The Dark Knight Rises The Christopher Nolan Thread

[ALP]

I wasn't trying to quantify them though, merely saying that the essence of the characters have indeed been preserved in a way that hasn't been in live-action before.

A well-written franchise yes, but also a film-adaptation. One cannot ever forget the importance of the latter.

Not really. The fact is, the essence of Batman, Robin, and The Riddler were all quite present in Batman Forever. Their main goals, themes, nature of the characters were all in BF. But that didn't make it a good film.

And the same applies to Zack Snyder's movies. Watchmen preserved the essence in every single character, and went much further than that. The characters in the film were essentially exact copies of their comic book counterpart, far closer than what Nolan has given from any given Batman comic he may have looked at in the adaptation process. But how many people here think Watchmen is a better movie than TDK?

All the fanboys want every director to stay as faithful to our biblical comics as possible but when it comes down to it, the film standing on its own merit as an entity is the most important value

 

[Doc Samson]

Not really. The fact is, the essence of Batman, Robin, and The Riddler were all quite present in Batman Forever. Their main goals, themes, nature of the characters were all in BF. But that didn't make it a good film.

And the same applies to Zack Snyder's movies. Watchmen preserved the essence in every single character, and went much further than that. The characters in the film were essentially exact copies of their comic book counterpart, far closer than what Nolan has given from any given Batman comic he may have looked at in the adaptation process. But how many people here think Watchmen is a better movie than TDK?

All the fanboys want every director to stay as faithful to our biblical comics as possible but when it comes down to it, the film standing on its own merit as an entity is the most important value

Absolutely! For those that read Garth Ennis' run on Punisher, the Warzone movie was almost exactly like that lol. One doesn't necessarily equate to the other, and with as many superhero movies we get nowadays, you would think people would come to grips with it.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Essentially you're saying it was different? Isn't this expected of any director that comes in to adapt?

No not at all, I'm saying that Nolan has retained the essence of Batman and the characters he has in the series, as a response to the criticism that he has deviated away from the source to tell his own tale. He does tell his own tale, but it still retains the essence of the character(s) in a way that hasn't been done in the past. That isn't to say the previous Bat-films didn't carry the sine qua non of Batman.

Unless you mean the amount of essence being captured. In which case, then you are quantifying it.

There are more comic book adaptations that this can be applied to, than those that can't. The significant difference being quality of directing, writing, and acting.

Again, I am not speaking of the "amount" of essence, that's silly. It's like saying he has adapted such-and-such bat-books in his trilogy, thus making his a "better" film. That's something that most purists would want from an adaptation; my point is simply that Nolan's series does indeed have a strong fidelity to the comics, that he has retained the soul of the comics.

I understand what you mean by the quality of directing/writing being a much more important element for the film, and I agree, but my point is directed towards the suggestion that Nolan's films are not true to the source. They are.

That is a clash of terms. By having several instances of infidelity, by very definition it cannot be deemed faithful.

It isn't because depending on the audience you can interpret it either way you want to. One can easily create a case on the many elements Nolan didn't remain faithful to, while at the same time a counter case can be built to argue about the themes he maintained. Again, it isn't about the number of things, but rather the nature of things. If that makes any sense.

Not really. The fact is, the essence of Batman, Robin, and The Riddler were all quite present in Batman Forever. Their main goals, themes, nature of the characters were all in BF. But that didn't make it a good film.

I agree, but wouldn't you say that the essence of Batman was captured more profoundly with the story of his origin, his journey as Bruce Wayne, and eventual transformation into the Dark Knight? Batman Forever has echoes with The Dark Knight thematically, so it's a valid comparison, but I am not disputing the quality of the film(s), simply saying that Nolan's stories do not betray the essence of Batman.

All the fanboys want every director to stay as faithful to our biblical comics as possible but when it comes down to it, the film standing on its own merit as an entity is the most important value

This all stems from the comment that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is not as faithful to Batman as they could be. I personally am not saying that, and I agree that the film's own merits matter more, but there can be fans who feel that way - there can be interpretations that hold our precious Nolan-series to be inferior to say, the Burton-series. It's a matter of taste. But to say that Nolan wasn't faithful is a misunderstanding. That's the entirety of my sermon.

