The Batsuit Master Thread

[darklord1967]

Hey regwec!

Great to see you over here, brother!! Always nice to see a familiar name among new friends.

Regarding the difference between The Batman and other screen heroes:

There is certainly great validity to your point about the other heroes I mentioned being armed versus The Batman not being armed. However, the fact remains that there are ample examples in the careers of all of those characters when they went up against armed adversaries, and they themselves were completely un-armed AND un-protected by any kind of armor.

Furthermore, there are other characters I could point out who get along just fine without protective armor while confronting armed adversaries, and the audience has no difficulty at all accepting this.

I remember the first time many of us ever saw Martial Artist Jet-Li in a mainstream American film. It was in the film Lethal Weapon 4 where he played the villain by the name of Wah Sing Ku. That character was absolutely mesmerizing to some of us in the lethal, precise way that he fought, his blinding fast speed, and the way he seemed to be impervious to the dangers of even gun-armed adversaries while he was armed only with a string! In one of the most amazing moments of that film, he even managed (with a single incredibly fast move) to disarm BOTH of our heroes Sergeant Riggs and Murtaugh, (who both had their guns trained on him at point-blank range) and he even partially disassembled their guns in the process!

That is the type of stuff that I think The Batman should be depicted as being able to do. He is purportedly one of the finest martial artists in the entire world. Let's see some of that! Dressing him in armor robs us of the dramatic opportunity to enjoy the kineticism of those abilities. It robs the audience of the dramatic pathos of watching the exploits of a man who is SO good at what he does that he functions (almost arrogantly) without the safety net of mere armor. It also allows writers to be lazy and to just depict him as clumsily marching directly into the path of gunfire when The Batman would NEVER do that.

Don't you think it would be INCREDIBLY cool to see The Batman using speed and shadows (like a ninja) during a fight? ... Using that dark cape to camouflage himself into a shadow, and emerge at just the right moment to attack an armed hood. It is an incredibly economical but effective screen tool to use with a character like this.

I can tell you this: If a filmmaker had come along on the order of Richard Donner and made a film as faithful and reverential to the Batman comic strip as he made to the Superman strip, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and we'd be hailing that film as one of the greatest Batman films ever... without armor.

 

[Majik1387]

Forgive my mistake darklord, I was used to a lot of posters here quoting /linking those costumes a while back and I figured they found some cosplayer's blog/site and just shared them, had no idea a poster here actually did them.

Plus going by history in fan art/fan work threads(X-Men, Avengers, Batman, Iron Man), a lot of "new" posters with low post count have been knows to try to pass off someone else's work as their own.

Again, I apologize and did not feel as if I came off trolling.

However, I would never want to see those costumes for a live action Batman film. They're not badly made or anything, its just to go back to costumes like that would be a regression instead of a progression.

And Batman: Dead End was a horrible fan film. It had good sets, however the script was dreck, the costume looked bad, the acting was.......people said lines, and I still don't understand why a handful of posters refer to it as a good basis for a costume.

 

[OP84CC82]

If a filmmaker had come along on the order of Richard Donner and made a film as faithful and reverential to the Batman comic strip as he made to the Superman strip, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, and we'd be hailing that film as one of the greatest Batman films ever... without armor.

We? Who do you mean by we? All comic book fans? I think not. Batman Begins is IMO, the BEST Batman film in existence so far.

 

[darklord1967]

Forgive my mistake darklord, I was used to a lot of posters here quoting /linking those costumes a while back and I figured they found some cosplayer's blog/site and just shared them, had no idea a poster here actually did them.

Plus going by history in fan art/fan work threads(X-Men, Avengers, Batman, Iron Man), a lot of "new" posters with low post count have been knows to try to pass off someone else's work as their own. Again, I apologize and did not feel as if I came off trolling.

It's all good, buddy. The whole thing's forgotten.

However, I would never want to see those costumes for a live action Batman film. They're not badly made or anything, its just to go back to costumes like that would be a regression instead of a progression.

I wholeheartedly respect your opinion although I obviously disagree with it. In my view, movie comic book heroes have become far too much about increased elaborate-ness and sculpting of "the costume" and less about "the character". The result has been superhero films that are far less interesting to me.

And Batman: Dead End was a horrible fan film. It had good sets, however the script was dreck, the costume looked bad, the acting was.......people said lines, and I still don't understand why a handful of posters refer to it as a good basis for a costume.

Weak script... perhaps. But bad acting? I'd take Clark Batram's portrayal of The Batman (in Batman: Dead End) ANY DAY OF THE WEEK versus Christian Bale's hammy, constipated, ridiculously forced delivery.

Bad looking costume? Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

We? Who do you mean by we? All comic book fans? I think not. Batman Begins is IMO, the BEST Batman film in existence so far.

Well I'm glad you enjoyed Batman Begins. And I certainly have no interest in taking that away from you.

By "we" I don't refer to comic book fans in general. I refer to those of us (usually older comic book fans) who grew up with Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, and consider it (to this day) to be one of the finest super-hero productions of all time, featuring a tour-de-force physical and psychological performance by the acting leading man (Christopher Reeve) that is un-matched by anything we had seen before or since.

In my view, "Batman Begins" is only second to "The Dark Knight" as one of the worst, most pretentious Batman films ever made.

 

[Bathead]

I must say Darklord. I found these last few posts of yours to reflect almost exactly the way I've felt about the Batman costumes (and the overall conceptas well)in the movies. I certainly hope the next movies will reflect this same aesthetic.
Quite frankly,I'm a little tired of the black rubber armor. All I can hope is someone with Bruce Timm's sensibilities will be put in charge, I though his take on Batman had just the right balance of both traditional and fresh new ideas (like making Mr. Freeze a sympathetic character). It was obvious to me he had and has a great respect for the character. I think that's what's been missing in all the movies to date, as good as most have been.

 

[darklord1967]

Thanks Bathead, pal!

I agree with you about Bruce Timm! He obviously does have a TREMENDOUS respect and working knowledge about The Batman character, and he has a really good handle on how best to depict him.

While other people sing the praises of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight as the best bat-movies ever made, I, instead look toward Batman: Red Hood, an animated feature, as the best.

Obviously, there is no "right" or "wrong" about all of this. The Batman appeals to different people in different ways.

I am only expressing my own viewpoint, of course... one that has no more "validity" than anyone else's.

I just feel that the notion that The Batman would need (or even want) armor of some kind to fight crime (especially the overly-sculpted stuff he wears in the Schumacher and Nolan films) is a contemporary viewpoint. It is a viewpoint that certainly has it's validity.

But I've already said, I have no interest in an overly contemporary "ultra-realistic" approach to The Batman. First and foremost, this is supposed to be a fun comic book fantasy... even movie versions of it. Virtually ALL of the writers and directors of Batman films (who by their own admission know very little about The Batman's comic book history / exploits) have missed this basic point.

The Batman is an extraordinary man. And I don't think he should operate by the standards of just an ordinary man... especially within the context of a comic book fantasy.

For MANY years, The Batman got along just fine in the comics WITHOUT armor. He took more than his share of occasional scrapes, to be sure, but he didn't wear any armor. And the scrapes he took were a big part of the drama of his exploits. Dramatically speaking, what's the point of having the resource of a butler who is a trained former combat medic, if he has no serious injuries to tend to? The Batman traditionally HAD to be really good at what he did because he was un-protected... working without the proverbial "safety net" of armor. Along came the films (shortly after the publishing of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns) and changed all of that.

A movie Batman dressed in a uniform that is traditionally faithful to the one seen in the comics (pre-armor) would NEVER fly for many of you. I know that. And I understand how you feel.

