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

[Bishop]

sorry, this may have been addressed, but...

the penguin is already a fairly believable character. fat mob boss/arms dealer with a penchant for cigars and an unfortunate nickname.

what burton did with the character was make him a sewer-dwelling, rotten-fish-eating, nose biting pervert who commanded an army of assorted sewer dwelling criminals and penguins.

realistic indeed...

 

[Anita18]

The OP actually has a point. The Batman franchise is limited, in the same way that any non-sci-fi, non-fantasy film is limited. There are themes that it simply cannot explore because it is anchored to the real world.

I don't see how that's a bad thing. The trick about storytelling is that you have to write it so that it seems like what happens is the only way it can happen. You can't just throw the kitchen sink at it and see what sticks. Being limited in what characters and themes they can use makes it possible for them to explore more deeply what characters and themes they do have.

 

[baerrtt]

The only reason Batman has so many great movies, tv shows and video-games is purely because WB wishes to give his franchise the opportunity to do so.

How do you expect WW, Flash, GL, Birds of Prey and numerous others with just as interesting franchise to compete when they aren't given equal treatment in quality of their products? They all have amazing potential, they just lack WB's willingness to use it.



Watchmen is the comic industry's holy grail and it has no high profile characters in it.



That was due to several factors not just that Batman was in it.

It had an all-star cast, a franchise which WB has continuously pumped into the public's consciousness with good products in multiple high profile media for generations, the death of a critically acclaimed actor who played an iconic character, an excellent story that is brilliantly executed, a critically acclaimed director who fits the franchise perfectly, its a sequel to a critically acclaimed film that made the film franchise viable again, the return of a villain just as famous as Batman the only villain WB has done this with is Luthor they've done a poor job most other villains from other franchises though it has gotten better with JLU, WB has actual faith in Batman etc.

Most comic franchises DC has don't have half this.



Which comes down to quality. It wasn't good just for Batman in it. Batman can't do **** unless people make him do it.

WB needs to give this type of quality cartoons to other franchises like Flash, WW, GL etc. That would help their image in the public immensely, get their franchises more credibility and the public will learn more about what their unique mythos.



Same reasons above.

This maybe improving with the DC animated film division for lesser franchises like WW and Aquaman.



The only difference with Batman and the rest is that few have a Nolan to do that for them in film.



After WB had given Batman plenty of good attention in various media for generations.

The public knew the basics about Batman before Burton made his films. They didn't come in cold.

Burton's films were big budget movies with a great cast and talented people involved at every stage. It wasn't like he'd been given the Steel treatment.



I could say that with any serious comic adaption.



True, but it can vary from franchise to franchise. Some concepts are easier to mess up then others which means they need more attention to getting it right on the more difficult ones not doing it the cheapest, nastiest way. They just kill their own franchises before they get started with that.

Sorry to say this but maybe it's also because the Batman character has had so many different interpretations and equally so many great stories over the decades that have highlighted these many interpretations that EVERYBODY can buy henceforth it is easier to jump from fantastical to camp to realistic whether it be movies, comics or animated shows. The other heroes (DC) are mostly fantastical in nature so that automatically restricts how you can shape them and play around with them.

 

[The Major]

Sorry to say this but maybe it's also because the Batman character has had so many different interpretations and equally so many great stories over the decades that have highlighted these many interpretations that EVERYBODY can buy henceforth it is easier to jump from fantastical to camp to realistic whether it be movies, comics or animated shows.

Which I've been talking about in my previous post.

Everyone can only jump into franchises like Batman because most of those versions where good concepts and entertaining stories to show their potential. Most lesser franchises which have been getting more exposure over the years in movies and cartoons but they don't come close to being executed with the same quality as Batman or Superman. Unless they are quality no-one will care. That's why they fail.

Since most of DC's franchises have either very little or no exposure over the decades WB needs to start as soon as possible to get them out in the pubic eye and keep them there. Give them breaks for a few years, of course, but bring them back in new versions later on. Not to long, not ten years or anything. They can avoid this from happening but having cameos in tv shows and cartoons whenever the franchise doesn't have its own series for the public to watch. Many of them have had a few interpretations already. WW has Super Friends, Lynda Carter and JLU. All very different versions of varying quality.

These franchises need long term exposure in good products constantly to get traction with the public. Batman and Superman have gotten this, they haven't.

A lot of characters DC has do have good stories and/or untapped potential that could be unleashed in the proper adaption aside form comics like Blade was.

WB needs to research them to find them and, if they can't, come up with a good story to tell the comics missed somehow. This is not impossible for them to do. They do need to adapted by people with the proper skills and vision for that franchise, though. You can't just hand a random franchise to a random WB employee and expect a success.