 

[Sharkboy]

Not really. The fact is, the essence of Batman, Robin, and The Riddler were all quite present in Batman Forever. Their main goals, themes, nature of the characters were all in BF. But that didn't make it a good film.

And the same applies to Zack Snyder's movies. Watchmen preserved the essence in every single character, and went much further than that. The characters in the film were essentially exact copies of their comic book counterpart, far closer than what Nolan has given from any given Batman comic he may have looked at in the adaptation process. But how many people here think Watchmen is a better movie than TDK?

All the fanboys want every director to stay as faithful to our biblical comics as possible but when it comes down to it, the film standing on its own merit as an entity is the most important value

You've pretty much summed up the problem with adaptations as a whole right here.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Absolutely! For those that read Garth Ennis' run on Punisher, the Warzone movie was almost exactly like that lol. One doesn't necessarily equate to the other, and with as many superhero movies we get nowadays, you would think people would come to grips with it.

Personally I think the comic-to-film genre has grown into two distinct ways, especially today that it's become such a favourite of Hollywood's. You have on one end, the direct translations from comics to cinema, like Sin City, 300, and Watchmen (even V For Vendetta). While on the other you have the more original adaptations like Batman Begins, the other superhero films, etc.

And it's not even a distinction between the adaptation of Graphic Novels and serialised comics either - the film adaptations themselves are distinguishing between the types of adaptations that work best for the film they're making.

I think both kinds have their place.

 

[Doc Samson]

Personally I think the comic-to-film genre has grown into two distinct ways, especially today that it's become such a favourite of Hollywood's. You have on one end, the direct translations from comics to cinema, like Sin City, 300, and Watchmen (even V For Vendetta). While on the other you have the more original adaptations like Batman Begins, the other superhero films, etc.

And it's not even a distinction between the adaptation of Graphic Novels and serialised comics either - the film adaptations themselves are distinguishing between the types of adaptations that work best for the film they're making.

I think both kinds have their place.

They definitely both have their place, but one doesn't necessarily equate to a better film over the other. There's a number of things at work, but to insinuate that a comic movie is better the closer it sticks to the comics themselves is always a falsehood to me

 

[CapedCrusader14]

ALP speaks the truth.

Adapting characters as carbon copies (like Watchmen) is great and all for faithfulness, but where does it stand when it comes down to generally making a good film?

In many ways, Nolan has created a more a faithful adaption than many other comic book films, but has also took a lot out so he can define his vision for the characters. This why I love his Batman films.

I always stand that Batman is open to many different interpretations, whether they are generally bad (Batman and Robin ) or good. I love Nolan's take on the characters which is why I get excited each time he brings a new character in. To put it simply, I'm not an extreme comic purist. I love the comics and graphic novels, but these films have to stand on their own two legs as well.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Sharkboy]

I rarely think direct adaptations ever work, unless there is some sort of massive change for the screen. Sorta how Walking Dead works as a TV show, but never as a comic, while the comic wouldn't work in a 13 episode multi season tv show. By nature films should be a lot harder. If studios realised this maybe they'd learn to take more liberties.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

They definitely both have their place, but one doesn't necessarily equate to a better film over the other. There's a number of things at work, but to insinuate that a comic movie is better the closer it sticks to the comics themselves is always a falsehood to me

Absolutely. And I think fans should understand that more. There is fidelity of content and fidelity of ideas/themes. Both aren't always the same. Something has to be said about the essence of the story that you are adapting, a director should be given that liberty, otherwise why film it at all? I personally prefer the more different adaptation, but the occasional translation isn't bad either.

Y'know... I never said that one sort of adaptation is better than another... in response to that post by Fake Hero, who by the way has all the right to dislike Nolan's interpretation, I was simply saying that Nolan's stories aren't as different from the comics as some fans think. There is a lot of respect for the source material in there, a respect you don't see in the other live-action adaptations. How that got bolstered into a notion that strong fidelity to the source equals best adaptation isn't...well... it just wasn't said, or meant to be said. And I'm sorry if that's what my posts came off as.

 

[Doc Samson]

Absolutely. And I think fans should understand that more. There is fidelity of content and fidelity of ideas/themes. Both aren't always the same. Something has to be said about the essence of the story that you are adapting, a director should be given that liberty, otherwise why film it at all? I personally prefer the more different adaptation, but the occasional translation isn't bad either.