But for me (since it has never even been tried) it is a SORELY missed opportunity to see The Batman depicted in an optimal way. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of live action movie Batmen looking overly stiff, restricted, and cocooned in a suit that should instead look and function like a second skin. I'm sick and tired of an overly sculpted rubber monkey suit dominating the traditional functions of the character. To my eyes, there are no worse offenders of this than the costumes worn by Christian Bale in the last two horrid Batman films. The Batman (in the comics) has traditionally been a mysterious specter, stalking criminals throughout the streets of Gotham with his cape CLOSED in front of him (in the tradition of the cloak-wearing night-watchmen and constables of old, rain-slick, gothic, european cities). But instead, in these big-budget Batman movies by Scumacher and Nolan, they don't DARE depict the character in a way that is appropriate. NO!!! That would mean covering up the multi-million dollar butt-ugly rubber monkey suit.


And what of other super hero films?

THE AVENGERS is this summer's runaway movie blockbuster, and by the estimation of many, possibly THE all-time best comic book movie ever made. Yes, Iron Man (who is armored) is a fun character. Yes, The Hulk (who is a mutant) virtually steals the movie. And Yes, it was great to see Captain America (who uses a shield) in action.

But what about some of the other characters? Black Widow's greatest defensive weapon is her fighting skill... (No ARMOR). In fact, her first scene in the film is SO INTERESTING specifically because she faced off against several armed adversaries COMPLETELY un-armed and un-protected. Hmmm... interesting concept.

What about Hawkeye (Non-super-powered and armed only with a bow and arrow)? He too wore no armor... even as he charged into open COMBAT, against multiple adversaries, in the film's highly-charged climax.

In the film Daredevil (love it or hate it), the (non-super powered) character gets along just fine WITHOUT ARMOR. And that character is about as similar as you can get to The Batman in terms of level of "realism".

I could go on, but honestly, I'm so tired of writing about this subject since I have done it ad-nauseum for years, and it feels like the beating of a dead horse.


Suffice it to say, I know people like it very much, and more power to them. I am not interested in taking away anyone's enjoyment from anything.

But as far as I am concerned, The Batman does NOT need armor.

 

[darklord1967]

In my opinion, the suit worn by Clark Bartram in Batman: Dead End looks a hundred times better then the suits in either Batman Forever or Batman & Robin.

Right on, brother! Preach.t:

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Thanks Bathead, pal!

I agree with you about Bruce Timm! He obviously does have a TREMENDOUS respect and working knowledge about The Batman character, and he has a really good handle on how best to depict him.

While other people sing the praises of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight as the best bat-movies ever made, I, instead look toward Batman: Red Hood, an animated feature, as the best.

Obviously, there is no "right" or "wrong" about all of this. The Batman appeals to different people in different ways.

I am only expressing my own viewpoint, of course... one that has no more "validity" than anyone else's.

I just feel that the notion that The Batman would need (or even want) armor of some kind to fight crime (especially the overly-sculpted stuff he wears in the Schumacher and Nolan films) is a contemporary viewpoint. It is a viewpoint that certainly has it's validity.

But I've already said, I have no interest in an overly contemporary "ultra-realistic" approach to The Batman. First and foremost, this is supposed to be a fun comic book fantasy... even movie versions of it. Virtually ALL of the writers and directors of Batman films (who by their own admission know very little about The Batman's comic book history / exploits) have missed this basic point.

The Batman is an extraordinary man. And I don't think he should operate by the standards of just an ordinary man... especially within the context of a comic book fantasy.

For MANY years, The Batman got along just fine in the comics WITHOUT armor. He took more than his share of occasional scrapes, to be sure, but he didn't wear any armor. And the scrapes he took were a big part of the drama of his exploits. Dramatically speaking, what's the point of having the resource of a butler who is a trained former combat medic, if he has no serious injuries to tend to? The Batman traditionally HAD to be really good at what he did because he was un-protected... working without the proverbial "safety net" of armor. Along came the films (shortly after the publishing of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns) and changed all of that.

A movie Batman dressed in a uniform that is traditionally faithful to the one seen in the comics (pre-armor) would NEVER fly for many of you. I know that. And I understand how you feel.

But for me (since it has never even been tried) it is a SORELY missed opportunity to see The Batman depicted in an optimal way. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of live action movie Batmen looking overly stiff, restricted, and cocooned in a suit that should instead look and function like a second skin. I'm sick and tired of an overly sculpted rubber monkey suit dominating the traditional functions of the character. To my eyes, there are no worse offenders of this than the costumes worn by Christian Bale in the last two horrid Batman films. The Batman (in the comics) has traditionally been a mysterious specter, stalking criminals throughout the streets of Gotham with his cape CLOSED in front of him (in the tradition of the cloak-wearing night-watchmen and constables of old, rain-slick, gothic, european cities). But instead, in these big-budget Batman movies by Scumacher and Nolan, they don't DARE depict the character in a way that is appropriate. NO!!! That would mean covering up the multi-million dollar butt-ugly rubber monkey suit.


And what of other super hero films?

THE AVENGERS is this summer's runaway movie blockbuster, and by the estimation of many, possibly THE all-time best comic book movie ever made. Yes, Iron Man (who is armored) is a fun character. Yes, The Hulk (who is a mutant) virtually steals the movie. And Yes, it was great to see Captain America (who uses a shield) in action.

But what about some of the other characters? Black Widow's greatest defensive weapon is her fighting skill... (No ARMOR). In fact, her first scene in the film is SO INTERESTING specifically because she faced off against several armed adversaries COMPLETELY un-armed and un-protected. Hmmm... interesting concept.

What about Hawkeye (Non-super-powered and armed only with a bow and arrow)? He too wore no armor... even as he charged into open COMBAT, against multiple adversaries, in the film's highly-charged climax.

In the film Daredevil (love it or hate it), the (non-super powered) character gets along just fine WITHOUT ARMOR. And that character is about as similar as you can get to The Batman in terms of level of "realism".

I could go on, but honestly, I'm so tired of writing about this subject since I have done it ad-nauseum for years, and it feels like the beating of a dead horse.


Suffice it to say, I know people like it very much, and more power to them. I am not interested in taking away anyone's enjoyment from anything.

But as far as I am concerned, The Batman does NOT need armor.

Would this be a good time to point out that Batman has been wearing a bulletproof vest since 1940, in a story written by Bill Finger?

 

[OP84CC82]

It's all good, buddy. The whole thing's forgotten.





I wholeheartedly respect your opinion although I obviously disagree with it. In my view, movie comic book heroes have become far too much about increased elaborate-ness and sculpting of "the costume" and less about "the character". The result has been superhero films that are far less interesting to me.





Weak script... perhaps. But bad acting? I'd take Clark Batram's portrayal of The Batman (in Batman: Dead End) ANY DAY OF THE WEEK versus Christian Bale's hammy, constipated, ridiculously forced delivery.

Bad looking costume? Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.





Well I'm glad you enjoyed Batman Begins. And I certainly have no interest in taking that away from you.

By "we" I don't refer to comic book fans in general. I refer to those of us (usually older comic book fans) who grew up with Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie, and consider it (to this day) to be one of the finest super-hero productions of all time, featuring a tour-de-force physical and psychological performance by the acting leading man (Christopher Reeve) that is un-matched by anything we had seen before or since.

In my view, "Batman Begins" is only second to "The Dark Knight" as one of the worst, most pretentious Batman films ever made.

I mainly like the original Superman film just for Christopher Reeve and the rest of the cast (and their portrayal of the characters), not really for the story in any way. But how are the Nolan films "pretentious" in any way? Because the Batsuit and Batmobile don't match what you would want to see on the screen? Because if so, I don't see what's the big deal on the people behind these films taking some creative license and doing their own spin on things, attempting to base these films in reality and giving Batman costumes real world origins. The Begins costume is the closest to what I see as a Batman costume because it is dark (I don't give a damn if it's all-black) and it makes him look like a creature.

