The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 146

[regwec]

I'm not sure fans of the character per se owe Nolan anything. The character exists in about a million different stories in half a dozen different formats. I enjoyed his Bat-trilogy a great deal, and I am grateful for his effort, but it did nothing to change or advance my enjoyment of the character more broadly. I don't give a **** what the "general audience" thinks, nor do I feel a personal benefit from a spike in the character's popularity. He was and is easily the most compelling comic-book character, in my opinion, and a trio of Hollywood movies doesn't alter that either way.

Nevertheless, the trilogy was pretty good, and the first two installments were great. So, I feel Nolan merited the ample financial reward we gave him.

 

[BatLobster]

The reason I hold the Nolan trilogy in such high esteem is because out of all the media Batman stories are told through, film is my favorite. It was Batman movies that made me a fan of the character in the first place, and I've followed the character through all the media that I could get my hands on, but at the end of the day nothing gets me more excited than the prospect of a Batman movie. Nolan's films gave me what I had been craving so desperately between 1998 and 2005. Not even that I wanted an epic, realism-based trilogy of films...I just wanted to see more Batman movies. What we got far exceeded any expectations I had. And it turned out to be a 9 year journey of anticipation and fun, where there was always a new Batman movie on the horizon, and it was always a hot topic among my friends, some of which became more hardcore Batman fans as a result of the movies.

The trilogy also led to some great experiences and memories for me. Taking face-painted pictures for the Rory's Deathkiss viral with my then-friend, current girlfriend. Seeing the TDK prologue early through a viral screening and meeting Jonah Nolan afterwards, who was amazingly down-to-Earth and gracious. Taking a road trip with a few buddies to Pittsburgh to be a Heinz Field extra, and all the good times that followed there. Watching TDKR filming at multiple locations in NYC including Wall St. for the final battle. The experience of the midnight IMAX screenings of TDK/TDKR in general, where I made friends just by talking to people in line. They were way more than just movies to me. For me to say they were simply three good movies about a character I was already a fan of would be criminally underselling all the great times and sheer joy I got out of these movies, personally.

So, no, I don't owe Nolan anything; he's a very rich man now because of paying customers like us, as regwec points out. But I'm definitely grateful for what we got, and I'd shake his hand if I ever met him. Plus, he's just a really classy guy. It's hard not to have respect for him.

 

[regwec]

Certainly agree with your last paragraph.

 

[DorneyDave]

Nolan took my favorite fictional character and crafted 3 fantastic films and gave me everything I would have wanted in Batman movies. I owe him a thank you, a very large thank you.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I still have one huge problem that's been bugging me for 3 years...

Who is gillberg!?!?

Gillberg was Nolan's Vest

 

[Travesty]

I'm not sure how accurate it is that Nolan saved Batman. We had BTAS and a whole generation that grew up on it; we had dark stories in the comics; we had a number of "darker" Batman live-action projects that just never took off between Schumacher and Nolan. I think Nolan hit a sweet spot that a lot of people had been waiting for. I don't think Schumacher's films really hurt Batman's rep that bad in the eyes of the GA... it wasn't so much Nolan saving Batman as putting him back out there again and saying "Hey, remember this guy? He's back."

There's this sort of myth that's grown up that Schumacher single-handedly destroyed Batman and Nolan saved him. I don't think Batman needed saving, his mythos could handle its rep just fine - Nolan simply brought that mythos back out there again, and the public was hungry for it.

http://s698.photobucket.com/user/Travesty7007/media/Funny/robocop2.gif.html

 

[BatLobster]

All kidding aside though, B&R did pretty much single handedly put the Batman movie franchise on ice (pun intended?). I don't think that's a myth, that's pretty much a fact.

And Kane, before you slam me for saying that, I'm not hating on the movie haha. I love watching it for a good time and some laughs now. But even Clooney has said they wrecked the franchise, I don't think it's really a dispute that the movie wasn't the success the studio was looking for after BF and the huge backlash it got meant the Batman film franchise had to go into hibernation for a while. I also think that BB's relatively moderate box office run is proof that the "Batman" name HAD been damaged in the public eye when it came to the movies and was in need of some repair. I can't tell you how many people I knew who said, "Another one?" when I first told them about BB.

Like I said before though, I think sometimes things do happen for a reason.

 

[shauner111]

Batman & Robin is only good for roasting with your friends when you got the drinks going and you just treat it like a pure comedy. Otherwise it's a piece of **** that ruined Batman in the public eye for 8 years. And there's still a lot of people who going into TDK didn't see BB three years prior. So it basically f'd the franchise for a good decade and made the majority of people think Batman was a thing of the past and now a joke.

