The Dark Knight Rises What I've realized about Chris Nolan's Batman...

[scatterax]

I think it's funny that he's trying to wink, but he ends up blinking instead.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Yeah, but the winking eye is more closed.

 

[El Payaso]

<---- the right way to do it

<---- Harry's way

 

[Julio Alejandro]

HAHAHA. It actually looks like him.

 

[Doc Samson]

There are plenty of them.

Most attempts they completely miss the point of the franchises, deliver crappy material which don't come close to showing its potential then killing the franchise permanently or keeping it in limbo for decades, not learning from mistakes or only using the lessons learned for Batman or Superman adaptions only, when they do have success they just stop once its ended then forget it exists instead of using it as a foundation for future projects to make it a stronger franchise, not connecting franchises with Batman or Superman enough when they need it, have people who are either don't care about the franchise, don't have the proper skills to execute them to its potential or both etc.



Not the same level of success just success. It can build up over time. Batman didn't begin with TDK, it took decades to get there.



Batman is not the only character with good stories. It's a great concept just not the only one DC has with potential.

I disagree that WB has nothing to do with Batman's success. Without their faith, constant bombardment of society with his mythology and excellent products which allow the mythos to reach its potential in every product which matches the era its in it wouldn't be where it is today. The concept is useless without this support.

Few DC franchises have got this great treatment.



My apologies.



Batman has been given the opportunity to do that again and again and again.

Most get one or two good versions then the rest are horribly executed or ignored altogether.

They can do various intrepatations of other franchises. Though the noir tone won't work with all of them.



Beause they were executed great.

Few DC adaptions get that luxury.



Alright.



I understand that.



But you're implying that those franchises who haven't defined the emdium or become classics on that scale don't have god stories, either. That is not true.



True. Batman is not the only franchise DC has which they can use this on.



I agree it wouldn't fit Spider-man or Superman but it could with Captain America.



And the other half?



A franchise doesn't need to influence a medium to be good or have potential. Some don't have any at all. Some concepts even work better in fother mediums then comics if film makers and animators see their unrapped potential. This happened with Blade.

The DCU comes in various levels of beings in power. Some can level city blocks, some can kill people with a blast, some can only massacre a room full of people, while others are planet killers.

Powers aren't why characters are interesting, though. There are many powerful characters with interesting personalities and mythos connected to them. It just takes someone who understand the concept to see its potential.

Power levels can be bought down for budgets, too.

Read Perez' WW, Andreyko's Manhunter run, the current Blue Beetle series, Johns' Green Lantern run, Morrison's JLA, Rucka's WW, Dixon's Batman and the Outsiders, Huntress: Cry For Blood, Crisis of Infinite Earths, Waid's first Flash run, JLA: Year One, Huntress: Year One, Wolfman's Teen Titans, Johns' JSA and Justice Society, Scott Batgirl: Year One, Simone's WW, Rucka's Checkmate, Warren Ellis' The Authority and StormWatch, JSA Classified: Honor Among Thieves, Ostrander's Suicide Squad, Brubaker's Catwoman, Superman/Shazam!: First Thunder. Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

The concepts of The Demon and Shadowpact show incredible potential to me but I've haven't read enough stories to recommend stories to read but you should watch the episodes Etrigan shows up in Batman:TAS and JLU. Thats the version I liked the most.



I don't deny that but I don't think Batman has all the good villains in the DCU.



Superman's villains face similar under-exposure in his film franchise as the lesser franchises. All they seem to do is recycle Luthor.

Zod was great but he's the only non-Lex villain Superman has which has been given good treatment in film. The rest are ignored.



I disagree.



That's only partially why he's interesting to me.

Lex's smart enough to use his mind to be a genuine threat to Superman despite being human, he actually sees himself as a good guy in their struggles, he's jealous of Superman's physical power, he plays with other people's lives like pawns he'll sacrifice or destroy just because he can, and he always get away clean from his crimes.



Spider-man, like Batman, has the benefit of his good characters getting good versions constantly shown to the public.

He is not the only franchise Marvel has which can do this.



Batman is not the only relatable character DC has in its franchises.

He's the most successfu since they give him the oportunities to see him at his full potential and being constantly around for generations. WB didn't give the public time to forget him they just moved on to the enxt stage to capitalize on it to expand what ground the previous instalment bought it.



Most of the lesser DC properterties.