 

[darklord1967]

Would this be a good time to point out that Batman has been wearing a bulletproof vest since 1940, in a story written by Bill Finger?

No. The Batman wore a bullet proof vest in that story, true. But it did not become a regular thing after that.

In fact, Batman's comic book history became RIFE with illustrated examples of how un-protected he was (Re: How fairly easily the costume could tear, rip, be slashed, punctured, AND penetrated by bullets.

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't think Batman should necessarily wear armor (and by armor, I mean rubber), but he absolutely should look protected. The material of the suit should look like it can take a punding and perhaps even hold off bullets. If that can be accomplished by dressing him in a flexible material (and I know it can), then I'd have no issue abandoning the rubber.

 

[regwec]

In fact, Batman's comic book history became RIFE with illustrated examples of how un-protected he was (Re: How fairly easily the costume could tear, rip, be slashed, punctured, AND penetrated by bullets.

Yes, I recall Bruce carrying his suit packed in a suitcase when he was traveling in the Middle East during the "Death in the Family" story arc. It was clearly depicted as a simple cloth one-piece.

I don't think Batman should necessarily wear armor (and by armor, I mean rubber), but he absolutely should look protected. The material of the suit should look like it can take a punding and perhaps even hold off bullets.

I would agree that it would be a bit perverse for Batman to wear fabric which is deliberately chosen to make him vulnerable, where something tougher could just as easily be chosen. I think that DL67 makes a compelling argument for Batman's speed and agility being more important than armour, but I suppose there is no reason for flexible cloth not to be tear and slash proof. I used to fence (i.e. with swords), and I still have the glove you use on your fighting hand. The material used in it would be ideal.

If that can be accomplished by dressing him in a flexible material (and I know it can), then I'd have no issue abandoning the rubber.

I think we have seen the last rubber Batsuit. The idea came about as a means of adding sculpted muscle to Micheal Keaton, and it looked okay in the 1980s. There was no real excuse to put Val Kilmer in another version of the same thing, or George Clooney. Using yet another rubber suit for 'Batman Begins' was a bizarre choice, which seemed to slightly undermine its originality and its status as a reboot. And then we got another rubber suit for TDK, and we're getting the same rubber suit in TDKR. Why? It looks ugly, Bale can hardly move in it (despite claims to the contrary, all that heavy rubber is inevitably restrictive), and it is a complacent design choice that is a quarter of a century old and twenty years stale.

I just can't imagine that the next director will dust off this tired and flawed idea yet again.

 

[darklord1967]

But how are the Nolan films "pretentious" in any way? Because the Batsuit and Batmobile don't match what you would want to see on the screen?

I wish those were the only reasons. (much more on this later)

Because if so, I don't see what's the big deal on the people behind these films taking some creative license and doing their own spin on things, attempting to base these films in reality and giving Batman costumes real world origins.

Well the main thing I found disagreeable with the "creative license" taken here is that it is not based from a working knowledge of the character’s source material. You see, I believe that if you’re to going to use “creative license” to change something , then perhaps you’d better (at the very least) be intimately familiar with the property to begin with to adequately do your job!

When Richard Donner made Superman:The Movie, he took "creative license" too. Jon Favereau took "creative license" with Iron Man. There was "creative license" taken with Captain America: The First Avenger... the list goes on... The difference is, the people who helmed those productions respected the characters enough to study them and to research their history BEFORE they made their films. The results (in my mind) are far better productions than Nolan’s Bat-films.

By his own admission, Nolan and his writers have had no interest in doing this type of historic research into The Caped Crusader.

To my sensibility, "creative license" is just fine. But when it happens within an ignorance of the foundations of the character, that's when the result is a hot mess.

But to be fair, Nolan isn't entirely at fault, here. This entire Bat-disaster started back in 1989 when Tim Burton (another non-comic book reader), in his infinite wisdom, decided that he should cast a short, balding comedian as Bruce Wayne / The Batman. The tone for all of this wildly diverging Batman "creative license” on film was set then. Schumacher and Nolan just took that ball and ran with it.

 

[darklord1967]

The Begins costume is the closest to what I see as a Batman costume because it is dark (I don't give a damn if it's all-black) and it makes him look like a creature.

To my eyes, both the Batman Begins and Dark Knight costumes make him look NOTHING like a "creature". As I see him, he looks more like a dude trapped and imprisoned in an uncomfortable techno-suit that is painfully restrictive, and gives him the high-tech appearance of Robo-Cop with a bat cape. To me, there is NOTHING about that suit that is organic looking, gothic, or creature-like... with the possible exception of the scalloped bat-motif of his cape.

 

[darklord1967]

But how are the Nolan films "pretentious" in any way?

You might want to get comfortable, because this could get long...


First let me say (in a general way), that Nolan's take on The Batman is (in my eyes) pretentious in that it attempts to give a European peudo-intellectual complexity to a story that should be about as simple and uniquely American in its origins as can be.

1) The films are overly derivative of earlier Bat-film works, with lazy writing, and in some cases there are gaps in logic in them that you could drive a truck through.

2) Some characters are never used to their fullest dramatic potential

3) Our hero is portrayed by an actor who CLEARLY has a poor understanding of the character or how he has historically functioned in the pages of the comics.

4) The director (with his poor understanding of the character) occassionally stages scenes that are wholly inappropriate for the tone of the work and that are just downright painful to watch in their clumsiness.

5) For the sake of "spectacle", our hero is portrayed as a mindless grunting brute who is about as un-skilled, clumsy and non-elegant as can be. His machinery and technology seem to be used for the purposes of creating as much property damage as possible rather than forwarding the story in a sensible way.


Alright... now let me get MORE specific within each film:

 

[darklord1967]

BATMAN BEGINS:

When this film was released in 2005, as a Batman fan, I was excited to see it. Joel Schumacher’s neon-lit take on the Batman was still a bad memory, and I was interested to see something with more seriousness.

And to be fair, I must say that I found the first 40 minutes or so of BATMAN BEGINS to be brilliant. Absolutely BRILLIANT!! The origin tale (as handled by Christopher Nolan) was properly dark, gothic, and wholly tragic. I have to give MAJOR props here to actors Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), Gus Lewis (Bruce Wayne age 8), Richard Brake (Joe Chill), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), and of course Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth). The staging of the horrible scene of the Wayne’s murder… young Bruce Wayne’s loneliness, guilt, and anguish afterward… Alfred’s caring for this distraught, heartbroken little boy… ALL OF IT beautifully directed, staged, and acted.

My problem with the film came AFTER The Batman character is introduced. This is where everything fell apart for me. This is where some of the writing felt lazy, un-inspired, and flat-out contradictory to what the basic conventions of the Batman mythology have been established to be.

Take for example Bruce Wayne’s relationship to Lucius Fox. For YEARS in the comics, Bruce Wayne found clever and creative ways to keep his identity as The Batman secret from Lucius as he utilized the latest Wayne Corp technology for his war on crime.

Instead, what do we have in this film? We have Bruce Wayne… Gotham’s billionaire playboy… advising Mr. Fox about how he would like to acquire the high tech suits, materials and vehicles developed by Wayne Corp for his own personal use (for “base jumping” and “spelunking&#8221… the same paraphernalia used by Gotham’s new Bat-vigilante. He all but advertises that he is The Batman.

We have Bruce taking a test drive in that butt-ugly “Tumbler” tank-thing, and asking Fox if it comes in black.

Groan. Lazy writing.

It is much more challenging to write Bruce Wayne as a VERY VERY clever cover-up artist who really knows how to cover his tracks, than it is to write him as an idiot who basically hands his double identity over to Lucius Fox on a platter.

