The Dark Knight the dark knight and what we want

[David Rice]

Tell him to stoooooop eeeeet.

Tell who?

The irony of this is hilarious.

Your irony is hilarious! t:

 

[Cristo]

I want more action and less action.

 

[The Batman]

I want people to stop whining!

You must first start from within...

 

[Batty Belfry]

Lets be frank...

Can I be Jim instead? t:

 

[kenellard]

Can I be Jim instead? t:

can I still be a priest Ted?

 

[Spider-Bat]

I'm not even getting a Batman movie from the Nolan crap, it wouldn't cost too much to do Batman the right way, they have the budget to do it right, but Nolan lacks imagination and doesn't care.

 

[Hole Shot]

Lets be frank...we all want the comic book in movie form, but half the stuff in the comics would cost more than the movie to make ( like the Sentinals, Galactus, Darksied, ect) it is just impossible for film makers to please all of us and make a profit

That.... and lot of the elements in comic books would be pretty f'ing gay on celluloid if translated 100% faithfully.

 

[Shoemeister]

see when we have a movie come out we always want it to be like comics or btas or what ever like when scarecrow came out i wanted him to be reaper style and him sayin "iam the master of fear"(but when i saw scarecrow i loved it) but we wont get what we always want and when joker comes out most of us want mark hamil did kinda like he did in birds of prey and we want harley to have a fun voice with coyotes and batman to get mad at her and buy her a candy apple just to keep her busy but we most like wont get what we want so just hope it will be great for one reason we know they cant do horrible i hope yall see what iam saying kinda

:bat: bnightwing :bat:

I want you to learn how to use punctuation. Jesus Christ.

 

[BatoutofHell]

I want you to learn how to use punctuation. Jesus Christ.

 

[Duskfall]

I want the movie to continue and expand on everything from BB. It was the best comic movie ever, and they need to keep the quality up. Better filming of the fights, more reprecussions of actions batman takes, little things from the first film to filter into the second. I like that the scarecrow is still around gotham. Hopefully it stays within reason and believability like the last movie.

 

[Deaths Head II]

V for Vendetta (a bit)
300
Sin City
The Crow (to a certain extent)

Any other questions? I didn't think so...

Is this a joke? None of those films reach the vast variety of mythos, tones, and characters that Batman has. Batman has gone from a solo avenger to a dynamic duo to an entire bat family. He has gone to a simple guy fighting mobsters to a guy fighting freaks to a guy fighting gods, monsters, and aliens. He has gone from being a guy who kills his foes on occasion to a grinning and campy character to a guy with a completely militaristic attitude. 300 and Sin City were written by the same writer in a short span of issues. Batman has been written by hundred of writers, and each of them have given their own interpretations. Some like Batman as a more realistic character, some like to play up the super hero aspect, some like to make him more nightmarish, and so forth. There is no humanly possible way to sum up all these visions into one film. The director has to do what all the writers of the books do: give their own interpretation.

And people still complain about the small omissions from films like V for Vendetta and such. People will never be happy until its 100% like the book, and thats just not gonna happen for any book that wasn't a one shot or miniseries made under one or a few authors.

 

[Shoemeister]

I wanna be sedated.

 

[JosephMaximus]

Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated

 

[enygma]

Lets be frank...we all want the comic book in movie form, but half the stuff in the comics would cost more than the movie to make ( like the Sentinals, Galactus, Darksied, ect) it is just impossible for film makers to please all of us and make a profit, which is what this is all about. I would like a frightening Joker, a Batman who still lurks in the shadows, a bad a** batmobile, a peak at Two-Face, not just a throw of the chemicals and then end of movie, and finally no deaths of any villians

Can I not just be enygma???

 

[wikum]

Here is my argument in a nutshell:

Anytime a movie or TV project has the "Batman" label on it, it instantly has potential because of the possibilities are endless. But far too often we get a visionary piece and directors trying to make statements. They want to change this, or add that, take away X or make Y bigger and better. They simply forget one thing: If you are directing a big budget movie about a comic book hero, chances are is that the character is alredy a success and has a fanbase. Don't go tweaking this or combining X & Y to get Z. If you want to share your vision, do it in an independant film.