But on the other hand, if it wasn't for B&R we wouldn't have had Batman Begins. So we still owe a lot to Shumacher for being the **** up he is.

 

[BatLobster]

Batman & Robin is only good for roasting with your friends when you got the drinks going and you just treat it like a pure comedy. Otherwise it's a piece of **** that ruined Batman in the public eye for 8 years. And there's still a lot of people who going into TDK didn't see BB three years prior. So it basically f'd the franchise for a good decade and made the majority of people think Batman was a thing of the past and now a joke.

But on the other hand, if it wasn't for B&R we wouldn't have had Batman Begins. So we still owe a lot to Shumacher for being the **** up he is.

Lol, a glimpse into your future:

 

[The Shape]

Nolan didn't "save" Batman, since the character would have found his way back to the mainstream one way or another. Batman is a pop culture icon and one of the greatest fictional characters ever created, plain and simple.

What Nolan did do, however, was treat the character with a seriousness and respect that we hadn't seen for some time, at least not on the big screen and for a so-called "superhero" film. I think we all can agree that we should tip our hats to Nolan for his commitment to that. In addition, he also adapted some of the best and most iconic Batman stories to film, some more loosely than others, as well as some combined and amalgamated. Rather than straight up adaptations, we got interpretations of Year One, The Man Who Falls, The Long Halloween, Knightfall, and The Dark Knight Returns, among others that people might feel Nolan drew from.

Most of all, though, my biggest thanks to Nolan would be for not always playing it safe, in the sense that his Batman films (especially after BB) were bold and went places that, for awhile, other CBMs hadn't dared to go. I know there are people here who will not agree with that, and that's fine, but I feel it to be true.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I don't think B&R ruined Batman in the public eye. Even today, people remember the Keaton movies more than they do B&R. Among comic fans, we recognize how bad it is. But most of my friends just remember it as that one with Poison Ivy and Mister Freeze.

 

[The Shape]

I don't think B&R ruined Batman in the public eye. Even today, people remember the Keaton movies more than they do B&R. Among comic fans, we recognize how bad it is. But most of my friends just remember it as that one with Poison Ivy and Mister Freeze.

No, it didn't "hurt" Batman, but it wasnt exactly a good look, if you know what I mean. It doesn't matter how it's remembered now, but at the time, it was universally panned by critics and did not make the kind of huge box office splash that the previous films had made. B&R was almost like a spoof of the character in that it made Batman seem like a punch-line more than a hero. I know that now we can look back on it as an adaptation of the Silver Age Batman, which it pretty much is (almost like a modern adaptation of Adam West's Batman), but when it came out, it wasnt pretty.

B&R's lack of success (and abundance of crap) essentially meant that Batman had been played out. It's good that the character was given a rest from the big screen, so that he could come back better than ever.

 

[BatLobster]

Yes, perhaps on some level, even if B&R had been a better-made movie it might have just risked some Batman-burnout due to releasing so quickly after Forever. The fact that it wasn't well-received only cemented the fact that the public needed a break from Batman films. I think it also served as a lesson that people were only willing to go so far with the camp in a modern live action Batman movie. It showed that movies like this, while ultimately extremely commercial endeavors, ought not to be made by a committee with toy manufacturers and corporate sponsors too closely involved.

A lot of important lessons were learned from B&R. It's key to remember that "Batman" as a DC Comics property and as a WB movie property are two different things with two different lives. And without a doubt, it's the movies that reach the largest number of people and shape public perception about the character.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

It didn't mean Batman had been played out. It means that Schumacher was giving the studio exactly what they asked for—a more kid-friendly Batman movie. Schumacher get's too much crap for simply doing what he was told to do.

And there are tons of different iterations of the character, this one is just as valid as any other. People hold the '66 show in reverence for some reason, but it's no better than B&R.

 

[Travesty]

Batman fans might have not been too deterred by the Schumacher films, but general audiences came to associate the character with nipples on the Batsuit. After B&R the pop culture image of Batman had practically become a laughingstock.

It wasn't just Schumacher's version that people satirized, it's been every version of the character. Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney, and yes, even Christian Bale. Sure, people would associate Batman with nipples back in the day, the same way that people associate Batman with an overly comical raspy/scratchy voice today.

B&R was just a poorly made movie(although, I still enjoy it), but you can't say Schumacher was the only one to make Batman into a "laughingstock". Every director has done something to the character, to the point to where people take notice and laugh. He's a popular character. It's the nature of the beast.

I don't think B&R ruined Batman in the public eye. Even today, people remember the Keaton movies more than they do B&R. Among comic fans, we recognize how bad it is. But most of my friends just remember it as that one with Poison Ivy and Mister Freeze.

Agreed.

