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

[66 Face]

I really don't see what Nolans doing as limiting. IMO its more like enhancing these 60 year old characters while still respecting the icons they are.

As a huge Batman fan for over 30 years, I have to say thank god someone came along and put new life into this character because other than TAS Batmans been crap for a long time. TAS and the Nolan movies have far out done the comics as far as respecting the core character and not overly reinventing him. Love Brubaker, Loeb and Dini but there isn't enough from them to out-do the garbage.

 

[The Batkilt]

'Super geekified'? Mr. Freeze is a great character if handled right. Not in the same vein as The Joker, Two-Face and some of the more 'elite' rogues, granted, but there's potential for a moving story with his character. He was handled beautifully in BTAS. Whether or not he'd transfer well onto film is another matter.

I'm always surprised when people ask "CAN these characters work on film?" Is it really even a question? It's simply a matter of presenting a world they makes sense in. If Iceman, why not Mr. Freeze? If Sandman, why not Clayface? Watchmen has a naked, blue god fighting in Vietnam, and we're wondering if Poison Ivy is too silly for film? Really? These sci-fi and fantasy elements are a part of Batman, in the same way Nolan's favoured urban soldier angle is a part of Batman. We know sci-fi and fantasy work on film, we know sci-fi and fantasy are a part of Batman, so why would a sci-fi and fantasy Batman film not work?

Fair point, what I meant was whether or not the character would transfer well into the approach Nolan has taken with his films. While the core of the character would do well I think he'd have to be revised beyond recognition, as you put it. Having said that in the future with a different director helming a Batman film/series will mean a different approach, and then the characters you mentioned above could be adapted without having to alter them too drastically. Freeze, for one, would benefit from having his story built up over a few films rather than having him as a villain in just one.

 

[66 Face]

Bwahaha... Chan Wook Park presents: Sympathy for Mr. Freeze

 

[scatterax]

I think w/ nolans take you either have to change like half of the batvillains completely, or just ignore them all to gether. i prefer the latter. theres enough villains that are good as is.

 

[Anita18]

I think w/ nolans take you either have to change like half of the batvillains completely, or just ignore them all to gether. i prefer the latter. theres enough villains that are good as is.

Right. Why do a half-hearted portrayal of of many villains when the film would be better-served with two that are deeply explored?

It's one of the things I found disappointing in The Long Halloween. It's probably my favorite Batman story, but the cameos by the rogue's gallery villains felt extremely shoehorned in. TDK took the basic story from TLH and removed all those worthless moments, woohoo! t:

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Stylization and fluff do not go hand in hand.

Most of the time, yes it does. There is more flops that dip too much in the fantasy pool then there is "realistic takes" that flop.

Realism and intelligence do not go hand in hand.

True, but as I said it's mostly the case. I mean twisting my words for the sake of argument is pointless. We'd be arguing semantics of the wordage.

The more real a comic book character or world feels, the more it matches and makes sense that it could take place in real life ... they better they are.

X-Men
X-Men 2
Iron Man
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Spider-Man 2
Superman The Movie
Robocop

The more real you make it, the more of a threat there is to the movie, the more reaction it inspires.

Imagine making X-men like the cartoon? It would have been eye rolling worthy bad. Little Wolverine running around in yellow spandex, no real world consequences. The best comic book films are the ones that play it straight and real. Always has been that way.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

I really don't see what Nolans doing as limiting. IMO its more like enhancing these 60 year old characters while still respecting the icons they are.

As a huge Batman fan for over 30 years, I have to say thank god someone came along and put new life into this character because other than TAS Batmans been crap for a long time. TAS and the Nolan movies have far out done the comics as far as respecting the core character and not overly reinventing him. Love Brubaker, Loeb and Dini but there isn't enough from them to out-do the garbage.

I completely agree. The new Batman cartoon made TAS all the more better. Each episode holds up through numerous viewings.

 

[Saint]

Most of the time, yes it does. There is more flops that dip too much in the fantasy pool then there is "realistic takes" that flop.

Which is only a testament to the failure of the people involved, not the workability of the form. As an example: a lot of bands fail to produce good metalcore--not because the genre has some inherent failing, but because the people involved just can't cut it.

The more real a comic book character or world feels, the more it matches and makes sense that it could take place in real life ... they better they are.

]X-Men

Was fairly fantastical in it's own right. All they did at the end of the day was put the X-Men in black leather, and suddenly everybody decided it made the film "realistic."

X-Men 2

Same deal here, too.

Iron Man

And again.

Spider-Man 2

The least realistic and most stylized of the bunch, also considered the best comic book movie ever made, until The Dark Knight came along.

Robocop

Which is famous for it's stylization: every character in the film is an over-the-top caricature, the violence is outlandish, the concepts are fantastical. The world and everything in it is an extreme extrapolation of the real world, and that's what stylization is.

