Discussion in 'Batman World' started by Lord, Jul 27, 2011.
Good eye, Payaso.
He's a big fan of The Long Halloween. An interview with Nolan is featured in the introduction for the updated collection of the graphic novel. Someone at Nolanfans.com transcribed it here: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4417&sid=11439b5dd43559454a037a31234e5986#p4417
Also, in the Batman Begins DVD extras he mentions that "The Man Who Falls" was an inspiration for the film.
The Man Who Falls was actually given to Nolan and Goyer by DC and was rereleased as a tie in when Begins' premiered
No surprise. You can see so many story elements from TLH in both Begins and TDK.
I love how Michael Keaton left because of Schumacher direction, and compares Nolan's to what he wishes the third film should have been.
I actually have read numerous times that Forever was how Schumacher dealt with a script that he wasn't crazy about. I've read that the studio and Goldsman are actually more to blame for the farcical nature of the latter 2 films than Joel. He himself has stated that he would have loved to adapt YEAR ONE.
He contradicted himself big time with that. At the time and shortly after the releases of his movies he kept stating that people who want a serious Batman should get a life, that Batman is a comic book not 'tragic ' book, that he grew up with the 50s Batman and thats what he liked the most and wanted to imitate, and that a Batman movie cant possibly be serious.
Only YEARS after he got the beating for his sugary Batman movies he started the whole 'I wanted to do Year One' talk
I could so argue against that. While they are entertaining films and great stories as well, few people realize that Nolan is not really taking too many things from source material. A few things from Killing Joke or Batman annual #14 or MAN WHO FALLS or otherwise are only starting points. He is adapting general conceptions about characters for his own agenda.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but stylistically Batman 89 was a better Batman film.
Am I the only one who thinks Nolan was a bit cerebral in his approach to TDK?
Batman Begins tops TDK by a mile because the film was juggling too many things. There were about 20 minutes I would have cut from the film
Nolan took way more than that. Batman Year One, The Long Halloween, and Joker's first appearance in Batman #1 to name a few more were also used. When I watch his movies I can see the influences, not just from the various comic book stories, but with the characters as well.
The cerebral approach works the best, IMO, because Batman and his world is so psychological. Nolan knows how to use that effectively. Especially in TDK. That's one reason why it's the best.
You have described the best way to adapt things. Take the core concepts and shape them into a greats tory.
Sure, many people come and say 'I love Nolan because he is so faithful to the comics.' Well no, he's about as faithful as anyone else. But the reason why Batman, Joker, Two-Face, Gordon and such are so great in his movies is not because he duplicates everything that happens in coics but because he envisions the characters as if they were real.
I agree. Each director has his good points.
I think that too and I love that enormously.
Same could be said about The Godfather, Davinci's Last Supper could do it with two apostles less, but sometimes movies are not to please audiences entirely at the first sight.
I wonder which was the truth?
Personally, I think that Batman has done in so many different ways stylistically over his 70+ years of history that trying to say "This is THE way to adapt Batman to film" omits a lot great material. I love both Burton's surreal expressionist nightmares and Nolan's grounded, cerebral character studies.
I think the first. To this day he makes snide remarks towards ppl who dislike his movies. When the interviewer said that B&R was dissapointing for many Schumacher answered with "for you maybe" and then started attacking the guy personally. After reading numerous interviews with Schumacher I dislike the guy as a person big time
What's surprising to me is that if you look at Batman Forever, it actually has genuinely dramatic scenes and character development. I wonder who was responsible for that, if Joel Schumacher wanted to make Batman a comedy?
Burton as a producer. The writers said before writing a script they had a meeting with Schumacher and Burton and Burton just said he wants some focus on the duality of the character and pretty much left everything else to them and Schumacher after that
That makes sense. It might also explain why Bruce seems to be speaking from experience when he talks to Dick about the nature of revenge.