The campiness can be dealt with by getting the right version executed by a good creator. In the right creative hands this isn't a problem. But franchises need the right people in charge or the campiness could hurt them since the people don't know to how properly get rid of it.

The other heroes (DC) are mostly fantastical in nature so that automatically restricts how you can shape them and play around with them.

1. Not all of them are sci-fi gods like Superman. DC has hundreds of street levelers who operate at Batman's level. They would be either easier or slightly more difficult to adapt them him in live action.

Some, like the Spectre, could even be depowered to a level to suit their budget, as well. Adaptions sometimes power down the comic characters to make their stories.

2. WB couldnt do the difficult franchises in the past due to the lack of technology. That is now irrelevant due to the progress in animation and special effects.

 

[baerrtt]

Which I've been talking about in my previous post.

Everyone can only jump into franchises like Batman because most of those versions where good concepts and entertaining stories to show their potential. Most lesser franchises have been getting more exposure over the years in movies and cartoons but they don't come close to being executed with the same quality as Batman or Superman. Unless they are quality no-one will care. That's why they fail.

Since most of DC's franchises have either very little or no exposure over the decades WB needs to start as soon as possible to get them out in the pubic eye and keep them there. Give them breaks for a few years, of course, but bring them back in new versions later on. Not to long, not ten years or anything. They can avoid this from happening but having cameos in tv shows and cartoons whenever the franchise doesn't have its own series for the public to watch.

These franchises need long term exposure in good products constantly to get traction with the public. Batman and Superman have gotten this, they haven't.

A lot of characters DC has do have good stories and/or untapped potential that could be unleashed in the proper adaption aside form comics like Blade was.

WB needs to research them to find them and, if they can't, come up with a good story to tell the comics missed somehow. This is not impossible for them to do. They do need to adapted by people with the proper skills and vision for that franchise, though. You can't just hand a random franchise to a random WB employee and expect a success.

The campiness can be dealt with by getting the right version executed by a good creator. In the right creative hands this isn't a problem. But franchises need the right people in charge or the campiness could hurt them since the people don't know to how properly get rid of it.



1. Not all of them are sci-fi gods like Superman. DC has hundreds of street levelers who operate at Batman's level. They would be either easier or slightly more difficult to adapt them him in live action.

Some, like the Spectre, could even be depowered to a level to suit their budget, as well. Adaptions sometimes power down the comic characters to make their stories.

2. WB couldnt do the difficult franchises in the past due to the lack of technology. That is now irrelevant due to the progress in animation and special effects.

The Spectre is the Avenging Wrath of God. Unless you change the origin completely you can't depower the character without taking away from that aspect. And yes DC has many street level characters but there's always been a Batmanish influence on nearly all of DC's other non powered heroes (in some shape or form) that they're nearly not unique enough.

Nolan has succeeded with his take on Batman because he's using the character and his world to comment on ours like Miller did 20 years ago. DC (and don't get me wrong I prefer DC to Marvel) ultimately is the home of Godlike heroes who are expected to be lighter hence why it is easier to make great drama that resonates with everybody using Batman than it is with Green Lantern.

Not all comic book characters are equal (something some fanboys don't understand) in terms of potential great storytelling, relatability (partially why despite being an ultra handsome millionaire the character has succeeded over the years) and TONE.

 

[The Major]

The Spectre is the Avenging Wrath of God. Unless you change the origin completely you can't depower the character without taking away from that aspect.

You don't need a Spectre to have Superman powers to be the wrath of god.

And yes DC has many street level characters but there's always been a Batmanish influence on nearly all of DC's other non powered heroes (in some shape or form) that they're nearly not unique enough.

Batman does have an influence. He's an arch-type. They all do that. Spider-man's one as well. That influence has been used in shows like Kim Possible, Buffy and Ben 10 with success. Batman was an influence in Angel, too.

Exactly what are getting at by characters not being unique enough?

All they need is a cartoon, tv show or movie to do a good job adapting them.

Nolan has succeeded with his take on Batman because he's using the character and his world to comment on ours like Miller did 20 years ago.

Film makers can do that with other franchises, too.

DC (and don't get me wrong I prefer DC to Marvel) ultimately is the home of Godlike heroes who are expected to be lighter hence why it is easier to make great drama that resonates with everybody using Batman than it is with Green Lantern.

That doesn't mean they can't be relevant, serious or dark. It just depends on the character and what the story's tone is. Some have more depth and darkness then others. Some can do both like WW.