Speaking of THE BATMAN’S PORTRAYAL, let’s get into that:

Christian Bale. I’ve always liked his work. I think he is a very good actor. But to me, he is quite possibly the WORST Batman ever to appear on screen. I’m actually not sure who did a worse job with the character between Bale and George Clooney (with his shakey-head performance). And believe me, that opinion has very little to do with that butt-ugly suit that Christian Bale wore.


Let’s break this down bit by bit:

For YEARS in the comics The Batman that I preferred was the dark, brooding, MOSTLY SILENT, grim avenger of the night, who most Gothamites thought of as an urban legend boogeyman… a myth to frighten bad guys. His predominant silence was creepy in a Michael Myers sort of way, and it gave strength and power to other characters around him (like Robin The Boy Wonder) who were the exact opposite in their own approach. The Batman was GOTHIC and basically low-tech in his gimmick as a street warrior (using stealth, mis-direction, and ninja shadow techniques etc.), and he was ultra high tech as a detective and forensic crime investigator (mostly back at the Batcave).

Well the movies have gone a LONG way in DOING AWAY with that basic prescription. I don’t like it, but it is what it is. Characters change. And this is a case where I simply do not agree with where the character has gone during these changes. I fully admit that.

Let’s move on.

Let’s look at Christian Bale’s performance as Bruce Wayne / Batman. As Wayne, Bale is properly pompous, arrogant, breezy and carefree. The perfect picture of a billionaire playboy. But as The Batman… sigh… things are just not very good at all, I’m afraid. This is partially the script’s fault, and partially his own. The MOST glaringly offensive thing to me about Bale as The Batman is the voice he developed for his delivery. Bale explained in an interview that he chose that voice to seem more animal-like. And defenders of Bale’s Bat-performance have explained that the voice is a realistic way for The Batman to erase all connections between himself and Bruce Wayne. I feel compelled to point out that if The Baman had remained a basically silent spooky character, (as he been in the comics years ago), this might NEVER have been an issue to begin with. All of the very best Batman comic book writers and editors are in unanimous agreement that the real “disguise” is NOT The Batman. It is instead Bruce Wayne. The true persona… the true individual occupying that host body is “The Bat”. So anything fake, artificial, or “manufactured” for the purpose of creating a distance between the two personalities should be connected to Bruce Wayne… not The Batman. It is Bruce Wayne’s voice that would have been consciously pitched higher and made more jovial and silly, while the Batman speaks (very sparingly) in his true un-disguised voice full of outrage, pain, and brooding. A Clint Eastwood-like whisper spoken from the shadows would go a LONG way toward scaring the HELL out of anyone. Bale’s Batman voice was downright laughable. It sounded painfully forced… like a child play-acting on what a “tough guy” should sound like. It… was… horrible. Badly distracting. And it was a clear indication of Bale’s poor understanding of this character. Kevin Conroy understood this principle beautifully, and this is why he is probably the definitive voice for The Batman for many, many fans. In the comics, there have been instances (even in recent years), where Alfred Pennyworth has had to use his experience as a stage actor to actually coach Bruce Wayne on what his silly, frivolous playboy voice should sound like (to make a greater separation from The Batman). I say again: Wayne is the manufactured personality with the fake "put on" voice. Both Nolan and Bale missed this basic point entirely. Or was this their "creative license" at work again?


In this film (once again) we have TWO bat-villains to contend with (a formula, which I’m sorry to say, has been established since 1992’s Batman Returns, and seems to be here to stay. To me, this makes for an overall un-focused script since each Bat-villain has their own unique “gimmick” about them that (if given the chance) could definitely carry the antagonism against our hero for an entire film. Mixing the villain gimmicks has always seemed SO contrived to me in the bat-films. I’m not saying it should NEVER be done. But I am asking why must it ALWAYS be done? I’m also suggesting that if it MUST be done, then please be more careful about which two villains you combine. Be sure they create an interesting complimentary dramatic foil for our hero, and not just “two bad guys” thrown together to face The Batman. I just think that a Bat-villain becomes a stronger threat when the Batman must face him (and his particular unique challenge) alone. A Batman film where our hero must face The Scarecrow (and his villain gimmicks), just feels stylistically like a different film than one where the Dark knight must face R’as Al Ghul. Mixing the two feels to me like pouring ketchup (which I like) onto my favorite slice of cake. The two kinda cancel each other out and make for an un-pleasant meal.


Another un-pleasant by-product of this type of villain mixing is that you end up with watered-down versions of both villains as they appear in the original source material, and therefore far less interesting (at least to my eyes). For example, to me, what makes R’as Al Ghul interesting as a comic book Bat-villain is:

A) How he appears to have lived a VERY long time. (CHECK)
B) How he knows our hero’s true identity. (CHECK)
C) How he rejuvenates himself in the Lazarus Pit whenever he is near death. (Uh, nope. Missed that one)
D) How his daughter Talia is one of the few women who have been able to come close to seducing The Batman (Uh, nope. Missed that one too)


By the climax of BATMAN BEGINS, the script has deteriorated into an overly derivative mess that left me crushed in my disappointment. Really? ANOTHER villain GASSING the citizens of Gotham City (shades of Tim Burton’s ’89 Batman climax)??? Was that really the best they could come up with?

Geez.

Epic fail… even more so after such a promising beginning.

 

[OP84CC82]

I wish those were the only reasons. (much more on this later)





Well the main thing I found disagreeable with the "creative license" taken here is that it is not based from a working knowledge of the character’s source material. You see, I believe that if you’re to going to use “creative license” to change something , then perhaps you’d better (at the very least) be intimately familiar with the property to begin with to adequately do your job!

When Richard Donner made Superman:The Movie, he took "creative license" too. Jon Favereau took "creative license" with Iron Man. There was "creative license" taken with Captain America: The First Avenger... the list goes on... The difference is, the people who helmed those productions respected the characters enough to study them and to research their history BEFORE they made their films. The results (in my mind) are far better productions than Nolan’s Bat-films.

By his own admission, Nolan and his writers have had no interest in doing this type of historic research into The Caped Crusader.

To my sensibility, "creative license" is just fine. But when it happens within an ignorance of the foundations of the character, that's when the result is a hot mess.

But to be fair, Nolan isn't entirely at fault, here. This entire Bat-disaster started back in 1989 when Tim Burton (another non-comic book reader), in his infinite wisdom, decided that he should cast a short, balding comedian as Bruce Wayne / The Batman. The tone for all of this wildly diverging Batman "creative license” on film was set then. Schumacher and Nolan just took that ball and ran with it.

What if a director stepped in who did research on the comics and the character, and we still got something similar to what Nolan did with trying to make it realistic?

 

[darklord1967]

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)



This film began (for me) on such a sour note, and just got worse as it went along. The thing that struck me the most in this movie is how clumsy and inept the title character is depicted as being throughout the film. But I guess that’s just more of Chris Nolan’s “artistic license”.

Here are a couple of examples:

In the early parking lot scene in the film where The Batman faces off against The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) (again?) and his men, our hero leaps onto the side of their get-away van. They shake him off by veering their vehicle sideways and plowing The Batman into a parking lot pillar.

A parking lot pillar? Really?? I actually laughed out loud on opening night when I first saw that.

So a ploy that worked brilliantly against dumb NAZI STOOGES in the truck chase from Raiders Of The Lost Ark worked against The Batman??

How about the truck chase against The Joker (with The Batman driving the Bat-Pod)? A pretty exciting scene. But at the conclusion of the chase, The Batman is bearing down upon the Joker (who is now on foot) and he has him dead in his sights. At the last moment, our hero skids the bike and breaks his ass. Even Commissioner Gordon has to show up to save The Batman’s bacon.