The more real you make it, the more of a threat there is to the movie, the more reaction it inspires.

Nonsense. Realism makes emotional resonance easier, because the tools are more familiar, but any competent filmmaker can create this same emotional resonance in a stylized film--it just takes more talent (and may require the substance of the film to be less overt, which is not necessarily a bad thing). The reason it's not done as often is because Hollywood is full of cowards.

Imagine making X-men like the cartoon? It would have been eye rolling worthy bad. Little Wolverine running around in yellow spandex, no real world consequences.

This just underscores the problem. A yellow costume does not preclude a film from having "real world consequences," outlandish claypeople and icemen do not preclude a film from having emotional resonance, and orcs, magic inviso-rings, matrixes, octo-people, boy wizards, and naked blue gods who fight in Vietnam do not preclude a film from being intelligent and substantial--except in the minds of cowardly filmmakers.

The best comic book films are the ones that play it straight and real. Always has been that way.

And people who think like that are why I don't have a Flash film yet. How tiresome.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I really don't see what Nolans doing as limiting. IMO its more like enhancing these 60 year old characters while still respecting the icons they are.

As a huge Batman fan for over 30 years, I have to say thank god someone came along and put new life into this character because other than TAS Batmans been crap for a long time. TAS and the Nolan movies have far out done the comics as far as respecting the core character and not overly reinventing him. Love Brubaker, Loeb and Dini but there isn't enough from them to out-do the garbage.

Mmm hmm. Preach on, bro / sister. Sorry I don't know your gender, haha. But definetely. Nolan has added many more intelligent layers to the mythos, dramatically re-invented an ideal Two Face character that is unique and isn't a sterotypical goofy comic book villain. Restored the threat and menace to the Joker, who to be honest has become very stale over the years. His Batman is a healthy mix of 70's heroism, 80's extreme vigilance, and the 90's CSI type detective who plans ahead using his intelligence.

TAS and the Nolan movies are to me the cream of the crop of the characters. Batman Begins, and even more so The Dark Knight, much akin to the graphic novel TDKR uses the mythos of Batman to tell a parrallel story and social commentary on the world at large.

I haven't seen many comics do that and the previous movies certainly didn't have that level of depth and intelligence. Nolan's most recent movie, as well as the well handled episodes of TAS by Timm and Dini themselves out shine many of their comic book counterparts.

I thought Batman Begins was a better origin than Batman Year One.

The list goes on and on with the level of acceptance and enthusiasm for what I consider to be the best Batman stuff out there. Granted I'd give the nod to Nolan over TAS, but both are outstanding in ways not many other Batman material really has been of late or at large.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Which is only a testament to the failure of the people involved, not the workability of the form.

Many times it is the form. It doesn't sit as well with the masses because it is naturally harder for them to "suspend their disbelief", especially when things get over the top and ridiculous ...

Was fairly fantastical in it's own right. All they did at the end of the day was put the X-Men in black leather, and suddenly everybody decided it made the film "realistic."

Ummm, no. The X-men film was a realistic approach to a complete fantasy driven product. So much so that the hardcore fans complained. The Senate hearings, the "grounding" of the powers, real world consequences and reprucussions etc. Black leather isn't why it was a more realistic movie.

Same deal here, too.

Yes, same here. Realistic take on the X-Men.

And again.

Ummm, no. They specifically followed the Batman Begins / Casino Royale template, and made a realistic hero set in a gritty realistic worl akin to our own. Just go pick a review and somewhere it will be praised for the fact that it makes things feel real.

The least realistic and most stylized of the bunch, also considered the best comic book movie ever made, until The Dark Knight came along.

Spider-man 2 was BY FAR the most realistic of the 3 Spider-man movies. Problems reflected on Peter in a realistic way, there were real consequences, the movie was the least colorful of the bunch, etc. Grounded people, with grounded real reactions and situations. That's why it was the best. Had the most emotion, and was the most real. SM was pure comic book, as was SM 3. SM 2 was by far the most grounded of the three, and was played with a realistic spin to the material.

Which is famous for it's stylization: every character in the film is an over-the-top caricature, the violence is outlandish, the concepts are fantastical. The world and everything in it is an extreme extrapolation of the real world, and that's what stylization is.

I can agree with you here ...

I might have been overzealous with this one, but Robocop was the best of the trilogy and it was the most realistic out of the three films.

Oh and I forgot ... the most realistic superhero film for its time, which sparked life back in the genre ... BLADE. One of the best comic films of all-time. Blade 2 and 3, while some consider Blade 2 better, like the Shumacher Bat-films develed too deep in comic book cliches and cornyness and gone was the real threat and menacing world BLADE created. All gone.

Keep it real, keeps it quality.