Some franchises are lighter then others, of course but there needs to be a balance. They're not the Super Friends. Far from it.

Not all comic book characters are equal

You've under-estimating comic book characters potential.

I know all characters aren't all equal but in the right creative hands they do have potential to be entertaining.

(something some fanboys don't understand)

You may not like fanboys but they can see potential where others don't. If it wasn't for us seeing that potential many of the great stories and characters in comics wouldn't have been created in the first place since in the comic industry many become those creators. We don't need to see a good movie, cartoon or tv show adaption of a comic book to know a franchise has potential in those mediums.

There are many great stories and characters in comics most people just don't know about since they don't read the comics.

Some of us even find work in other mediums like Hollywood. Del Toro and Riami are fanboys who had the skills to show the potential of the comics they read on the big screen.

Fandom isn't limited to comics, either.

in terms of potential great storytelling, relatability

Batman is not the only hero who can be relatable.

He's just the one WB does the best job showing it.

(partially why despite being an ultra handsome millionaire the character has succeeded over the years)

They don't need Batman level success to do that.

Batman didn't even have Batman level success in the beginning. It took many generations of work to accomplish that.

and TONE.

Comic franchises come in many tones just like any other medium.

 

[El Payaso]

sorry, this may have been addressed, but...

the penguin is already a fairly believable character. fat mob boss/arms dealer with a penchant for cigars and an unfortunate nickname.

what burton did with the character was make him a sewer-dwelling, rotten-fish-eating, nose biting pervert who commanded an army of assorted sewer dwelling criminals and penguins.

realistic indeed...

The problem with Penguin is not his realism as a character but that he's uninteresting. Burton made him interesting.

 

[p4poetic]

Nolan's is hardly safe. A lot of people didn't think he could pull off the Joker; especially if he were to go with his true origin (chemical bath resulting in white skin, red lips and green hair) who ironically, fanbois still ***** about him not doing.

 

[The Major]

Nolan's is hardly safe. A lot of people didn't think he could pull off the Joker; especially if he were to go with his true origin (chemical bath resulting in white skin, red lips and green hair) who ironically, fanbois still ***** about him not doing.

That I'm glad he did away with.

He's managed to update and still keep the character's spirit in tact brilliantly.

The rest of Hollywood should follow his example when adapting comic franchises.

 

[the_scream]

What was so unrealistic about that Penguin?

A baby being raised by Penguins.

 

[p4poetic]

LOL.
Tarzan was more plausible. Apes are very close to human beings.

 

[the_scream]

The problem with Penguin is not his realism as a character but that he's uninteresting. Burton made him interesting.

He made him a monster. That does not entail "interesting".

The Penguin character was always interesting before Burton came along which is why he is one of the main villains in Batman's Rogues gallery. And he could be just as interesting again without the overkill performance and disgusting makeup.

 

[The Major]

LOL.
Tarzan was more plausible. Apes are very close to human beings.

Didn't some of the penguins have telekinesis?

 

[El Payaso]

He made him a monster. That does not entail "interesting".

Yes it does.

That's why monsters with a story have always captured imagination. Elephant Man, Frankenstein's monster, even King Kong.

The Penguin character was always interesting before Burton came along which is why he is one of the main villains in Batman's Rogues gallery.

Before Burton, Penguin was an average fat guy in a tuxedo. Most memorable things about him were the comedic tone of Burgess Meredith, the weaponized umbrella and in recent years his tragic story as a child, which Burton took to the next level. Instead of feeling rejection for being merely fat and big-nosed (as many people are), Burton made him really deformed so it wasn't just an average case of a child feeling bad about his body.

And he could be just as interesting again without the overkill performance and disgusting makeup.

I haven't said such thing. You're imagining I did but I haven't.

In any case, Burton's movie is proof of that since DeVito's acting job was a perfect beautiful case of the actor getting lost in the character, which btw is a deformed monster so some exagerations are understandable and required. And the Oscar-nominee make-up was convincing and emphasized the tragic side of the character.

 

[mavsmaniac21]

sorry, this may have been addressed, but...

the penguin is already a fairly believable character. fat mob boss/arms dealer with a penchant for cigars and an unfortunate nickname.

what burton did with the character was make him a sewer-dwelling, rotten-fish-eating, nose biting pervert who commanded an army of assorted sewer dwelling criminals and penguins.

realistic indeed...

exactly what i wanted to say when i first read this. burton really did convince people with that movie that the penguin is a penguin man. stop defending burton for that. he screwed that up big time.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

How so?

 

[scatterax]

hes not a panguin man. he's a man in a tuxedo

 

[the_scream]

Yes it does.