So what’s with all this crashing nonsense? Does the Batman forget how to drive his own vehicles everytime he faces off against The Joker? By the way, this is (once again) MORE derivative “shades” of Burton’s ’89 Batman film with the crash of the Batwing after a face off with The Joker. But at least in Burton’s film, things made more sense. After all, The Joker actually shot the Batman’s high-tech (presumably) bullet-resistant plane right out of the sky with a single shot from his hand gun. Er… wait, forget what I said about it “making sense”.

Let’s move on.

STAGING:

For some odd reason, Chris Nolan has decided (I guess due to his applied “artistic license"), that sightings of The Batman should NOT be limited to the cover of darkness or shadows or even the NIGHT itself (as evidenced by stills of the upcoming big fight with Bane and his men on the steps of Gotham City Hall in DAMNED BROAD DAYLIGHT in this summer’s The Dark Knight Rises). Never mind that darkness is as BASIC to the Batman mythology as his cape. Sheeeesh.

I remember seeing stills of The Joker’s police headquarters interrogation in a bright neon-lit room prior to the release of The Dark Knight. I also remember thinking, “Gee, that’s not right. I mean, that’s Adam West “fully deputized agent of the law” type of crap.” But when the film came out, I gave the scene the benefit of the doubt. It was worse than I thought. In fact, the scene was so laughably BAD, that parodies of it (and Bale’s ridiculously out of control performance) have actually gone viral on youtube.

The scene starts with Jim Gordon’s questioning of The Joker in a dark interrogation room (lit only by a small desk lamp). When that does not go well, he removes the Joker’s cuffs (the hell??), gets up, turns on the room’s overhead bright lights (revealing The Batman) and leaves the room. Then he stands watching through the interrogation room window (WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER COPS) as a (lawless vigilante) masked man questions an un-shackled homicidal suspect and then starts to beat him up in a BRIGHTLY LIT ROOM.

A more “realistic” take on Batman, some of you say? Really?? Um... okay, if you say so.



To me, this interrogation scene falls apart on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin:

First off, this scene negates the special, semi-official sanctioning relationship that exists exclusively between The Batman and Jim Gordon. The costumed hero does not have a relationship with Gotham PD so much as he has one with Gordon. So having The Joker’s Bat-interrogation begin with a bunch of cops watching along with Gordon makes no sense to me.

Secondly. The Batman seems so un-characteristically out of control here. Yelling (with that stupid forced growl, with a hint of a lisp) “Where is she?!!!” “Where is she?!!!!” Just awful.

The comic book character is (for the most part) known for his cold, calculating, calm demeanor (again, in the tradition of Michael Myers or Darth Vader) even in the face of an emergency. So all of this out of control yelling just seems out of place to me.

I know. I know. Nolan’s “creative license”.

Then thirdly, there’s the issue of the dramatic viability of staging a costumed hero’s interrogation of a clown villain in a brightly lit room at police headquarters. Not particularly gothic in its tone, I’d say.

Here’s a couple of alternatives. Try them on for size and see if they wouldn't have worked better for these characters:

Does anyone remember the opening scene from Alan Moore’s classic The Killing Joke? Now that was some serious staging! During a stormy, rainy night, The Batmobile pulls up to the gate of the ancient and creepy Arkham Asylum. Our hero, still dripping rain water, enters the gloomy institution and is met by Commisioner Jim Gordon who leads him to the cell of his chief nemesis: The Joker. A lone figure sits inside in the opressive darkness, playing a game of solitaire at a small table, lit only by a small overhead light. The cell door opens and a jagged blade of light cuts into the room as The Batman enters as a back-lit silhouette. He pulls a chair and calmly sits directly across from the villainous figure who has not reacted at all to The Dark Knight’s appearance. “Hello. I came to talk…”

I get chills even writing it.

If I had staged the Joker’s interrogation in THE DARK KNIGHT film, I would have certainly had a different approach to the staging. Jim Gordon’s preliminary questioning would have happened in a brightly lit space so that the audience could see that THERE IS NO ONE ELSE IN THE ROOM except the two of them. Then when Gordon leaves, I would have had him shut OFF the main light, leaving the room mostly in darkness except for a small hanging overhead pendant directly above the table. Then all the cops that had been watching would disperse, leaving Gordon ALONE to observe this psycho from behind the interrogation glass. Suddenly, something hurls the Joker across the room, slamming him face-first into the interrogation glass, spider-webbing. Gordon continues to watch calmly and light his smoking pipe. The overhead pendant light swings back and fourth from The Joker’s flying body having hit it. The shifting light in the room intermittently reveals a large creepy, shadowy Bat-figure stalking The Joker from inside the room. Since the audience has already seen the room beforehand brightly lit and has established that it was EMPTY, The Batman’s sudden appearance in the dark would come off as creepy, mysterious and specter-like. HOW did The Batman get into a sealed room? It doesn't matter!! He's The Batman!!

A steel-toed boot plows into The Joker's jaw, and then a pair of powerful arms heaving the shrieking clown to his feet to stare into The Batman’s primal masked face. In a whispered, nightmarish voice that seems barely human, The caped crusader hisses… “Where is she?” CUT TO: The Batman speeding off in The Batmobile on his way to the scene of Rachel Dawes imprisonment...

Done. Simple. Effective. And it services the characters.

Nolan, instead wanted to use this scene as a vehicle to get into the whole dull, pretentious (verbal) psychology of The Batman and Joker as “Ying and Yang”. (Re: “Don’t talk like one of them! You’re a freak... like me! They’ll cast you out”... Blah, blah, blah... "You complete me..." Blabbity, blah..."

And then Nolan hits us over the head with this theme AGAIN at the film's climax as The Joker faces The Batman while hanging upside down outside a window. "you won't kill me because of some misplaced Blabbity-blah, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. Yakitty-yak, yak...

Overkill. One pretentious scene is more than enough.


And later on, we get even MORE pretentious psycho-babble via Harvey Dent (Re: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”) Really? Are those the only two options? What the hell does that exactly even mean?? And of course that nugget leads directly to this nonsense ending:

James Jr. Why's he running, Dad?
James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
James Jr: He didn't do anything wrong.
James Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

The kid here seems to me to be the only character with LOGIC and SENSE when he points out that The Batman didn‘t do anything wrong. In fact, he saved Gordon’s entire family from being killed by Two-Face. And for that, Gotham needs to make him a villain????

Huh????????

I have yet to have someone adequately explain to me why The Batman needed to become Gotham’s villain after the events of The Dark Knight. Why couldn’t the people of Gotham City just have been told, “Listen, Harvey Dent tragically went nuts (partially because of what The Joker did to him). He became Two-Face, and became a homicidal, psychotic general pain-in-the-ass who tried to murder the family of the Police Commissioner. He’s gone now (good riddance), thanks to our hero The Batman. Yaaay!! Three cheers for Batman!!! Hip, hip… ”

Why couldn’t they be told this? After all, it was the truth!! So instead of that, Gordon and The Batman contrive a LIE to perpetrate on the city of Gotham. And Why? So that they can continue to have a villain that they can hunt? Really??? Are you friggin’ kidding me???

PRETENTIOUS with a capital “PRE”!!!

 

[darklord1967]

What if a director stepped in who did research on the comics and the character, and we still got something similar to what Nolan did with trying to make it realistic?

It has yet to happen concerning The Batman, so I can't even really address that.

I didn't say that "artistic license" combined with proper research (when putting together a Superhero film) always works out into a great film.

Instead, all I meant to suggest was that in all of the finest examples of an exceptional Superhero film that I can think of (where artistic license was employed), it tended to happen in conjunction with a strong working knowledge of the character (by the Screenwriters and Director).