Y'know... I never said that one sort of adaptation is better than another... in response to that post by Fake Hero, who by the way has all the right to dislike Nolan's interpretation, I was simply saying that Nolan's stories aren't as different from the comics as some fans think. There is a lot of respect for the source material in there, a respect you don't see in the other live-action adaptations. How that got bolstered into a notion that strong fidelity to the source equals best adaptation isn't...well... it just wasn't said, or meant to be said. And I'm sorry if that's what my posts came off as.

Oh no I was agreeing with you (and in particular ALP), I was just expanding on it a bit. I always tell everybody who comes with the comic accuracy debate that they're entitled to those opinions, differing opinions makes this place interesting (and a little crazy) but at the same time, they can't use that argument without acknowledging that the comics themselves aren't static year to year, let alone decade to decade.

Especially when criticizing Nolan's films, just as you pointed out, he's stuck closer to the comic roots in terms of characterization more than just about anybody. The tone and look is what's different, and IMO, usually better anyway, there's no way in hell Bane should show up in a movie dressed the way he is in the comics.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Oh no I was agreeing with you (and in particular ALP), I was just expanding on it a bit. I always tell everybody who comes with the comic accuracy debate that they're entitled to those opinions, differing opinions makes this place interesting (and a little crazy) but at the same time, they can't use that argument without acknowledging that the comics themselves aren't static year to year, let alone decade to decade.

Especially when criticizing Nolan's films, just as you pointed out, he's stuck closer to the comic roots in terms of characterization more than just about anybody. The tone and look is what's different, and IMO, usually better anyway, there's no way in hell Bane should show up in a movie dressed the way he is in the comics.

Exactly, the fun comes from the crazy well.. sometimes. And it's true as well, the comics are far from static themselves. Perhaps when there are some long stretches of an editor's presence (like Denny's), but on the whole they really do evolve.

And yes - that's what I was trying to articulate back there, that it's the tone and look which is different. I like it though, I think on the whole the way Nolan has told his Batman stories does surpass the material he started off with. Yes, there are limits of course, but it's also true of how he pushes those limits. The new Bane is growing on me the more I see of him, and the more we're discussing him around these boards. I'm still not in love with the design, but the whole characterisation seems so much more dynamic!

 

[KRIM]

No not at all, I'm saying that Nolan has retained the essence of Batman and the characters he has in the series, as a response to the criticism that he has deviated away from the source to tell his own tale. He does tell his own tale, but it still retains the essence of the character(s) in a way that hasn't been done in the past. That isn't to say the previous Bat-films didn't carry the sine qua non of Batman.

Again, I am not speaking of the "amount" of essence, that's silly. It's like saying he has adapted such-and-such bat-books in his trilogy, thus making his a "better" film. That's something that most purists would want from an adaptation; my point is simply that Nolan's series does indeed have a strong fidelity to the comics, that he has retained the soul of the comics.

I understand what you mean by the quality of directing/writing being a much more important element for the film, and I agree, but my point is directed towards the suggestion that Nolan's films are not true to the source. They are.

I guess ultimately I'm not getting what was so specifically "faithful" about this iteration, compared to any other. If I am to be honest, I have rarely come across any interpretation that I would have deemed dishonest or disrespectful to the character and source material. Even for those that I absolutely loathe. If we are to allow passes for simply retaining essence rather than adhere to specific details, in what way have Nolan's films done a better job at this? Irrespective of execution, that is. I sense this overwhelming feeling audience feel it's only now that someone has gotten it right. And I read many which associate that with faithfulness. It is to that notion that I'm completely befuddled with.

It isn't because depending on the audience you can interpret it either way you want to. One can easily create a case on the many elements Nolan didn't remain faithful to, while at the same time a counter case can be built to argue about the themes he maintained. Again, it isn't about the number of things, but rather the nature of things. If that makes any sense.

Yes, I get what you mean. But conversely this can be applied to 99% of artists that have ever worked on Batman in any medium. I'm not arguing with you in particular, but to those that would give Nolan a pass for liberties, but not to any other -- even if it's centered around the same exact subject.

