Should the Batman character ever go back to a lighter tone?

[smallville fan]

I'm probably guessing a lot of you would say no to this question(and my answer would be no as well) but after seeing the positive receptions to Batman in The Lego Movie or Batman in Batman: The Brave & The Bold.

This makes me wonder if people are somewhat willing to accept a lighter Batman after Nolan's Trilogy and a weird thought/question came into my mind into whether DC should inject a big dose of levity into the Batman character but not to the point of Adam West or Joel Schumacher sometime in the future but something approaching Brave & The Bold-style?(I know it probably won't happen with Ben Affleck but maybe years and years after?)

NB: This applies to Comics, cartoons, movies, TV etc

Thoughts?

 

[Oswald]

Absolutely not. And the Batman in The Lego Movie is ironical, but no lighter.

 

[Jochimus]

You can play humor off of Batman without making the character himself humorous. B:TAS did it on at least a few occasions (if not more).

At any rate, DARK comedy would be well suited to the Batman franchise - just look at the Joker.

 

[AnneFan]

Well, I prefer the darker tone but voted for maybe. Never say never.

The Brave and the Bold is lighter in tone with a dry wit, and it worked out absolutely fantastic. And it did touch upon topics like death.

 

[SuperFerret]

There are few things I'll give a concrete "yes" to. This is one of them.

 

[DACrowe]

They can. But the franchise will dry up after a few movies in that style. Audiences seem more resistant to it than fans who appreciate the varied history of the character. Well, at least as long as it looks like a Sprang drawing that is.

 

[Shikamaru]

You can have certain takes every now and then that are lighter in tone (i.e. Batman: Brave and the Bold). But for the most part, Batman should be dark, especially in the comics as we know them (not counting Elseworld stories).

Plus, I never understood why you can't have fun/humor/levity in something that is overall dark. Dark and "fun" don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Shikamaru]

double post

 

[Two-Face]

Brave and the Bold was fun indeed but do a live-action film I don't think it will work (if it does make money then great)unless they do add bit dark in there like Batman Forever but mostly it was light then came on Batman & Robin that was even lighter so if WB does lighter Batman film they will add some dark.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Never in this life.

 

[smallville fan]

There are few things I'll give a concrete "yes" to. This is one of them.

What's your reasoning for this?

Absolutely not. And the Batman in The Lego Movie is ironical, but no lighter.

What I meant was that Batman in The Lego Movie was a lot more kid-friendly. I'm wondering would DC ever go back to that.

 

[SuperFerret]

What's your reasoning for this?

I hate the one-note dark, brooding, humorless thing that Batman becomes when the idea that "he's supposed to be dark" gets out of hand.

 

[CountOrlok]

If anything, I'd rather see an even darker take on Batman. Even darker than the Nolan films, but without the boring realism. Something like Sin City or The Crow. More adult, more violent. I'd rather not see a return to the Adam West days.

 

[shauner111]

If anything, I'd rather see an even darker take on Batman. Even darker than the Nolan films, but without the boring realism. Something like Sin City or The Crow. More adult, more violent. I'd rather not see a return to the Adam West days.

That's what i want to see once this Batfleck/Shared Universe thing is over. Have Bruce be in his early-mid 30s. In his prime. And we never see outside of Gotham. No references to life outside of Gotham, much like Burton's universe in that sense. An R-Rated Batman in a stylized world. Really disturbing stuff.

The Snyderverse will most likely give us Batman movies that kids/adults of all ages can enjoy.

 

[Two-Face]

I don't think Batman films needs to be 18. You can still have a great Batman film and don't Frank Millerverse it. TDK is considered one of the best films as it told the story in a 12A/PG-13 fashion.

 

[shauner111]

I totally agree. But to change things up, id like to see an R-Rated Batman.

 

[Two-Face]

If they do then great but WB wouldn't want to miss on parents to make money.

 

[CountOrlok]

I don't think Batman films needs to be 18. You can still have a great Batman film and don't Frank Millerverse it. TDK is considered one of the best films as it told the story in a 12A/PG-13 fashion.

That's because it's one of the most densely plotted Batman films and it succeeds on that front. It had adult themes but not the maturity of films like Batman and Batman Returns. For example, the relationship between Bruce and Selina felt way more natural and real than Bruce/Rachel.

It also cut away every time there was a violent/bloody scene. Compared to Batman/Batman Returns which weren't afraid of showing blood, severed arms and burnt corpses.

The main difference between the Nolan films that people consider them 'darker' is the tone.

