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.
I suppose it boils down to what we mean by essence, or what elements of the character you would deem essential to him. I agree that there are not many interpretations that
should be deemed "dishonest" or "disrespectful". But even through the many incarnations that Batman has endured there is an element of his that Nolan managed to retain that I don't see in most of the live-action adaptations, namely being his focus on Batman being a human character. I think, to a large extent, that is one of the most important elements of Batman through all the ages: the superhero sans superpowers, but a lot of heart. My favourite Batman is still the BTAS, and to a large extent the Tim Burton films, but even in those you have to admit that the focus is on the mythical Batman rather than on the human being. Yes, they do retain the human aspect, but with Nolan's series you have that aspect not only explicitly in the style of the films, but also in the struggles that Wayne face. The journey of an ordinary man becoming a superheroic legend.
In addition to that, as most have said, there are other aspects of his (and other) characterisations. We do have a Batman who is concerned about morality (I love the way you've deconstructed that, I really do, but even if it's a "white-lie" we are finally hearing him saying that "white-lie"
). The detective aspects, the darkness of a Gotham City where you realise the need for a Batman, with corruption, criminality etc. Since we are not commenting on the 'content' from the source materials (which is again very much a part of Nolan's series, but he has taken a fair share of liberties with them as well while still adhering to their soul), I'd like to say how we have a Ra's who's still out for annihilation and a reborn, corruption-free society (like his comic counterpart) but without the ecocentric depiction. With Ra's you still have his essence as a villain/mentor preserved while the more blatant ideas of the content removed. The Joker is another example, he's still a clown out for chaos. Batman is still a lot about fear (and I could say how Nolan's execution indeed fails here, but again his use of the theme is there).
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.
The reason I'll say that Nolan's iteration is especially more 'faithful' than the other live-action movies because he has retained those elements of Batman - the struggling man, the creature born and made of fear (
BF tackled a lot of it, but it also immediately lost them when its Batman became a little more than a romancing comedian who was largely unaware of his homosexuality
), as well as in
TDK when we see Batman the superhero trying to justify his position as a psuedo-leader of Gotham City. You never saw that significant element of Batman before, at least not on film. You also never saw a Bruce Wayne so steeped in his anger before, so tormented by his tragedies (even with Burton's or Schumacher's).
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.
I suppose it depends on what you would say is "right", for the most part I see most fans associate faithfulness with content, and that again is very much present in Nolan's movies. What we're exploring now, though, is how Nolan remained more faithful to the essence of Batman thematically. And from the overt use of themes I'd say he's right up there with Burton, a little better too when he's showing Batman cooperating with Gordon so well. I think you know where all this comes from anyway, so yeah.
[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
That's very true, it can be. And I agree that you can't give Nolan a pass for liberties and then go around and dismiss all the other great artists who have contributed to the Batman franchise. I still love Burton's gothic Batman the most, I love the elemental nature of his Batman, I love how his Penguin is just as much a monster as he is a tragic character. Conversely, I also love how Two-Face in Nolan's movie isn't just a psychotic personality disorder of Harvey's, but a real lapse in his moral ethics.
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)
Absolutely. BF had a lot of powerful moments that no one looked back into, but it's still a wonderful work of Batman. I think Schumacher had the ideas right, he seemed to be heading towards a more pre-Silver Age Batman as well. With B&R, as terrible as it is, you see the intention of a back-to-60s approach which is horribly executed.
[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
I love this.
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.
In terms of faithfulness and characterisation, YES, to a large extent. However they only remain as much faithful as they can in a parody of the character.
If anything, Nolan and Burton has managed to move away from that self-parodying tone, and even in terms of tonal consistency come closer to Batman of the comics. I mean for god's sakes even silver-era 70s Batman wasn't THAT goofy!
[/QUOTE]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.
[/QUOTE]
Nolan's albatross, right here.