 

[Doc Samson]

I guess ultimately I'm not getting what was so specifically "faithful" about this iteration, compared to any other. If I am to be honest, I have rarely come across any interpretation that I would have deemed dishonest or disrespectful to the character and source material. Even for those that I absolutely loathe. If we are to allow passes for simply retaining essence rather than adhere to specific details, in what way have Nolan's films done a better job at this? Irrespective of execution, that is. I sense this overwhelming feeling audience feel it's only now that someone has gotten it right. And I read many which associate that with faithfulness. It is to that notion that I'm completely befuddled with.

In terms of Batman as a character, at least compared to the Burton films, Nolan is leaps and bounds better than anything Tim did. Burton's Batman had no qualms whatsoever with killing, or endangering innocent people. He had no problems shooting automatic weapons in crowded areas or using explosives. He didn't really come across as all that intelligent, particularly in BR, and the villains had really no motivations or characterizations you could relate to any comic book, save for the Joker. At least Schumacher's Batman, however silly, falls in line with the older interpretation (and BF is criminally slept on IMO)

Nolan brought back the essence to every character he's touched so far, regardless of the changes visually or origin-wise. He made Bruce Wayne a relevant person, that we know and understand, who has a moral code and a detective slant (somewhat) and each villain he's used thus far has exhibited traits and motivations in line with what we would expect from their comic counterparts. I can only speak for myself, but outside of a few comic properties, Nolan IMO has stuck closer to the comics than almost anybody else in the only area that really matters, characterization.

 

[KRIM]

In terms of Batman as a character, at least compared to the Burton films, Nolan is leaps and bounds better than anything Tim did. Burton's Batman had no qualms whatsoever with killing, or endangering innocent people. He had no problems shooting automatic weapons in crowded areas or using explosives.

Heh, it would seem even (Caine's) Alfred disagrees with you. Bale's Batman is easily the most publicly reckless Batman to date. As for killing? Man, I can go on for days how the "no killing" code is practically a white lie in these films.

He didn't really come across as all that intelligent, particularly in BR, and the villains had really no motivations or characterizations you could relate to any comic book, save for the Joker.

Can't say I agree with this at all, but to each their own.

Nolan brought back the essence to every character he's touched so far, regardless of the changes visually or origin-wise. He made Bruce Wayne a relevant person, that we know and understand, who has a moral code and a detective slant (somewhat) and each villain he's used thus far has exhibited traits and motivations in line with what we would expect from their comic counterparts. I can only speak for myself, but outside of a few comic properties, Nolan IMO has stuck closer to the comics than almost anybody else in the only area that really matters, characterization.

I'm not even a huge fan of either these interpretations, but I'd stack the Adam West and BATB Batman against Nolan's any day of the week, on the grounds of faithfulness and characterization.

 

[Sharkboy]

In terms of Batman as a character, at least compared to the Burton films, Nolan is leaps and bounds better than anything Tim did. Burton's Batman had no qualms whatsoever with killing, or endangering innocent people. He had no problems shooting automatic weapons in crowded areas or using explosives. He didn't really come across as all that intelligent, particularly in BR, and the villains had really no motivations or characterizations you could relate to any comic book, save for the Joker. At least Schumacher's Batman, however silly, falls in line with the older interpretation (and BF is criminally slept on IMO)

Nolan brought back the essence to every character he's touched so far, regardless of the changes visually or origin-wise. He made Bruce Wayne a relevant person, that we know and understand, who has a moral code and a detective slant (somewhat) and each villain he's used thus far has exhibited traits and motivations in line with what we would expect from their comic counterparts. I can only speak for myself, but outside of a few comic properties, Nolan IMO has stuck closer to the comics than almost anybody else in the only area that really matters, characterization.

Thing I've noticed is that now Nolan has made the Batman films that are widely accepted as being the closest to capturing the essence (as you say) all the previous films that failed to do it as well, I feel less frustrated in watching them and I'm able to appreciate not only what they did right but what they did better than the Nolan films.

Burton's films more specifically Michael Keaton's performance, one that pretty much lacks nearly every aspect of Bruce Wayne/Batman. The height and dimensions, the fighting skill, the fake playboy persona, the guff cynical attitude etc. Yet he still manages to pull off a batman/bruce wayne that is not only convincing but works as a pure cinematic badass. Keaton managed to display a sense of quirkiness and a deep sense of hurt and pain that you don't really get to see on Bale.