 

[The Joker]

That's because it's one of the most densely plotted Batman films and it succeeds on that front. It had adult themes but not the maturity of films like Batman and Batman Returns. For example, the relationship between Bruce and Selina felt way more natural and real than Bruce/Rachel.

That is maturity. Bruce and Rachel were never meant to feel natural because she was not the one for him. That's why she left him for Dent in TDK. That's maturity. Showing someone realizing that they're not right for someone and moving on with someone else. That doesn't happen often in a superhero movie.

It also cut away every time there was a violent/bloody scene. Compared to Batman/Batman Returns which weren't afraid of showing blood, severed arms and burnt corpses.

You saw blood several times in the TDK trilogy, along with other graphic imagery like this: http://screenmusings.org/TheDarkKnight/pages/The-Dark-Knight-2089.htm. Two Face's half burned face was more graphic looking than any of the burned corpses in Burton's, which looked like those zombies that jump out at you on carnival rides.

Not that blood and violence makes a movie more mature. If it did then the Friday the 13th movies and other gory horror movies like that are the most mature movies ever.

Who had a severed arm btw?

 

[Shikamaru]

That's because it's one of the most densely plotted Batman films and it succeeds on that front. It had adult themes but not the maturity of films like Batman and Batman Returns. For example, the relationship between Bruce and Selina felt way more natural and real than Bruce/Rachel.

It also cut away every time there was a violent/bloody scene. Compared to Batman/Batman Returns which weren't afraid of showing blood, severed arms and burnt corpses.

The main difference between the Nolan films that people consider them 'darker' is the tone.

Showing more blood and violence does not equate the film(s) being more mature. It just means they're more violent. Violence and maturity are two entirely different things.

By that same logic, Happy Tree Friends is more mature than the Nolan films because it's a lot more violent.

 

[CountOrlok]

I didn't mean to say that blood and violence make a movie more mature. You just got the wrong impression because I talked about both things in the same post.

That is maturity. Bruce and Rachel were never meant to feel natural because she was not the one for him. That's why she left him for Dent in TDK. That's maturity. Showing someone realizing that they're not right for someone and moving on with someone else. That doesn't happen often in a superhero movie.

Like I said, it had adult themes. It's all in the execution. If at one time I thought their relationship was actually believable, then Rachel's death would have had more impact. As it stands, I don't think the Rachel character is very likeable, either. It's all in the performances as well - something called 'chemistry'.

The tragic love relationship was handled better in Batman Returns.

You saw blood several times in the TDK trilogy, along with other graphic imagery like this: http://screenmusings.org/TheDarkKnight/pages/The-Dark-Knight-2089.htm. Two Face's half burned face was more graphic looking than any of the burned corpses in Burton's, which looked like those zombies that jump out at you on carnival rides.

That's just a scar like on Joker's face, very PG-13. Two-Face was obvious CGI and therefore not that graphic. It was about as realistic as Tommy Lee Jone's makeup from Batman Forever.

Who had a severed arm btw?

Oops, I meant hand. That the Penguin gives to Max Schreck.

 

[The Joker]

Like I said, it had adult themes. It's all in the execution. If at one time I thought their relationship was actually believable, then Rachel's death would have had more impact. As it stands, I don't think the Rachel character is very likeable, either. It's all in the performances as well - something called 'chemistry'.

That's opinion. I could say I didn't find Bruce and Selina believable in BR because they literally only had a 5 minute date together in front of the fire, and the next thing he's ripping off his mask in front of Schreck and asking her to come live with him, after she beat him up, framed him, and blew up a department store.

Factually Bruce and Rachel were childhood friends, knew each other for years, and Bruce had built up a fantasy in his mind that she was the one for him. But Rachel saw it for what it was. "Don't make me your one hope for a normal life".

It was executed very believably and maturely.

That's just a scar like on Joker's face, very PG-13.

No, Joker's scarring in TDK was covered in make up. That's raw stitched up scarring.

Two-Face was obvious CGI and therefore not that graphic.

Who cares if it was CGI? That's like saying something was done with make up. It looked real. That's the point.

It was about as realistic as Tommy Lee Jone's makeup from Batman Forever.

Rubbish. Two Face's make up in BF looked like a bright pink make up job.

To even compare them is ludicrous.

 

[CountOrlok]

That's opinion. I could say I didn't find Bruce and Selina believable in BR because they literally only had a 5 minute date together in front of the fire, and the next thing he's ripping off his mask in front of Schreck and asking her to come live with him, after she beat him up, framed him, and blew up a department store.

Well love is not the most logical of things and there was instant attraction, so you don't need years to build up the romance.