Here is what I want:

Leave Bale alone. So far he is the best one to play the role. Possibly tweak the suit a lil here and there, but that's all.

If Batman is to have a love interest, let it be Selina Kyle or Talia. But if you must give Bruce Wayne a love interst, she must be a bimbo that adds to his cover as a billionaire party boy. If this love interest ever finds out that he's Batman, she's gotta die by the end of the film

The Joker is an icon, don't mess with what's worked for the past 60+ years. He also has a regalness to him, so lose the suit that we've seen so far in the spy pics taken in Chicago. The suit makes him look like a 2 bit bum. I'm not sayng that every suit should be purple and green, but they should be what the Joker considers "fashionable".

The Joker is not a raccoon so lose the black circles around his eyes. Yes, the Joker has been drawn with dark circles under his eyes before, but from what we've seen he looks like he's wearing a Lone Ranger mask.

The mouth has got to go. The cut smile is a good idea if it's done correctly, but it's not working. Lose it. The sloppiness of the red smile makes it look like he's had 5 glasses of Kool Aid. Remember, the Joker has a sense of regalness so I highly doubt is he would draw that on that sloppily.

And speaking of "drawing that on", the Joker is that way due to an accident. He does not get his look from Mary Kaye so we better not see him apply make up in the movie.


Harley Quinn is a character that has been incorporated into the Batman mythos after appearing in a cartoon series. WB owns DC and they decided to make her canon. Just because WB wants to bastardize the mythos does not mean that you have to. Please, no Harley Quinn, and I hope to God never see 2 hyenas named "Bud" and "Lou" in a live action Batman flick. We've had enough camp with the 60's TV show and the last Schumacher film. Please do not incorporate a bloody kids cartoon into your movie.


That's what I want. I know that it won't happen and I'll be flamed for even posting this, but hey it's SSH! Batman forum. I realized it before I posted it. Call me a troll all you want, I'm stating my opnion.

lucky you're not in charge of the film then.

 

[thegameq]

Old arguments always resurface in some form or another.....

note to WB: next time you restart the Batman franchise, have the balls to do a real comicbook Batman movie with all the iconic style and imagery so many fans have come to expect and were expecting with the latest restart. Hopefully then, threads like these and so many others wouldn't constantly surface--or at least not as much.

Before someone says, "but which Batman do you put on film, he has xx years of history?" The same way Raimi weaved together cohesive stories from xx years of Spider-man stories the same can easily be done for Batman. Yet for allthe cherry picking Raimi did with Spidey's history, his vision of Spider-man is unmistakably Spider-man. Much like Donner's Superman was unmistakably Superman.

One of the greatest characters in comicbook history, and film makers still don't have the balls to get him right. Jesus...

 

[donk70]

lucky you're not in charge of the film then.

kkthankshaveaniceday

 

[kyodai-ken]

Lenses [adds to the demon aspect not just a guy in a suit}

A Dark Joker [ maniacal, murderous, not dancing to prince]

The detective

 

[hatesworking]

lets hope he does nt go Superman Returns on our assess, and give us Batman and Rachel Dawes Lovechild in this movie

ARRRRGJHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Deaths Head II]

Before someone says, "but which Batman do you put on film, he has xx years of history?" The same way Raimi weaved together cohesive stories from xx years of Spider-man stories the same can easily be done for Batman. Yet for allthe cherry picking Raimi did with Spidey's history, his vision of Spider-man is unmistakably Spider-man. Much like Donner's Superman was unmistakably Superman.

So do you like...not pay attention to the negative comments at all? I know loads of people that find Raimi's Spider-Man to be a joke. Not just an interpretation they don't prefer, a literal joke. And I personally don't think it feels undeniably Spider-Man either. It really feels too epic and too heroic for it to be Spider-Man, while the character himself was always a down to earth street-level super hero compared to most characters. There are a few moments where he feels like the witty and publically scorned superhero he should be, but the bigger stuff like "Spider-Man Day" cancel that out. To be frank, when I watch Raimi's Spider-Man films, I think he confused them with Superman in terms of tone. I still enjoy them, but I don't kid myself into believing they're undeniably Spider-Man. It's Raimi's vision, and the new Batman films are Nolan's vision. They're as much Batman as they need to be.