You can't really improve something effectively if you don't know a whole lot about it to begin with, i don't think.

 

[OP84CC82]

BATMAN BEGINS:

When this film was released in 2005, as a Batman fan, I was excited to see it. Joel Schumacher’s neon-lit take on the Batman was still a bad memory, and I was interested to see something with more seriousness.

And to be fair, I must say that I found the first 40 minutes or so of BATMAN BEGINS to be brilliant. Absolutely BRILLIANT!! The origin tale (as handled by Christopher Nolan) was properly dark, gothic, and wholly tragic. I have to give MAJOR props here to actors Linus Roache (Thomas Wayne), Guy Roache (Bruce Wayne age 8), Richard Brake (Joe Chill), Tom Wilkinson (Carmine Falcone), and of course Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth). The staging of the horrible scene of the Wayne’s murder… young Bruce Wayne’s loneliness, guilt, and anguish afterward… Alfred’s caring for this distraught, heartbroken little boy… ALL OF IT beautifully directed, staged, and acted.

My problem with the film came AFTER The Batman character is introduced. This is where everything fell apart for me. This is where some of the writing felt lazy, un-inspired, and flat-out contradictory to what the basic conventions of the Batman mythology have been established to be.

Take for example Bruce Wayne’s relationship to Lucius Fox. For YEARS in the comics, Bruce Wayne found clever and creative ways to keep his identity as The Batman secret from Lucius as he utilized the latest Wayne Corp technology for his war on crime.

Instead, what do we have in this film? We have Bruce Wayne… Gotham’s billionaire playboy… advising Mr. Fox about how he would like to acquire the high tech suits, materials and vehicles developed by Wayne Corp for his own personal use (for “base jumping” and “spelunking”)… the same paraphernalia used by Gotham’s new Bat-vigilante. He all but advertises that he is The Batman.

We have Bruce taking a test drive in that butt-ugly “Tumbler” tank-thing, and asking Fox if it comes in black.

Groan. Lazy writing.

It is much more challenging to write Bruce Wayne as a VERY VERY clever cover-up artist who really knows how to cover his tracks, than it is to write him as an idiot who basically hands his double identity over to Lucius Fox on a platter.

Speaking of THE BATMAN’S PORTRAYAL, let’s get into that:

Christian Bale. I’ve always liked his work. I think he is a very good actor. But to me, he is quite possibly the WORST Batman ever to appear on screen. I’m actually not sure who did a worse job with the character between Bale and George Clooney (with his shakey-head performance). And believe me, that opinion has very little to do with that butt-ugly suit that Christian Bale wore.


Let’s break this down bit by bit:

For YEARS in the comics The Batman that I preferred was the dark, brooding, MOSTLY SILENT, grim avenger of the night, who most Gothamites thought of as an urban legend boogeyman… a myth to frighten bad guys. His predominant silence was creepy in a Michael Myers sort of way, and it gave strength and power to other characters around him (like Robin The Boy Wonder) who were the exact opposite in their own approach. The Batman was GOTHIC and basically low-tech in his gimmick as a street warrior (using stealth, mis-direction, and ninja shadow techniques etc.), and he was ultra high tech as a detective and forensic crime investigator (mostly back at the Batcave).

Well the movies have gone a LONG way in DOING AWAY with that basic prescription. I don’t like it, but it is what it is. Characters change. And this is a case where I simply do not agree with where the character has gone during these changes. I fully admit that.

Let’s move on.

Let’s look at Christian Bale’s performance as Bruce Wayne / Batman. As Wayne, Bale is properly pompous, arrogant, breezy and carefree. The perfect picture of a billionaire playboy. But as The Batman… sigh… things are just not very good at all, I’m afraid. This is partially the script’s fault, and partially his own. The MOST glaringly offensive thing to me about Bale as The Batman is the voice he developed for his delivery. Bale explained in an interview that he chose that voice to seem more animal-like. And defenders of Bale’s Bat-performance have explained that the voice is a realistic way for The Batman to erase all connections between himself and Bruce Wayne. I feel compelled to point out that if The Baman had remained a basically silent spooky character, (as he been in the comics years ago), this might NEVER have been an issue to begin with. All of the very best Batman comic book writers and editors are in unanimous agreement that the real “disguise” is NOT The Batman. It is instead Bruce Wayne. The true persona… the true individual occupying that host body is “The Bat”. So anything fake, artificial, or “manufactured” for the purpose of creating a distance between the two personalities should be connected to Bruce Wayne… not The Batman. It is Bruce Wayne’s voice that would have been consciously pitched higher and made more jovial and silly, while the Batman speaks (very sparingly) in his true un-disguised voice full of outrage, pain, and brooding. A Clint Eastwood-like whisper spoken from the shadows would go a LONG way toward scaring the HELL out of anyone. Bale’s Batman voice was downright laughable. It sounded painfully forced… like a child play-acting on what a “tough guy” should sound like. It… was… horrible. Badly distracting. And it was a clear indication of Bale’s poor understanding of this character. Kevin Conroy understood this principle beautifully, and this is why he is probably the definitive voice for The Batman for many, many fans. In the comics, there have been instances (even in recent years), where Alfred Pennyworth has had to use his experience as a stage actor to actually coach Bruce Wayne on what his silly, frivolous playboy voice should sound like (to make a greater separation from The Batman). I say again: Wayne is the manufactured personality with the fake "put on" voice. Both Nolan and Bale missed this basic point entirely. Or was this their "creative license" at work again?


In this film (once again) we have TWO bat-villains to contend with (a formula, which I’m sorry to say, has been established since 1992’s Batman Returns, and seems to be here to stay. To me, this makes for an overall un-focused script since each Bat-villain has their own unique “gimmick” about them that (if given the chance) could definitely carry the antagonism against our hero for an entire film. Mixing the villain gimmicks has always seemed SO contrived to me in the bat-films. I’m not saying it should NEVER be done. But I am asking why must it ALWAYS be done? I’m also suggesting that if it MUST be done, then please be more careful about which two villains you combine. Be sure they create an interesting complimentary dramatic foil for our hero, and not just “two bad guys” thrown together to face The Batman. I just think that a Bat-villain becomes a stronger threat when the Batman must face him (and his particular unique challenge) alone. A Batman film where our hero must face The Scarecrow (and his villain gimmicks), just feels stylistically like a different film than one where the Dark knight must face R’as Al Ghul. Mixing the two feels to me like pouring ketchup (which I like) onto my favorite slice of cake. The two kinda cancel each other out and make for an un-pleasant meal.


Another un-pleasant by-product of this type of villain mixing is that you end up with watered-down versions of both villains as they appear in the original source material, and therefore far less interesting (at least to my eyes). For example, to me, what makes R’as Al Ghul interesting as a comic book Bat-villain is:

A) How he appears to have lived a VERY long time. (CHECK)
B) How he knows our hero’s true identity. (CHECK)
C) How he rejuvenates himself in the Lazarus Pit whenever he is near death. (Uh, nope. Missed that one)
D) How his daughter Talia is one of the few women who have been able to come close to seducing The Batman (Uh, nope. Missed that one too)


By the climax of BATMAN BEGINS, the script has deteriorated into an overly derivative mess that left me crushed in my disappointment. Really? ANOTHER villain GASSING the citizens of Gotham City (shades of Tim Burton’s ’89 Batman climax)??? Was that really the best they could come up with?

Geez.

Epic fail… even more so after such a promising beginning.

It seems more to me when watching the film that he wasn't trying to hide his identity from Lucius because, once he realized how much of a trustworthy person he is and because he would need his help in providing him with his arsenal, it would be more detrimental not to have him as an ally. I can agree with you on Batman's voice but not the overall character. And your complaining about the Lazarus Pit not being in the film makes no sense considering the point of this film was to make the overall universe that Batman occupies a heightened reality, rather than a comic book universe.