The ones which are successes don't get far, either. WB seems to lose interest once the current project instead of using that momentum in future projects to keep them relevant with the public so by the time they do or if they use them again the public needs to learn about it all over again. The lesser franchises won't get stronger with that.



They don't need to crush the landscape but I think many can be successes.

They won't get that by being given crappy versions, guest-appearances or no adaptions.



Batman is not the only good concept the comic industry has.

Good marketing is essential in getting the public to pay attention. No-one would know or care unless they had a reason to see his stories.

The stories Batman had would have meant nothing unless they were in products which showed his potential to the public in ways which are relevant. Some franchises aren't updated in the public like they were in the comics so they don't realize how good the concept is and technology has improved enough to show their potential in live action and cartoons.


Nor is he the only one with good stories to tell or good characters in his franchise. His stories are just the ones people know about since WB has actually shown them it.

It does not matter how good a story or character is unless the public know about it.

They're not going to look for it in the comics.



Everyone knows Batman because WB has allowed people to see him in good cartoons, tv shows and movies.

Most lesser DC franchises have to rely on bad versions or guest-starring in those projects to get the publics atention at all. The reason few people remember them or know their mythos is because they don't have the cosntant expsoure Batman does. His mythos has been explored with incredible detail over generations. The public won't know all about the lesser franchises unless they get the same type of exposure. What's worse is when WB has given them their opportunity the adaption fails most of the time since the people making it were unable to get close in showing its potential then the franchise gets shelves permanently or decades even when technology catches up or their concepts are proven to work in other adaptions. All it takes is for their brand to be on a bad product with no connection beyond that and it's the same result.

Being a pillar of the comic industry hasn't got WW much good. While Suerman and Batman have gotten various solo cartoons, big budgte movies and live action tv shows she's gotten very little to them. She's one of the lucky franchises, too.



I don't think every franchise could meet Batman's success not any character but I do think many of them could be successful in other media if they are used to their potential.

Batman was deemed worthy of a movie serial only two years after he debuted. It didn't take 'decades' for studios/DC to see the character's potential.

Secondly because I don't want to go over every point you've made the tragic motivation of Bruce Wayne/Batman (losing his parents to street crime) which has fuelled every dark, angsty take on the character similar to say Spider-Man's is EMOTIONALLY more relatable (even for those who thankfully have never experienced such a situation)to most audiences (comic readers or not) than the motivations of well...most of the others.

How are Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), the Flash (any of them), Superman, The Spectre, Wonder Woman's origins etc DRAMATICALLY (the key word) as relatable as a boy who sees his parents gunned down? As for the non-powered heroes their origins are by and large completely generic (reminding people of countless revenge-laden action movies), some even influenced by Batman's origin (for example the Huntress).

From the get go (1939) that character (along with Superman)appealed consistently more to the fanbase of readers than any of the others that came along.

You posts give out the impression that you think that if EVERY character was exposed/marketed the same way every character would be equally popular with equal quality product. Within comic fandom it doesn't work like that (look at the endless cancelled titles in both DC and Marvel's history) and if you're core audience doesn't have the same loyalty for certain characters from their inception no matter how you showcase them (DC's Silver Age) the general audience sure as hell won't.

Without going through each and every one of Major's rebuttals, I think baerrtt hit the nail on the head perfectly from where I was coming from. WB can market as much as they want, I'm just not as sure that they would have any kind of success, let alone big success, with their other properties

 

[dontplaydead27]

Yes, I like what Doc and Baerrtt said. I've always said Batman appeals to people on a huge emotional level because it's the fact that any of us could become him (you know what I mean) and that's not the case for nearly all of the other most well-known DC characters. This does effect their popularity.

 

[Chris Wallace]

We don't have his money.

 

[The Major]

Without going through each and every one of Major's rebuttals, I think baerrtt hit the nail on the head perfectly from where I was coming from. WB can market as much as they want, I'm just not as sure that they would have any kind of success, let alone big success, with their other properties

They have had successes before.

Big success can occur over a long period by building on prior successes and constant updates to keep them relevant.

 

[Crook]

Yes, I like what Doc and Baerrtt said. I've always said Batman appeals to people on a huge emotional level because it's the fact that any of us could become him (you know what I mean) and that's not the case for nearly all of the other most well-known DC characters. This does effect their popularity.