And people want to move as far away from Donner's Superman films as they can at this point. While you may say thats only the case now, but I'm 99% positive that not everyone was completely satisfied when they originally came out either. Fans will always have issues. I'm pretty sure they would have issues even if the story was 100% like the comics, and we would get people getting uppity saying "Why was this taken from the comics. It was stupid and it should have never been put in the original books anyway!", like the poster who said that Harley should never appear.

 

[360sculptguy]

see when we have a movie come out we always want it to be like comics or btas or what ever like when scarecrow came out i wanted him to be reaper style and him sayin "iam the master of fear"(but when i saw scarecrow i loved it) but we wont get what we always want and when joker comes out most of us want mark hamil did kinda like he did in birds of prey and we want harley to have a fun voice with coyotes and batman to get mad at her and buy her a candy apple just to keep her busy but we most like wont get what we want so just hope it will be great for one reason we know they cant do horrible i hope yall see what iam saying kinda

:bat: bnightwing :bat:

Woah. Some periods along with some capitalization would go a long way towards making some sense out of this.

Here is my argument in a nutshell:

Anytime a movie or TV project has the "Batman" label on it, it instantly has potential because of the possibilities are endless. But far too often we get a visionary piece and directors trying to make statements. They want to change this, or add that, take away X or make Y bigger and better.

This thing that you are saying is wrong, is exactly what director's are hired to do. The definition of their job.

They simply forget one thing: If you are directing a big budget movie about a comic book hero, chances are that the character is alredy a success and has a fanbase.

Yes the comic incarnation is successful among other comics. We're talking about the film. Comic book stories, especially 60 years of them, do not translate directly to film. Thats like saying you could make a 3-dimensional sculpture perfectly represent a 2-D oil painting. You don't have all the information necessary to do it but you still have to make sure the work is aesthetically pleasing from every angle. From one storytelling technique to another involves creativity and artistic liberty.

Don't go tweaking this or combining X & Y to get Z. If you want to share your vision, do it in an independant film.

I'm guessing you aren't in a particularly creative profession? If you have friends that are ask them if they would first even be interested in exactly reproducing another artist's work, and then see if they'd be comfortable putting it in front of the world as if it were their own. Any artist would be bored and/or ashamed to do so, and the artist moniker certainly covers directors as well. If translating 60 years of comic books to screen were as effortlessly verbatim as you make it sound then studios wouldn't need to pay for the carefully measured creativity of a good director.

Here is what I want:

Leave Bale alone. So far he is the best one to play the role. Possibly tweak the suit a little here and there, but that's all.

If Batman is to have a love interest, let it be Selina Kyle or Talia. But if you must give Bruce Wayne a love interest, she must be a bimbo that adds to his cover as a billionaire party boy. If this love interest ever finds out that he's Batman, she's gotta die by the end of the film

I agree on the Bale point. Keaton would be a close second. And I would prefer Selina or Talia as a love interest instead of a situation like we have with Dawes.

The Joker is an icon, don't mess with what's worked for the past 60+ years. He also has a regalness to him, so lose the suit that we've seen so far in the spy pics taken in Chicago. The suit makes him look like a 2 bit bum. I'm not sayng that every suit should be purple and green, but they should be what the Joker considers "fashionable".

The Joker is not a raccoon so lose the black circles around his eyes. Yes, the Joker has been drawn with dark circles under his eyes before, but from what we've seen he looks like he's wearing a Lone Ranger mask.

The mouth has got to go. The cut smile is a good idea if it's done correctly, but it's not working. Lose it. The sloppiness of the red smile makes it look like he's had 5 glasses of Kool Aid. Remember, the Joker has a sense of regalness so I highly doubt is he would draw that on that sloppily.

And speaking of "drawing that on", the Joker is that way due to an accident. He does not get his look from Mary Kaye so we better not see him apply make up in the movie.

The Joker debate has been exhausted. Enough iconic elements are there. His characterization has been all over the map. Every opinion and no opinions are valid. While you may fiercely disagree with some of the superficial decisions we've seen it is Nolan's direction that the studio is paying for. His purpose is to present whichever pieces of the Batman history he sees fit in whatever manner necessary to make a successful film adaptation.