People tend to go out of their way sometimes when they say that BF is not a sequel to the Burton dualogy. The fact that it picks up right after them thematically pretty much confirms them as sequels. Regardless of stylistic changes the narrative built off what Burton built. Oh and yes the Batchlers were basically commissioned by Burton then Schumacher had Goldsman also get involed and add a lot of bullcrap to it.
BF could've been a really good movie if Schumacher had actually taken it seriously. As it is it's very bipolar but still decent. I rather enjoy it a lot personally outside of the villains. I can't stand them. Even Carrey's Riddler. He's no Frank Gorshin.
BF was a sequel. But they made it so you can see it without being necessary to watch the previous movies.
I completely agree.
I disagree with people taking credit away from Schumacher for the serious parts of BF, it was all Schumacher's movie, Burton had nothing to do with the movie past that script writers meeting and being a producer in name only. The answear here (as much as people want to believe the opposite) is that Schumacher cared for the movie in the sense that he wanted to tell a story while yielding to the studio's requests, thats why Forever has good stuff there because its director allowed for that (he is the captain of the ship after all) and was going to be even better but the studio mandated the film to be cut down.
Now, after the success of Forever and the preasure to follow it with an even bigger and more family friendly film came in, I guess Schumacher said "f#$% it, if this is what you want then have it" and went along with it, which he probably shouldn't but he did and must regret it doesn't matter what he says about it.
I have always agreed with Chris O'Donell remark that BF actually felt like a movie while B&R was merely a toy commercial.
I think that if the Schumacher films had more scenes like the character development scenes of Batman Forever, and less of the stupid crap, the films might not be remembered in infamy.
By the way, do you have a source for the Chris O'Donnell remark?
Then he didn't care because a real director that would actually care would fight or just walk away and move on to another project. It's not like he was some rookie director here. He already had an established relationship with WB. He had directed hits for them in the past.
The truth is BF was just a paycheck for the guy. He didn't take Batman's world seriously like he took Falling Down. He viewed Batman's world as the Gotham from the silver age full of wackiness and bright colors and has said as much. This is why we have an ultra serious Bruce Wayne and lighter emulation of Keaton bat contrasted with the Riddler in a freaking tiara.
Going back to the fact that he IS indeed the director as you said thus this is his vision. I doubt the studio was on his ass like that he seems proud of Forever and seemed to have a certain amount of freedom on it. They just told him "go lighter than Burton; make our corporate merchandise sponsors not back out".
I doubt that they were dictating inherently stupid stuff like the villains playing Battleship™ and Batmobiles driving up the side of buildings; and Two-Face wailing like a baby in studio notes. I won't even get into the more infamous stuff like bat nipples. That all falls on him when it comes to Forever too. I just think his vision for the character clashed too much with what was going on at that time with the character on screen and the bipolarness of BF is very reflective of it.
Thank god for Nolan's trilogy. I don't think they'll ever deviate that far again. They have to get directors who have the sensibilities for the bronze age and up Batman as it's the most interestingly cinematic version. I wouldn't mind golden age again either as it worked well for Burton; but silver age influences don't fly that well uninspired. It worked for the tv show because especially during the first 2 seasons it was OFTEN inspired. Schumacher's movies were just mostly fluff not creative expressions of inspiration from the silver age.
What's so crazy about where Schumacher went is that he and WB had a perfect example for how to do Batman that was both kid friendly and serious and true to the dark roots of the character, BTAS. It boggles the mind that they not only allowed him to stray so far from the precedent set by Burton(i can understand that given how grotesque Burton was getting) but from BTAS.
Actually, if you're paying attention, the Schumacher films took some of B:TAS's great ideas (Two-Face being defeated with coins, Mr. Freeze's origin), ripped them off, and shat on them.
Yeah... the Freeze thing was taken directly from Paul Dini's one shot Freeze comic that was adapted into BTAS.
Paul Dini is completely responsible for the modern Freeze and Mike Mignola did the quintessential design