It has little to do with us thinking of possibly being like him. It's about making a character that resonates with the audiences so they become emphatically engaged within their story. I'm sure I won't have to list some major blockbusters that featured characters no one could really hope to be.

I'm not even gonna go into the epic fail that people have written, showing absolutely no understanding of the other DC characters. It really does make me laugh when people think Batman is somehow the only property that could win over the audiences...because he's relatable? I want people to think about that for a moment. I don't know what tragic lives you people have been leading, because Bruce Wayne is not leading a common life in the least. His life can be understood and even gain sympathy, but I'd hardly say it's relatable past the notion of losing loved ones.

 

[zanos]

Given the reason statements from Nolan's camp about the future of this franchise, as brilliant as the last 2 films have been, the range of this series is very restricted. Tim Burton at least showed how realistic the Penguin can be and showed us a world of fantasy that seemed believable in the real world, whereas Nolan's world of Batman is limited to just taking the safe route of Batman, the detective and the psychos of Gotham, which is brilliant in it's own right because I don't think any other writer/director would've taken it that route. I love the intellectual take on the mythology of Batman, but he is limiting the range of where these characters go.

It is definately restrictive not only in what kinds of villians they can introduce into the series but also what Batman can physically do. Everytime I see him on camera walking around and talking to ppl I can't but laugh inside at the absolute ridiculousness of such a character. Burton had the right idea but executed it horribly.

 

[CaptainClown]

zanos are you talking about the burton batman throughout that whole statement?

 

[zanos]

I am talking about Nolan.

 

[CaptainClown]

so you didn't like nolan's batman walking around? (just checking with what you are saying)

 

[baerrtt]

It has little to do with us thinking of possibly being like him. It's about making a character that resonates with the audiences so they become emphatically engaged within their story. I'm sure I won't have to list some major blockbusters that featured characters no one could really hope to be.

I'm not even gonna go into the epic fail that people have written, showing absolutely no understanding of the other DC characters. It really does make me laugh when people think Batman is somehow the only property that could win over the audiences...because he's relatable? I want people to think about that for a moment. I don't know what tragic lives you people have been leading, because Bruce Wayne is not leading a common life in the least. His life can be understood and even gain sympathy, but I'd hardly say it's relatable past the notion of losing loved ones.

In terms of quality the best blockbusters all have lead characters that are emotionally relatable, not literal, but emotionally. Whether it's Indiana Jones, a guy who blunders his way through the trouble he gets himself into, Luke Skywalker a normal kid who dreams of a better life, John Mcclane a guy scared out of his wits but has to do what he does or Bruce Wayne a man transformed through a personal tragedy forever you have to put the audience into the character's shoes.

 

[Crook]

That's mostly what I just said.

 

[Melkay]

Those are not news at all. Marvel aims at making 'Relatable Characters' wich are prone to have more ordinary stories and DC aims at 'Admirable Characters' that are prone to extaordinary decisions. Bats and Sups are the most obvious examples of the latter.

The appealing side of Bats may be that his decisions and attitudes are designed to be Admirable but also CONTROVERSIAL. He's famous for breaking boundaries and having questionable character traits. And the dichotomy has become really popular. It's all around the popular media. Take TV Shows like LOST or "Grey's Anatomy". Both present a groups of very flawed characters but in LOST the mistakes and tragedies they've experienced are quite Extraordinary. In "Grey's Anatomy" the characters are more relatable but... well, a lot less intense. One could argue that Lost is more "DC" and Grey is more "Marvel". I know, funny concept.

Severely flawed characters seem to work better nowadays but both options have their own publics and defenders (common/extraordinary).
Sometimes I think that Batman's appeal resides in the fact that he is an Intensely Controversial (which makes him interesting) and Very Damaged (which makes him sympathetic) character.

 

[The Major]

Those are not news at all. Marvel aims at making 'Relatable Characters' wich are prone to have more ordinary stories and DC aims at 'Admirable Characters' that are prone to extaordinary decisions. Bats and Sups are the most obvious examples of the latter.

Agreed.

Though just because they're the most famous doesn't mean they speak for the entire DCU. DC has gotten much darker and more realistic the last few decades.

The appealing side of Bats may be that his decisions and attitudes are designed to be Admirable but also CONTROVERSIAL.

True, but not all characters have to be controversial to have success.

Nor does Batman have the monopoly on it at DC.