Anyway point is, I tend to enjoy the old films more now the new ones are out

 

[slimshady247]

I don't really like Burton's films all that much. They don't hold up very well IMO.

 

[EliteF50]

And the same applies to Zack Snyder's movies. Watchmen preserved the essence in every single character, and went much further than that. The characters in the film were essentially exact copies of their comic book counterpart, far closer than what Nolan has given from any given Batman comic he may have looked at in the adaptation process. But how many people here think Watchmen is a better movie than TDK?

I would. Watchmen > TDK

 

[Nevincer]

I don't really like Burton's films all that much. They don't hold up very well IMO.

Agreed. Even before Nolan I wasn't big on the Burton films... I grew up with BTAS, and whilst those films had the appeal of being live action they didn't really hold a candle to the spirit captured in that series... Mask of the Phantasm still holds up well for me.

 

[Sharkboy]

I am a huge HUGE fan of Batman Returns. It's not even a good BATMAN film, it's just a great tim burton film and just one of my faves, the dialogue is so good.

 

[Doc Samson]

Heh, it would seem even (Caine's) Alfred disagrees with you. Bale's Batman is easily the most publicly reckless Batman to date. As for killing? Man, I can go on for days how the "no killing" code is practically a white lie in these films.

Believe it or not, from the neck up, I actually prefer Keaton's Batman visually. His piercing eyes and the look of his cowl in relation to his mouth gave him a frightening presence Bale's Batman has to constantly try to embody by being physically imposing. I feel Keaton's version was psychologically more imposing, more elemental & terrifying, all the things Bale's version alludes to being. Keaton's Batman just showed up, barely spoke, and disappeared.

However, in between all of that Houdini stuff, he was quite homicidal, in a blatant way, which is why I refer to those movies as Elseworld's tales if anything. Good ones, but not a true representation of who Batman is, to me. Nolan's Batman may be reckless, but he does his best to not murder or endanger people, I can't say you could ever use that description for Burton's "incarnation."

Burton's films more specifically Michael Keaton's performance, one that pretty much lacks nearly every aspect of Bruce Wayne/Batman. The height and dimensions, the fighting skill, the fake playboy persona, the guff cynical attitude etc. Yet he still manages to pull off a batman/bruce wayne that is not only convincing but works as a pure cinematic badass. Keaton managed to display a sense of quirkiness and a deep sense of hurt and pain that you don't really get to see on Bale.

Oh no doubt about that, I still love B89 almost as much as TDK, I've watched it at least 3,000 times. Literally! It was my first VHS tape, and me and my brothers ran it into the ground. But just based on sheer faithfulness to character, it's not even close to a true representation of what Batman stands for, at least for most of his history. It's entertaining nonetheless though

 

[Sharkboy]

Believe it or not, from the neck up, I actually prefer Keaton's Batman visually. His piercing eyes and the look of his cowl in relation to his mouth gave him a frightening presence Bale's Batman has to constantly try to embody by being physically imposing. I feel Keaton's version was psychologically more imposing, more elemental & terrifying, all the things Bale's version alludes to being. Keaton's Batman just showed up, barely spoke, and disappeared.

However, in between all of that Houdini stuff, he was quite homicidal, in a blatant way, which is why I refer to those movies as Elseworld's tales if anything. Good ones, but not a true representation of who Batman is, to me. Nolan's Batman may be reckless, but he does his best to not murder or endanger people, I can't say you could ever use that description for Burton's "incarnation."

Yes! glad you pointed that out. Keaton's eyes make his entire performance. How can a short, average build, quirky looking comedian make a totally convincing bruce wayne/batman? His eyes!

But yes in pure 80's hero fashion, he did kill tons of people, and that is always going to be the biggest no no in any batman interpretation.

 

[KRIM]

Believe it or not, from the neck up, I actually prefer Keaton's Batman visually. His piercing eyes and the look of his cowl in relation to his mouth gave him a frightening presence Bale's Batman has to constantly try to embody by being physically imposing. I feel Keaton's version was psychologically more imposing, more elemental & terrifying, all the things Bale's version alludes to being. Keaton's Batman just showed up, barely spoke, and disappeared.