 

[Saint]

But definetely. Nolan has added many more intelligent layers to the mythos,

Such as? What did layers did he add that were not already present in the comics?

TAS and the Nolan movies are to me the cream of the crop of the characters.

TAS is, generally speaking, far more "silly" than the comics of the past twenty years (not meant to insult TAS, for the record--just a reality), but you refer to the comics as silly, and not TAS. This is curious.

I haven't seen many comics do that

Then you aren't looking. Comics make social commentaries all the time. It's a little more difficult than film, because time is questionable in comics, and that makes commenting on current events seem out of place if handled improperly, so comics tend to tackle questions and ideas that are more constant, more timeless--but the right writers make it work. Batman leans more towards commenting on human trials, as opposed to societal ones, however--questions about our nature.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Ok, Saint ... you're the man of arguing about superheroes. I don't even feel like replying to you because of you constant demeanor.

 

[Saint]

Many times it is the form.

No.

It doesn't sit as well with the masses because it is naturally harder for them to "suspend their disbelief", especially when things get over the top and ridiculous ...

No. Some of the most beloved movies of all time are more fantastical than any comic book movie has been. The audience will accept anything that is sold well enough, regardless of how outlandish it is. The problem isn't over-the-top concepts, it's writers and filmmakers who don't know how to sell those concepts properly, within their world.

Ummm, no. The X-men film was a realistic approach to a complete fantasy driven product.

The X-men are not complete fantasy in the same way that Batman is not complete crime fiction. They are a blending, and they have always been a blending of different genres--and like Batman, or any comic book character, different stories will stray into different areas. The X-Men film didn't add anything that wasn't already there, didn't put a spin anything in a way it hadn't already been spun in the comic at one time or another. They just added black leather.

The Senate hearings,

You don't think that sort of thing happens in the comics? Heh.

the "grounding" of the powers,

The powers, with the exception of Rogue not having strength and flight, were the same as the comics. There was no "grounding" that doesn't appear in the comics. I mean, jeeze, Senator Kelly turned into a goop-monster. There are comics that treat the powers less realistically and comics that treat them more realistically. Hell, the only place I've ever read a believable explanation for why the X-Gene causes such wildly different powers was in a comic book. They didn't even explain the nature of the mutation in the movies.

real world consequences and reprucussions etc. Black leather isn't why it was a more realistic movie.

What real world consequences are present in the films and not the comics? Specifically?

Ummm, no. They specifically followed the Batman Begins / Casino Royale template, and made a realistic hero set in a gritty realistic worl akin to our own. Just go pick a review and somewhere it will be praised for the fact that it makes things feel real.

I never said it didn't make things feel real. Being fantasy and feeling real are not mutually exclusive--see Lord of the Rings. See Star Wars. Neither is realistic by any stretch of the imagination. The former is incredibly stylized. But they feel real, regardless.

Stylization goes beyond the visual. In Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, the personalities of the characters are very stylized--they're idealized. You know that real people aren't like that--and I'm not just talking about the fanciful dialogue. I mean their attitudes towards life, their personalities and the core of who they are. People are not like that.. In Robocop, the society is a hilarious blend of universal apathy and vice, and society isn't like that.

You keep mentioning "real world consequences." Well, let's talk about that, because Iron Man is a movie without consequences. Look at the problems in that film that are wiped away with insufficient explanation. Tony was out causing international incidents, but it's okay because "It's just a training exercise." Stark Enterprises was selling weapons to enemy combatants, but all is forgiven because Tony didn't know. The real world is not like that. If I wanted to be really nitpicky, I could say that the initial flight test (where Tony, unprotected, slams into the roof of his garage) probably could have been fatal.

Are these things a problem in the film? Not really, because it's stylized. The rules are different in that world, and that's what stylization is. That didn't make the film any less "intelligent," and the realism didn't make it any more intelligent. Iron Man wasn't really trying to be all that intelligent, anyway. If it was, stylizing it would not have changed that. My Iron Man movie would have been more akin to Extremis; a little more outlandish in terms of content (fire breathing super soldier; Tony using a super soldier solution to basically redesign his biology and integrate with the Iron Man suit), but Extremis was infinitely more intelligent and more relevant than the movie was. I encourage you to read it. Actually, I encourage everyone to read it. My favourite Iron Man story.

Spider-man 2 was BY FAR the most realistic of the 3 Spider-man movies.

No, it was pretty much the same. The characters were always a little colourful, a little idealized, the science was always outlandish, the consequences you keep talking about were always a lax. Not problems, just the realities of the movies. I don't like using the word "cartoonish," but it's the best I can think of right now. Outrageous villains with outrageous schemes in a colourful, nice world that really doesn't act like ours does--it's brighter, it's optimistic, and most of all, it's a lot more forgiving.