He's famous for breaking boundaries

I thought that was Wonder Woman?

and having questionable character traits.

He's the one who started it, yes.

Batman isn't the only one with it, though.

And the dichotomy has become really popular. It's all around the popular media.

True.

Take TV Shows like LOST or "Grey's Anatomy". Both present a groups of very flawed characters but in LOST the mistakes and tragedies they've experienced are quite Extraordinary. In "Grey's Anatomy" the characters are more relatable but... well, a lot less intense. One could argue that Lost is more "DC" and Grey is more "Marvel". I know, funny concept.

Agreed.

Severely flawed characters seem to work better nowadays but both options have their own publics and defenders (common/extraordinary).

True.

Sometimes I think that Batman's appeal resides in the fact that he is an Intensely Controversial (which makes him interesting) and Very Damaged (which makes him sympathetic) character.

Batman isn't the only character in the DCU with those traits.

Not that all characters need them to work. Superman sure didn't.

Being damaged by having parents killed in front of characters isn't the only way to be sympathetic, either. Batman wouldn't be very entertaining if that was the only thing interesting about him.

 

[Melkay]

Agreed.

Though just because they're the most famous doesn't mean they speak for the entire DCU. DC has gotten much darker and more realistic the last few decades.

Yes, and that's partly because of Batman. Take Miller&Moore's dark and cynical takes on the story, for example... they became enormously influential blueprints for the genre. And that's because in the 80's these authors used this specific title to launch those particular styles into comic-world. And that's because Batman was a fairly influential character who could also be bent into these directions.

Please, look now at the new film's policy for DC Films. They're shaping their future movies, Superman II included, after the hugely influential TDK.

Are those things coincidental? To believe so, in my opinion, is a form of denial.

True, but not all characters have to be controversial to have success.

Nor does Batman have the monopoly on it at DC.

He has the lead.
Of course that's not the only way it has to be. Marvel's the opposite way, and it's still succesful. But still, among extraordinary characters, people want to see complexity and not "perfect hero" portrayals. I'm saying that, in DC's line, Batman is the best.
And he is AFFECTING all the other titles. I'm notmaking appreciations here, just stating facts. He is AFFECTING all the other DC titles. And some of Marvel's too.

I thought that was Wonder Woman?

And you'd be wrong.

I said 'boundaries', not lingerie.
(I just made that up... I know, I'm proud of myself)

He's the one who started it, yes.

Batman isn't the only one with it, though.
Batman isn't the only character in the DCU with those traits.

Not that all characters need them to work. Superman sure didn't.

Being damaged by having parents killed in front of characters isn't the only way to be sympathetic, either. Batman wouldn't be very entertaining if that was the only thing interesting about him.

Of course not. And that's proof of how influential he is. And that makes him a better character. Not all characters have to be that way. But he is the best character BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST APPEALING WAY FOR READERS.

Unless, of course, Marvel's you favourite brand.

 

[Doc Samson]

I just want to know what characters you guys think can be really successful that DC has? Who? And what level of success are we talking about here? I've said it before but I guess it needs to be stressed again, Batman has the best, and most influential stories in comics, first and foremost. It has to start there for it to even be possible to make a movie of TDK's magnitude. Can we all agree on that point? If you disagree, tell me who has more classic stories? When you adapt those stories and add your own flavor to it (assuming your a talented director) than it's not rocket science to be able to create a fantastic Batman story.

And Batman is relatable, in terms of superheroes, how isn't he? He's not superpowered, and unlike Superman or Spiderman, he rarely saves the day. He fails constantly, he's nowhere close to infallible, and he has the most entertaining villains of anyone. He's the Punisher with cooler toys, he's Tony Stark with more grit, people will always gravitate to that. Don't act like Ledger passing away was the sole reason for TDK's success, this all goes back to the quality of BB, which is basically the comic book come to life we've all waited to see. And that ultimately goes back to the quality of the books themselves. As a character, some of the greatest artists and writers have done their greatest work with Batman, it's just the way it is, why is that such a problem? I'd line up to see a Flash or Green Lantern movie just like anything else, but honestly, how successful would it be? I actually think GL could produce IronMan level success, and thats great enough, but to sit here and act like the constant barrage of Batman somehow equates to TDK's success is crazy. They couldn't force Batman & Robin onto anybody, so it's not about pushing something down our throats until we like it.