't be in BB). It's been addressed in every medium of the character. It's a progression (or regression) of his image that he evokes to the public. This is purely a narrative decision. Nolan does not have the luxury of comic book time, which is why he's going through many of Bruce's biggest obstacles in such a short timeframe.

3) I disagree with this:
There have been changes and refinements over the years and yes each comic book writer puts his personal stamp on his work, but they dont change the characters the way Nolan has done unless some big Crisis occurs.

There is no 'unless'. If there is no progression from one interpretation to the other, that counts plain and simple. I don't like playing history teacher so I won't go into detail. You can do your own research on that and I'm sure many of the posters here will back me up on it. But since you have brought up BTAS a lot, then look no further than Freeze and (to a lesser extent) Clayface. Prime examples of a total reworking with no real precedent or smooth transition.

I am OK with taking liberties, but Nolan realismed everything. I already mentioned Ras' immortality and Joker's permawhite. Can you continue the story? Yes. Can you still do a JL movie? Sure, but i am not OK with how Nolan has twisted the characters to his tastes. The next director (if there is a next director) will probably pick new villains. What if he has a camp fetish? Wouldnt it have been better if Nolan took liberties with the stories but not with the characters?

Unless you are doing a straight adaptation, then that is impossible. The story/characters are directly related. You cannot change one without the expense of the other in some way.

Like you and Anita say, the setting doesnt effect how the story and characters appeal to the audience. I agree but apparently Nolan doesnt because he obviously found an obstacle in Ras' immortality.

You can't generalize what he applies to one character, to the entire movieverse. Did you yourself not cite BB as representative of the comic book world (at least compared to TDK)? Did the lack of showcasing Ra's immortality prevent the "comic-bookness" found all throughout BB? Of course not.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Frankly I'll think he'll be a little tired of doing Batman movies for more than 10 years and be ready to move on. Inception is an example of the crazy non-Batman ideas he has. I think Nolan is too good of a director to be caught up in just doing comic book movies for the rest of his life. I have no clue why or what he'll be doing with Supes, that's for sure.

No, i didnt mean it like that. I meant that in a "its my batman tale, do your own spin and leave mine alone" way.

Then why the eff did he go to WB with his BB premise in the first place? Sure he didn't want to make a formulaic superhero movie (which most of them were in the first place, let's be honest), but that's all I get from him.

To get world recognition, money and access to the big studios?

That's because it didn't serve the story. Batman, in TDK, is a symbol of hope. Some criminals are still scared of him (did you miss the first 10 minutes of TDK?), but because he beats people up, not because he looks scary. The movie had enough going on to be focusing on how scary and intimidating Batman is.

That's besides the point. Batman looks scary. Its a law of the franchise and it shouldnt change because of the story. Nolan already spent 1 hour of BB explaining why he would dress like that and i already suspended my disbelief in order to buy that his ridiculous get up makes him scary so why on earth would Nolan tear it all down in TDK?

Now more than ever, he's cemented himself a path to be one of cinema's great modern directors.

Now that he's made a million dollar movie? Sure.

Batman is not something he needs. But he's coming back again because he sees potential in the material. I don't know how you could possibly turn that as a negative against the man. He clearly has love for the franchise, however his fandom may differ from yours.

He needed Batman at first. He wouldnt have been as famous as he is now otherwise. Hell, he made a movie with Williams and Pacino and he became famous with Batman.
I think he came to love the character as time went by but the certain realistic and serious version of the character that he is working with.

 

[Crook]

Now that he's made a million dollar movie? Sure.

No. Because his latest movie proved he knew how to direct a complex narrative, as well as making it large-scale and accessible to a wide audience. He's very similar to Peter Jackson in this regard.

The billion dollars is just bragging rights. Gore Verbinski also made a billion dollar movie, but I can assure you he isn't going to be considered a long-term A lister like Nolan is setting himself up to be.

He needed Batman at first. He wouldnt have been as famous as he is now otherwise. Hell, he made a movie with Williams and Pacino and he became famous with Batman.

And why is he coming back for a THIRD Batman when he doesn't have to? Moreover why would he bother to further EXTEND his association to the genre by APPROACHING Warner Bros. for a Superman franchise? C'mon bro, you're reaching far beyond your limits here. The guy clearly is fascinated with the genre. Don't let your bias against his views cloud that fact.

I think he came to love the character as time went by but the certain realistic and serious version of the character that he is working with.

He already loved the character. That's why he went to WB in the first place. One of his first interviews regarding Batman, he stated he had a connection to the character during his teen years. It faded into adulthood, but re-ignited when he realized he had an opportunity with WB to reimagine the character. Again, one does not put that much love and work into a character he isn't fond of.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well...ok. I think we all know that. A lot of today's most respected comic book writers are in the same exact boat. What is this leading to? I'm assuming you have a point behind this?

Uhm... no...

Deconstructing the mythical nature of the Batman image had nothing to do with realism (if it were, it wouldn't be in BB). It's been addressed in every medium of the character. It's a progression (or regression) of his image that he evokes to the public. This is purely a narrative decision. Nolan does not have the luxury of comic book time, which is why he's going through many of Bruce's biggest obstacles in such a short timeframe.

While people in the DCU now know how he looks like, his appearence remains a terrifying one. Otherwise we should just assume that Bruce is stupid and doesnt know how bats look like.
In the recent "Battle for the Cowl" Dick asked the fellow members of the JL to keep Bruce's death a secret so that people wouldnt find out that he was just a man. "Most of them think he is an alien, a mutant, a vampire" he said, adding that Batman is more than a man and that he would take up the mantle and carry on the task. Besides, if a were an average joe in the DCU and this Bat guy was pulling the feats that he does I'd assume that he was Superman's goth brother!

But i digress. The point was whether Batman looks scary and he supposedly does.

There is no 'unless'. If there is no progression from one interpretation to the other, that counts plain and simple. I don't like playing history teacher so I won't go into detail. You can do your own research on that and I'm sure many of the posters here will back me up on it. But since you have brought up BTAS a lot, then look no further than Freeze and (to a lesser extent) Clayface. Prime examples of a total reworking with no real precedent or smooth transition.

They were ridiculous characters and they gave them some substance. Its different from changing already great characters to their whims or "vision". In any case all of Nolan's changes have been for realism's sake.

You can't generalize what he applies to one character, to the entire movieverse. Did you yourself not cite BB as representative of the comic book world (at least compared to TDK)? Did the lack of showcasing Ra's immortality prevent the "comic-bookness" found all throughout BB? Of course not.

No, but it was only strike one at that time. Many strikes followed in TDK. Besides, did it really matter to Nolan?