 

[Boy Scout]

I would agree that it would be a bit perverse for Batman to wear fabric which is deliberately chosen to make him vulnerable, where something tougher could just as easily be chosen. I think that DL67 makes a compelling argument for Batman's speed and agility being more important than armour, but I suppose there is no reason for flexible cloth not to be tear and slash proof. I used to fence (i.e. with swords), and I still have the glove you use on your fighting hand. The material used in it would be ideal.

I think the MOS suit and Captain America's Avengers suit are perfect examples of flexible, but durable looking material.

I think we have seen the last rubber Batsuit. The idea came about as a means of adding sculpted muscle to Micheal Keaton, and it looked okay in the 1980s. There was no real excuse to put Val Kilmer in another version of the same thing, or George Clooney. Using yet another rubber suit for 'Batman Begins' was a bizarre choice, which seemed to slightly undermine its originality and its status as a reboot. And then we got another rubber suit for TDK, and we're getting the same rubber suit in TDKR. Why? It looks ugly, Bale can hardly move in it (despite claims to the contrary, all that heavy rubber is inevitably restrictive), and it is a complacent design choice that is a quarter of a century old and twenty years stale.

I just can't imagine that the next director will dust off this tired and flawed idea yet again.

I dunno. I'm not sure if I can see them abandoning the rubber any time soon, but at the same time, I can see them experimenting with different material/fabrics to see if they can find something that'll look just as impressive. It'll probably depend on who they hire and what the story calls for. If Batman is meant to be a shadowy wraith, rubber will hardly be appropriate. But if they're continuing with a realistic tone, then rubber, in that context, will make sense.

And for the record, the BB suit has been my favorite of all the live-action Batsuits.

 

[OP84CC82]

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)



This film began (for me) on such a sour note, and just got worse as it went along. The thing that struck me the most in this movie is how clumsy and inept the title character is depicted as being throughout the film. But I guess that’s just more of Chris Nolan’s “artistic license”.

Here are a couple of examples:

In the early parking lot scene in the film where The Batman faces off against The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) (again?) and his men, our hero leaps onto the side of their get-away van. They shake him off by veering their vehicle sideways and plowing The Batman into a parking lot pillar.

A parking lot pillar? Really?? I actually laughed out loud on opening night when I first saw that.

So a ploy that worked brilliantly against dumb NAZI STOOGES in the truck chase from Raiders Of The Lost Ark worked against The Batman??

How about the truck chase against The Joker (with The Batman driving the Bat-Pod)? A pretty exciting scene. But at the conclusion of the chase, The Batman is bearing down upon the Joker (who is now on foot) and he has him dead in his sights. At the last moment, our hero skids the bike and breaks his ass. Even Commissioner Gordon has to show up to save The Batman’s bacon.

So what’s with all this crashing nonsense? Does the Batman forget how to drive his own vehicles everytime he faces off against The Joker? By the way, this is (once again) MORE derivative “shades” of Burton’s ’89 Batman film with the crash of the Batwing after a face off with The Joker. But at least in Burton’s film, things made more sense. After all, The Joker actually shot the Batman’s high-tech (presumably) bullet-resistant plane right out of the sky with a single shot from his hand gun. Er… wait, forget what I said about it “making sense”.

Let’s move on.

STAGING:

For some odd reason, Chris Nolan has decided (I guess due to his applied “artistic license"), that sightings of The Batman should NOT be limited to the cover of darkness or shadows or even the NIGHT itself (as evidenced by stills of the upcoming big fight with Bane and his men on the steps of Gotham City Hall in DAMNED BROAD DAYLIGHT in this summer’s The Dark Knight Rises). Nevermind that darkness is as BASIC to the Batman mythology as his cape. Sheeeesh.

I remember seeing stills of The Joker’s police headquarters interrogation in a bright neon-lit room prior to the release of The Dark Knight. I also remember thinking, “Gee, that’s not right. I mean, that’s Adam West “fully deputized agent of the law” type of crap.” But when the film came out, I gave the scene the benefit of the doubt. It was worse than I thought. In fact, the scene was so laughably BAD, that parodies of it (and Bale’s ridiculously out of control performance) have actually gone viral on youtube.

The scene starts with Jim Gordon’s questioning of The Joker in a dark interrogation room (lit only by a small desk lamp). When that does not go well, he removes the Joker’s cuffs (the hell??), gets up, turns on the room’s overhead bright lights (revealing The Batman) and leaves the room. Then he stands watching through the interrogation room window (WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER COPS) as a (lawless vigilante) masked man questions an un-shackled homicidal suspect and then starts to beat him up in a BRIGHTLY LIT ROOM.



A more “realistic” take on Batman, some of you say? Really?? Okay, if you say so.

To me, this scene falls apart on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin:

First off, this scene negates the special, semi-official sanctioning relationship that exists exclusively between The Batman and Jim Gordon. The costumed hero does not have a relationship with Gotham PD so much as he has one with Gordon. So having The Joker’s Bat-interrogation begin with a bunch of cops watching along with Gordon makes no sense to me.

Secondly. The Batman seems so un-characteristically out of control here. Yelling (with that stupid forced growl, with a hint of a lisp) “Where is she?!!!” “Where is she?!!!!” Just awful.

The comic book character is (for the most part) known for his cold, calculating, calm demeanor (again, in the tradition of Michael Myers or Darth Vader) even in the face of an emergency. So all of this out of control yelling just seems out of place to me.



I know. I know. Nolan’s “creative license”.

Then thirdly, there’s the issue of the dramatic viability of staging a costumed hero’s interrogation of a clown villain in a brightly lit room at police headquarters. Not particularly gothic in its tone, I’d say.

Here’s a couple of alternatives. Try them on for size and see if they wouldn't have worked better for these characters:

Does anyone remember the opening scene from Alan Moore’s classic The Killing Joke? Now that was some serious staging! During a stormy, rainy night, The Batmobile pulls up to the gate of the ancient and creepy Arkham Asylum. Our hero, still dripping rain water, enters the gloomy institution and is met by Commisioner Jim Gordon who leads him to the cell of his chief nemesis: The Joker. A lone figure sits inside in the opressive darkness, playing a game of solitaire at a small table, lit only by a small overhead light. The cell door opens and a jagged blade of light cuts into the room as The Batman enters as a back-lit silhouette. He pulls a chair and calmly sits directly across from the villainous figure who has not reacted at all to The Dark Knight’s appearance. “Hello. I came to talk…”

I get chills even writing it.

If I had staged the Joker’s interrogation in THE DARK KNIGHT film, I would have certainly had a different approach to the staging. Jim Gordon’s preliminary questioning would have happened in a brightly lit space so that the audience could see that THERE IS NO ONE ELSE IN THE ROOM except the two of them. Then when Gordon leaves, I would have had him shut OFF the main light, leaving the room mostly in darkness except for a small hanging overhead pendant directly above the table. Then all the cops that had been watching would disperse, leaving Gordon ALONE to observe this psycho from behind the interrogation glass. Suddenly, something hurls the Joker across the room, slamming him face-first into the interrogation glass, spider-webbing. Gordon continues to watch calmly and light his smoking pipe. The overhead pendant light swings back and fourth from The Joker’s flying body having hit it. The shifting light in the room intermittently reveals a large creepy, shadowy Bat-figure stalking The Joker from inside the room. Since the audience has already seen the room beforehand brightly lit and has established that it was EMPTY, The Batman’s sudden appearance in the dark would come off as creepy, mysterious and specter-like. HOW did The Batman get into a sealed room? It doesn't matter!! He's The Batman!!