That's why monsters with a story have always captured imagination. Elephant Man, Frankenstein's monster, even King Kong.



Before Burton, Penguin was an average fat guy in a tuxedo. Most memorable things about him were the comedic tone of Burgess Meredith, the weaponized umbrella and in recent years his tragic story as a child, which Burton took to the next level. Instead of feeling rejection for being merely fat and big-nosed (as many people are), Burton made him really deformed so it wasn't just an average case of a child feeling bad about his body.



I haven't said such thing. You're imagining I did but I haven't.

In any case, Burton's movie is proof of that since DeVito's acting job was a perfect beautiful case of the actor getting lost in the character, which btw is a deformed monster so some exagerations are understandable and required. And the Oscar-nominee make-up was convincing and emphasized the tragic side of the character.

Burton didn't make the Penguin character. He introduced a monster. Penguin was never supposed to be a deformed monster who lived in the sewers. And being a monster does not entail "interesting". There are plenty of monsters in films that are crap. A new film that features the Penguin could be much more interesting without the make-up and screaming.

 

[scatterax]

Burton didn't make the Penguin character. He introduced a monster. Penguin was never supposed to be a deformed monster who lived in the sewers. And being a monster does not entail "interesting". There are plenty of monsters in films that are crap. A new film that features the Penguin could be much more interesting without the make-up and screaming.

agreed. bonus points 4 you!

 

[El Payaso]

burton really did convince people with that movie that the penguin is a penguin man.

I know, he succeeded positioning a more interesting version of the character.

stop defending burton for that.

What's the wrong part in defending a successful improvement?

he screwed that up big time.

The man saved a mediocre character. More than defending I applaud him.

hes not a panguin man. he's a man in a tuxedo

A man in a tuxedo? Whoa, what an undescribably fascinating concept.

Burton didn't make the Penguin character.

I know, he just improved the mediocre original concept.

He introduced a monster.

And what a monster!

Penguin was never supposed to be a deformed monster who lived in the sewers.

I know, he's supposed to be a chubby man in a tuxedo. How someone fails to see what a magnificent concept for a villiain that is, I ignore.

And being a monster does not entail "interesting".

Yeah, all of those Frankenstein, Dracula, Hunchback of Notre Dame followers out there are just plain wrong.

There are plenty of monsters in films that are crap.

And original comic book villains too. The thing is how to improve them.

A new film that features the Penguin could be much more interesting without the make-up and screaming.

Once again, I have never denied such thing. Good reader good replier.

 

[The Major]

El:

There's more then one way to improve a concept.

In the comics Penguin is the Batman's stool pigeon. They won't upset his operation as long as he doesn't do anything to horrific if he keeps them informed. Its worked well.

Riddler in the comics is a private investigator who is reformed.

 

[El Payaso]

El:

There's more then one way to improve a concept.

And for the third time I have never said otherwise.

 

[Drz]

Penquin should just have some small role where hes a weapons dealer, and the owner of the club Iceberg. :-D that would work well enough! 5 minutes of screentime like Scarecrow had in TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

Penquin should just have some small role where hes a weapons dealer, and the owner of the club Iceberg. :-D that would work well enough! 5 minutes of screentime like Scarecrow had in TDK.

That could work. But please with no girl defeating him. Being a minor villiain shouldn't mean to get ridiculed like that as a character.

 

[the_scream]

I know, he just improved the mediocre original concept.

The Penguin isn't Batman's most interesting foe but he has been one of the most popular over the years. Burton didn't improve the concept. He changed it so much that it is no longer the same character. There's a difference you know.

And what a monster!

Yes. Not a bad character but still the Penguin in name only.

I know, he's supposed to be a chubby man in a tuxedo. How someone fails to see what a magnificent concept for a villiain that is, I ignore.

Yes, that undersells the character quite a lot. And the Joker is just a skinny guy in a purple suit...

Yeah, all of those Frankenstein, Dracula, Hunchback of Notre Dame followers out there are just plain wrong.

The fact that they were "monsters" is not the only reason they were classic characters. I'll say it again: a monster does not entail being interesting.

And original comic book villains too. The thing is how to improve them.

Sure. But Burton didn't improve the Penguin. He made a monster, labelled him "the Penguin" and placed him in a film that is far removed from being a Batman film and much more like a typical Burton movie. This wasn't the Penguin. The character can be much more interesting without going to those silly extremes.

Once again, I have never denied such thing. Good reader good replier.

And once again you have shown that you cannot reply to someone's post without being condescending. But if it helps your argument...