Harley Quinn is a character that has been incorporated into the Batman mythos after appearing in a cartoon series. WB owns DC and they decided to make her canon. Just because WB wants to bastardize the mythos does not mean that you have to. Please, no Harley Quinn, and I hope to God never see 2 hyenas named "Bud" and "Lou" in a live action Batman flick. We've had enough camp with the 60's TV show and the last Schumacher film. Please do not incorporate a bloody kids cartoon into your movie.

Whatever the motivation for her inclusion in Batman's history she is part of it nonetheless and its within the rights of any director to utilize her. Personally, I don't care that much about the character on the page.

That's what I want. I know that it won't happen and I'll be flamed for even posting this, but hey it's SSH! Batman forum. I realized it before I posted it. Call me a troll all you want, I'm stating my opnion.

Don't be so dramatic. The amount of crap any one poster gets here is directly proportional to the crap skill with which they present their side of the discussion.

Ughhh, while I am not a big fan of Bat Mite, Batman Jr. and Batwoman, I gotta say that it did work for the time period they were in. Times were much more innocent back then

You have no idea how painful it was for me to admitt that......

Interesting. So comics and the characters found within can change? ((rhetorical))

 

[thegameq]

So do you like...not pay attention to the negative comments at all? I know loads of people that find Raimi's Spider-Man to be a joke. Not just an interpretation they don't prefer, a literal joke. And I personally don't think it feels undeniably Spider-Man either. It really feels too epic and too heroic for it to be Spider-Man, while the character himself was always a down to earth street-level super hero compared to most characters. There are a few moments where he feels like the witty and publically scorned superhero he should be, but the bigger stuff like "Spider-Man Day" cancel that out. To be frank, when I watch Raimi's Spider-Man films, I think he confused them with Superman in terms of tone. I still enjoy them, but I don't kid myself into believing they're undeniably Spider-Man. It's Raimi's vision, and the new Batman films are Nolan's vision. They're as much Batman as they need to be.

And people want to move as far away from Donner's Superman films as they can at this point. While you may say thats only the case now, but I'm 99% positive that not everyone was completely satisfied when they originally came out either. Fans will always have issues. I'm pretty sure they would have issues even if the story was 100% like the comics, and we would get people getting uppity saying "Why was this taken from the comics. It was stupid and it should have never been put in the original books anyway!", like the poster who said that Harley should never appear.

This is not the brain surgery so many want to make it out to be. Make a Batman film with the same iconic style and imagery so many have come to love and expect from the Batman franchise. Most of the complaints will go away. No, not all, most.

Fans of these properties want to see someone make these movies with about the same reverence they have for the source material. Again, not brain surgery. They don't want to see a comicbook movie where it's obvious the director decided to do his own thing. They don't want to see a comicbook movie were the creative vision is largely decided in the boardroom for fear of failure.

We want these movies to be given the same benefit and respect as other big name fantasy franchises. JK Rowlings films are perhaps the best example. The Potter franchise feels like a fully blown no-holds barred fantasy picture. Yet the quality is consistently high. Fans want that approach for comicbook movies.

Fans want to see the same creativity and artistic merit in the films, that the comics have. It's funny to hear people complain that the Spider-man films are to cartoony. What were you expecting to see? Yet it worked and was magical. Much like Donner's films, it was magical to see the comicbook on screen.

Are you familiar with BTAS? Do you think a film done in a similar style would be successful? Or do you think such an approach would be to stylized and would risk alienating the highly coveted (and supposedly ignorant of what a good movie is, according to movie studios) general audiences? Could a Batman film done similar to Sin City or 300 (style wise, not panel for panel) work? Or would that to risk alienating audiences?

Perhaps the best question is who are the studios trying to please more? Themselves or movie goers? Are they trying to make a great film or just trying to make something that will at least break even?

Considering BB (nor Supes) was the colossal mega-blockbuster hit many have come to expect from a Batman movie, would a more stylized fantasy approach had more appeal to a general audience and fans alike?

Not trying to fan a flame with this question, but would you be surprised if Iron Man did as well or better than Nolan's film? Would you be surprised if TDK wasn't a mega blockbuster next year? Why? Again, not trying to fan any flames, just curious. I had a similar convo with a few friends who are huge Batfans and they said they wouldn't be surprised at all.