We're in complete agreement here. Batman's threatening nature was so effortless in Burton's films, whereas I feel Nolan and Bale have to constantly try and convince us with overt scenes.

However, in between all of that Houdini stuff, he was quite homicidal, in a blatant way, which is why I refer to those movies as Elseworld's tales if anything. Good ones, but not a true representation of who Batman is, to me. Nolan's Batman may be reckless, but he does his best to not murder or endanger people, I can't say you could ever use that description for Burton's "incarnation."

I think it's a grey area at best, which is perhaps Nolan's intent. It's certainly not as absolute as it is in the comics. Comic Bruce would never get over it, whereas Bale's Bruce consistently shrugs it off. The decimation of the truck driver being the most damning scene I've seen out of any of the films. I don't know if it happened so quick, or that it looked bad-ass, but people gloss over it like that dude was fine or the behavior itself wasn't anything but brutal. Bats willingly drove head-on and undoubtedly crushed that old geezer. There's nothing in the context of the scene that would suggest he was pressed for options. Bruce was out for blood on that one.

 

[Doc Samson]

Yes! glad you pointed that out. Keaton's eyes make his entire performance. How can a short, average build, quirky looking comedian make a totally convincing bruce wayne/batman? His eyes!

But yes in pure 80's hero fashion, he did kill tons of people, and that is always going to be the biggest no no in any batman interpretation.

Yeah no doubt about that, his eyes conveyed the look of someone who might actually be a bit unhinged, as Batman truly is, just not to that extent. His cowl too, is still the best IMO, which helped with the look. God, I wish I could just smash the two versions together, then we'd be talking t:

We're in complete agreement here. Batman's threatening nature was so effortless in Burton's films, whereas I feel Nolan and Bale have to constantly try and convince us with overt scenes.

Absolutely!

I think it's a grey area at best, which is perhaps Nolan's intent. It's certainly not as absolute as it is in the comics. Comic Bruce would never get over it, whereas Bale's Bruce consistently shrugs it off. The decimation of the truck driver being the most damning scene I've seen out of any of the films. I don't know if it happened so quick, or that it looked bad-ass, but people gloss over it like that dude was fine or the behavior itself wasn't anything but brutal. Bats willingly drove head-on and undoubtedly crushed that old geezer. There's nothing in the context of the scene that would suggest he was pressed for options. Bruce was out for blood on that one.

Ha, I can give you that one, but who knows, maybe...just maybe, the guy was ok. Well maybe not ok, but not dead.

I don't think there's any question that circus guy Keaton flame broiled with the batmobile is dead though, along with that wrestler guy he blew up with the dynamite. And Eckhardt, who he watched get shot only feet away from Napier (Hell, I still think he deliberately dropped Napier too. No worries, he deliberately drops him later lol) And all those dudes in the chemical plant he blew up. And that black enforcer dude he tossed down the bell tower. And some of those guys he shot with the Batwing. And....well, you get my point

(On a side note, I still think it's funny that Penguin's plot was to frame him for murder, like hasn't anyone in Gotham been keeping score?)

 

[KRIM]

I don't think there's any question that circus guy Keaton flame broiled with the batmobile is dead though, along with that wrestler guy he blew up with the dynamite. And Eckhardt, who he watched get shot only feet away from Napier (Hell, I still think he deliberately dropped Napier too. No worries, he deliberately drops him later lol) And all those dudes in the chemical plant he blew up. And that black enforcer dude he tossed down the bell tower. And some of those guys he shot with the Batwing. And....well, you get my point

Oh, I don't doubt Keaton killed. Then again, so did Finger's Batman. I'm just not naive enough to hold up the "no kill rule" as a particularly standout achievement for these films, especially when they're highly debatable by nature.

(On a side note, I still think it's funny that Penguin's plot was to frame him for murder, like hasn't anyone in Gotham been keeping score?)

Well, in that specific case the murder was of an innocent citizen. Gotham didn't seem too high on morality, so it wouldn't be out of place to say that they likely didn't care Batman killed the bad guys.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Agreed. Even before Nolan I wasn't big on the Burton films... I grew up with BTAS, and whilst those films had the appeal of being live action they didn't really hold a candle to the spirit captured in that series... Mask of the Phantasm still holds up well for me.

Heck yes. My favorite batfilm.