 

[BatLobster]

There's a huge difference between people taking notice of one aspect of a movie and finding unintentional humor in it...and treating an entire production as one big joke.

Sometimes I feel like some people here just like to play devil's advocate, which, hey that's cool. I get it. But seriously, B&R did cause a lot of people to stop taking Batman seriously as a movie character, or least give up hope of ever seeing a well-made, serious Batman film again (the idea of a reboot didn't even exist yet). I can't believe that's even in dispute here. And why should they have taken him seriously? As Schumacher famously said before takes, "Remember, it's a cartoon!".

And btw, I'm not part of the "death to Schumacher!" crowd, WB is as much to blame as he is. He was a hired gun. Although the homoerotic stuff like butt-shots and nipples certainly didn't help...but people were willing to give it a pass in BF.

I mean...not even the cast of the movie endorses it. Schumacher himself apologized for it. The 60s show never had to apologize for itself. That's because it was of its time. Schumacher tried to make something that was a throwback to that, but it was completely out of place with what people wanted in the late 90s. Also, I don't think anyone bought Clooney as Batman.

 

[regwec]

The problem with B&R is that, even as pastiche, it isn't funny. The wry humour in the 60s TV show seems much more palatable today than a movie made in the 90s. I don't accept that B&R was a genuine attempt to adapt the 'fun' Batman of the Silver Age. It has none of the innocence, nor the sense of wonder or adventure. It feels much more like a cynical marketing exercise to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

A Silver Age adaptation could still be a box office draw, just the tone and humour would need to be delicately judged. I would have Grant Morrison write it, then Paul Dini re-write it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, I have to say that as far as camp and funny Batman stories go, Batman 1960s is easily more enjoyable than Batman and Robin.

In fact I quite enjoy the 1960s show.

 

[BatLobster]

The problem with B&R is that, even as pastiche, it isn't funny. The wry humour in the 60s TV show seems much more palatable today than a movie made in the 90s. I don't accept that B&R was a genuine attempt to adapt the 'fun' Batman of the Silver Age. It has none of the innocence, nor the sense of wonder or adventure. It feels much more like a cynical marketing exercise to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

A Silver Age adaptation could still be a box office draw, just the tone and humour would need to be delicately judged. I would have Grant Morrison write it, then Paul Dini re-write it.

Bingo.

Brave and the Bold is also another modern example where a campier incarnation can work if the humor is clever. Admittedly, I do think something like that would be trickier to pull off in a big budget, live-action film, but I do like the idea of some Morrison flavor in there.

 

[Kane52630]

Every single one of you will be sent to da coola.

 

[Travesty]

You're not sending me to da coola!

 

[Doctor Who]

[YT]A_u2PMzFIYM[/YT]

THIS... IS... EXACTLY...

The equivalent of what I saw Guy Pearce announcing to the world that he was [BLACKOUT]The Mandarin. [/BLACKOUT]

 

[georgec]

It wasn't just Schumacher's version that people satirized, it's been every version of the character. Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney, and yes, even Christian Bale. Sure, people would associate Batman with nipples back in the day, the same way that people associate Batman with an overly comical raspy/scratchy voice today.

B&R was just a poorly made movie(although, I still enjoy it), but you can't say Schumacher was the only one to make Batman into a "laughingstock". Every director has done something to the character, to the point to where people take notice and laugh. He's a popular character. It's the nature of the beast.

Funny, I don't recall saying Schumacher was the only one to make Batman into a laughingstock.

I do remember saying that after B&R he had practically become one (therein implied is a culmination or buildup of the effects various Batman entries before and including Schumacher's films).

 

[Travesty]

Funny, I don't recall saying Schumacher was the only one to make Batman into a laughingstock. I do remember saying that after B&R he had practically become one (a culmination of various Batman entries before Schumacher's films). The lowest point was after B&R.

What you said, was that after B&R, his pop cultural image was that of a laughingstock, and I don't buy that at all. Yes, that particular movie was one, but Batman overall wasn't viewed as some turd of an idea. Batman is too big for that, just like how James Bond has many stinkers, but the series as a whole is still loved. And that was basically my point. Just because the movie was bad, doesn't mean Batman as a whole was some laughingstock.

 

[georgec]

What you said, was that after B&R, his pop cultural image was that of a laughingstock, and I don't buy that at all. Yes, that particular movie was one, but Batman overall wasn't viewed as some turd of an idea. Batman is too big for that, just like how James Bond has many stinkers, but the series as a whole is still loved. And that was basically my point. Just because the movie was bad, doesn't mean Batman as a whole was some laughingstock.

I didn't say Batman as a whole. I said the pop cultural image, which is largely defined by the films and general audiences who don't know much outside the films, not by better informed fans of Batman or the comics.