Factually Bruce and Rachel were childhood friends, knew each other for years, and Bruce had built up a fantasy in his mind that she was the one for him. But Rachel saw it for what it was. "Don't make me your one hope for a normal life".

It was executed very believably and maturely.

That's your opinion. It's very cliched, though. And it makes Bruce look a little weak. He'll stay in her friend zone forever, pining after her? That's teenage dramatics, right there. I also don't buy the whole "this girl is my one hope for salvation" thing. Hollywood syrupy cliched nonsense.

No, Joker's scarring in TDK was covered in make up. That's raw stitched up scarring.

Not that raw. Not so raw that it will scare the kiddies. Besides, you see scars like that in plenty of PG-13 films. It was the phone sewn into the belly that was the nastiest part of that scene.

Who cares if it was CGI? That's like saying something was done with make up. It looked real. That's the point.

Makeup effects look better and more realistic. I could tell it was CGI. Whilst a good makeup effect can look seamless.

Rubbish. Two Face's make up in BF looked like a bright pink make up job.

To even compare them is ludicrous.

That's your opinion. I prefer Two-Face's look in TDK. But I wouldn't call it 'realistic'.

 

[The Joker]

Well love is not the most logical of things and there was instant attraction, so you don't need years to build up the romance.

You need development to make it believable. You need to make it believable that someone would sacrifice their secret identity for someone who was an enemy of theirs for most of the movie, after only spending such little time with them. Why would someone as disciplined and cautious as Batman do that.

That's your opinion. It's very cliched, though. And it makes Bruce look a little weak. He'll stay in her friend zone forever, pining after her? That's teenage dramatics, right there. I also don't buy the whole "this girl is my one hope for salvation" thing. Hollywood syrupy cliched nonsense.

That's your opinion. You say love is not logical but you defend Bruce making a fool over himself for a woman he barely knows, giving up his secret identity in front of a villain for her. That's something that's hard to buy. I've never seen Bruce do that.

It's not teenage dramatics. Teenage dramatics is making a fool of yourself over a girl you hardly know. That's more applicable to Bruce in BR. Bruce and Rachel knew each other since they were kids. Their relationship was a lot more grounded and stronger than a quick chat and snog in front of the fire.

Not that raw. Not so raw that it will scare the kiddies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...over-Batmans-violence-in-The-Dark-Knight.html

Besides, you see scars like that in plenty of PG-13 films.

Like?

It was the phone sewn into the belly that was the nastiest part of that scene.

That too.

Makeup effects look better and more realistic.

Nonsense. Not if they are bad or silly looking make up jobs, like the aforementioned Two Face's in BF.

I could tell it was CGI.

I couldn't. But then it wasn't all CGI. It was combination of that and make up. Hence why it looked so good.

That's your opinion.

I'd say that's the general consensus. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious praise for Two Face's make up job in BF. You'd be hard pressed to find any praise at all about him in fact.

 

[CountOrlok]

You need development to make it believable. You need to make it believable that someone would sacrifice their secret identity for someone who was an enemy of theirs for most of the movie, after only spending such little time with them. Why would someone as disciplined and cautious as Batman do that.

Well maybe you should have paid some more attention. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the Batman Returns thread.

That's your opinion. You say love is not logical but you defend Bruce making a fool over himself for a woman he barely knows, giving up his secret identity in front of a villain for her. That's something that's hard to buy. I've never seen Bruce do that.

It was, because I brought the romance, and the scene required that kind of drama.

It's not teenage dramatics. Teenage dramatics is making a fool of yourself over a girl you hardly know. That's more applicable to Bruce in BR. Bruce and Rachel knew each other since they were kids. Their relationship was a lot more grounded and stronger than a quick chat and snog in front of the fire.

To me, their relationship was based around her constantly chastising him and Bruce trying to live up to her expectations. Very dry, very vanilla, very boring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...over-Batmans-violence-in-The-Dark-Knight.html

Politicians are full of ****, all of them. They also complained about Batman '89. Moral wowsers.

Like?

The Shadow (1994)

Nonsense. Not if they are bad or silly looking make up jobs, like the aforementioned Two Face's in BF.

"Whilst a good makeup effect can look seamless."

I couldn't. But then it wasn't all CGI. It was combination of that and make up. Hence why it looked so good.

It was obvious CGI. I knew, when I first saw it.

I'd say that's the general consensus. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious praise for Two Face's make up job in BF. You'd be hard pressed to find any praise at all about him in fact.

It's not as bad as some people say. Rick Baker did the effects, I think.