A steel-toed boot plows into The Joker's jaw, and then a pair of powerful arms heaving the shrieking clown to his feet to stare into The Batman’s primal masked face. In a whispered, nightmarish voice that seems barely human, The caped crusader hisses… “Where is she?” CUT TO: The Batman speeding off in The Batmobile on his way to the scene of Rachel Dawes imprisonment. Done. Simple. Effective. And it services the characters.

Nolan, instead wanted to use this scene as a vehicle to get into the whole dull, pretentious (verbal) psychology of The Batman and Joker as “Ying and Yang”. (Re: “Don’t talk like one of them! You’re a freak... like me! They’ll cast you out”).



And then Nolan hits us over the head with this theme AGAIN at the film's climax as The Joker faces The Batman while hanging upside down outside a window.



Yeah, yeah… "...blah, blah, blah..."


Overkill. One pretentious scene is more than enough.



And later on, we get even MORE pretentious psycho-babble via Harvey Dent (Re: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”) Really? Are those the only two options? What the hell does that exactly even mean?? And of course that nugget leads directly to this nonsense ending:

James Jr. Why's he running, Dad?
James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
James Jr: He didn't do anything wrong.
James Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

The kid here seems to me to be the most LOGICAL and SENSIBLE character when he points out that The Batman didn‘t do anything wrong. In fact, he saved Gordon’s entire family from being killed by Two-Face. And for that, Gotham needs to make him a villain?



Huh????????

I have yet to have someone adequately explain to me why The Batman needed to become Gotham’s villain after the events of The Dark Knight. Why couldn’t the people of Gotham City just have been told, “Listen, Harvey Dent tragically went nuts (partially because of what The Joker did to him). He became Two-Face, and became a homicidal, psychotic general pain-in-the-ass who tried to murder the family of the Police Commissioner. He’s gone now (good riddance), thanks to our hero The Batman. Yaaay!! Three cheers for Batman!!! Hip, hip… ”

Why couldn’t they be told this? After all, it was the truth!! So instead of that, Gordon and The Batman contrive a LIE to perpetrate on the city of Gotham. And Why? So that they can continue to have a villain that they can hunt? Really??? Are you friggin’ kidding me???

PRETENTIOUS with a capital “PRE”!!!

Batman is a human, if he ends up being, as you say, "fooled", then it only attributes to the fact that he's a human, not an animal. You obviously don't understand the character well enough if you don't realize why Batman didn't just ram into the Joker and kill him. You also don't realize why Batman took the blame for Dent's killings. You see, when Dent was talking to Mayor Garcia earlier in the film, he told him that if the press, the mob, or any corrupt cops got any dirt on him, all of the criminals he put in prison will be released. I don't need to explain any further.

 

[darklord1967]

It seems more to me when watching the film that he wasn't trying to hide his identity from Lucius because, once he realized how much of a trustworthy person he is and because he would need his help in providing him with his arsenal, it would be more detrimental not to have him as an ally. I can agree with you on Batman's voice but not the overall character. And your complaining about the Lazarus Pit not being in the film makes no sense considering the point of this film was to make the overall universe that Batman occupies a heightened reality, rather than a comic book universe.

A "heightened reality" where the hero wears a Bat-costume, leaps off of 40-stoy tall buildings and swoops down on bad guys??

A "heightened reality" that features a man who walks around speaking as if he urgently needs to use the Bathroom.. and no one bursts out laughing whenever he opens his mouth?

This is what i mean. It is not REASONABLE to me to make a film based on a comic book universe, and then COMPLETELY ignore that comic book universe.

The Lazarus Pit is as BASIC to R'as Al ghul, as The Joker's green hair is to him.

 

[darklord1967]

Batman is a human, if he ends up being, as you say, "fooled", then it only attributes to the fact that he's a human, not an animal. You obviously don't understand the character well enough if you don't realize why Batman didn't just ram into the Joker and kill him. You also don't realize why Batman took the blame for Dent's killings. You see, when Dent was talking to Mayor Garcia earlier in the film, he told him that if the press, the mob, or any corrupt cops got any dirt on him, all of the criminals he put in prison will be released. I don't need to explain any further.

Oh I think I understand The Batman character QUITE well. And I never once said The Batman ended up being "fooled". Not sure where you got that.

I only questioned what the (dramatic) point was of speeding toward The Joker in the Bat-Pod (complete with a warrior yell), and NOT even finding a clever way of capturing or incapacitating him... especially with all that technology and training at his disposal.

That's not loyalty to the comics, by the way. That's just plain ol' good action story-telling / staging, dude.

I am not suggesting (in either example) that The Batman should have just killed The Joker. I'm well aware that The Batman does not kill. I would not want to see that.

But the slick, elegant guy from the comics would have maybe somersaulted off of the bike at the last second and knocked The Joker out with a deftly timed kick, a punch, or a sleeper hold... anything!

But skidding and breaking his ass?? Really???


Speaking of "heightened reality": Even if I bought the logic that any dirt on Harvey Dent would result in the release of the criminals he has put away (which I most certainly do NOT), that would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happened to him and the crimes he perpetrated as Two-Face.

That is not based in any kind of "reality" that I know of, (and, FYI, I spent 10 years working in Federal Law Enforcement). Short of the arising of new evidence that indicates evidence against defendants was manufactured or falsified during trial, or that there was prosecutorial misconduct, surpressed or planted evidence, improper investigations by law-enforcement, or false accusations to begin with, criminals CANNOT just arbitrarily be set free. It never works that way.

 

[OP84CC82]

Oh I think I understand The Batman character QUITE well. And I never once said The Batman ended up being "fooled". Not sure where you got that.

I only questioned what the (dramatic) point was of speeding toward The Joker in the Bat-Pod (complete with a warrior yell), and NOT even finding a clever way of capturing or incapacitating him... especially with all that technology and training at his disposal.

That's not loyalty to the comics, by the way. That's just plain ol' good action story-telling / staging, dude.

I am not suggesting (in either example) that The Batman should have just killed The Joker. I'm well aware that The Batman does not kill. I would not want to see that.

But the slick, elegant guy from the comics would have maybe somersaulted off of the bike at the last second and knocked The Joker out with a deftly timed kick, a punch, or a sleeper hold... anything!

But skidding and breaking his ass?? Really???


Speaking of "heightened reality": Even if I bought the logic that any dirt on Harvey Dent would result in the release of the criminals he has put away (which I most certainly do NOT), that would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happened to him and the crimes he perpetrated as Two-Face.

That is not based in any kind of "reality" that I know of, (and, FYI, I spent 10 years working in Federal Law Enforcement). Short of the arising of new evidence that indicates evidence against defendants was manufactured or falsified during trial, or that there was prosecutorial misconduct, surpressed or planted evidence, improper investigations by law-enforcement, or false accusations to begin with, criminals CANNOT just arbitrarily be set free. It never works that way.

Then in that case, Nolan ****ed up big time with that ending. I'm not saying that I don't want to see Batman and his universe portrayed realistically, but when you come up with something that makes no sense at all, WTF? I still think that Batman Begins is the best Batman film so far, but what you just said gives another strike to TDK for me. But as for the costume, I don't see why if Batman had access to all of this equipment, he wouldn't try to use it to his advantage. A friend of mine on DeviantArt, Nick (A.K.A. BlackDragon85), recently did some concept drawings of Batman and Bane and just a couple of days ago, posted one of both in action:

Spoiler

He also did some Batmobile, grapple gun, and villain concepts (along with some Transformers and Superman stuff) over at his DeviantArt page:

http://black-dragon85.deviantart.com/

I just think his design is, in my opinion, what Batman SHOULD look like on the big screen.