I might have been overzealous with this one, but Robocop was the best of the trilogy and it was the most realistic out of the three films.

The other films were no less realistic--they were just a product of weaker filmmaking and studio interference.

Oh and I forgot ... the most realistic superhero film for its time, which sparked life back in the genre ... BLADE. One of the best comic films of all-time. Blade 2 and 3, while some consider Blade 2 better, like the Shumacher Bat-films develed too deep in comic book cliches and cornyness and gone was the real threat and menacing world BLADE created. All gone.

Keep it real, keeps it quality.

Blade wasn't particularly realistic at all. Blade was as much fantasy as anything--it was just dark fantasy. They simply chose to execute their fantasy in different places. It looked realistic, but that was it. Like X-Men: slap some black leather on him, and suddenly people think it's realistic. It was purely a visual thing--and sometimes not even that. Popping-balloon vampires, heh.

Next you'll be telling me that Street Kings was realistic.

 

[dr.strange]

if we're talking about keepin it realistic,catwoman or the riddler seems to be the more logical choices.im sure there are others,but they came to mind first.

 

[scatterax]

It wouldn't work in this series though.

no it wouldn't. that's why as much as i like him, i just don't want him in these movies if he's gonna be compromised.

 

[Saint]

Ok, Saint ... you're the man of arguing about superheroes. I don't even feel like replying to you because of you constant demeanor.

There's nothing wrong with my demeanor: I'm only responding to the things you've said. My demeanor is fairly neutral; it only goes from "neutral" to "hostile" when people opt to complain about my demeanor, instead of just dealing with my argument.

As I've said in the past, this seems more your problem than mine.

 

[scatterax]

if we're talking about keepin it realistic,catwoman or the riddler seems to be the more logical choices.im sure there are others,but they came to mind first.

i agree. well, theres the penguin, but he's the penguin. and i don't want to talk about him.

 

[The Guard]

Nolan hasn't added much of anything to the mythos that didn't already exist, sans Rachel and the nature of Lucious Fox's relationship to Batman, and Ra's Al Ghul's role in training Bruce.

Two-Face was reinvented, but he was already a unique, and less than stereotypical villain in the comics. If anything, the film made him into more of a stereotype via what happened to his character. "One and done" and all that.

The Joker never lost his threat and menace, and Nolan didn't corner the market on that element.

What Nolan has done is take what already worked in previous movies, added some of what works in the comics, and a few "borrowed" ideas from other franchises, and used his skill as a director to make this work onscreen.

 

[El Payaso]

In comparison to say the Joker or the Scarecrow. Burton didn't make him more interesting. He made a completely different character.

Being the original character not very interesting, ^ that sounds a good thing.

Nevertheless, as I said already, he had the same motivations, but his origin story and elements were extremed. So it’s not “completely” different.

Burton exaggerated the character by turning a man into a monster.

See how you know it’s an exaggeration, not a complete change?

The Penguin was never supposed to be a monster. Period.

No. The original Penguin wasn’t that interesting. As Joker is not supposed to be a face-painter. But changes are there all the time and many of them work wonderfully.

That said, the “monster” as opposite/different of “man” is merely a limited interpretation; Penguin in BR was a man, only deformed; a far better origin than the comics’ one since there it was only an average chubby guy.

He was a monster as “a cruel and frightening person” though. That could match the original Penguin.

Burton turned the Penguin into a hideous, deformed, freak that bleeds and spits black blood. There was nothing particularly deep about the character and he ceased to be interesting after the first few scenes.

You might have lost interest in the character, probably because it didn’t match the comics exactly (like Joker in TDK or Ra’s being Ducard or Flass in BB being fat and short).

But the character was far deeper than in the comics. He was trying to re-define himself as a human being; a condition that was taken away from him for being externally deformed and exhibited as a non-human creature when in fact he IS human. And in the end, trying to re-gain his humanity, he becomes a real monster and loses his humanity through his actions and desires: he tries to kill Gotham’s first borns and by doing so, he willingly becomes the monster he always tried not to be.

What can we tell about the original average chubby man in a tuxedo?

I would like to see the Penguin actually adapted to the big screen to see how much more interesting he could be without the restraints placed on Devito to act like a one-note monster throughout.

As I have said many times now, nothing against the idea of a different version. Even when you fail at admitting the multiple edges Devito’s Penguin had. It would be interesting watching someone trying to make something interesting out of a mediocre character without changing it too much.

That doesn't make any sense. You fail to understand.

It does make sense. You fail to understand that your original statement: : a monster does not entail being interesting is not accurate. I gave you many examples of how being a monster can be interesting.

Simply being a monster does not mean the character will be interesting.

Oh, now it’s simply being a monster. Change the statement and I’ll change my answer: No, simply being a monster doesn’t make anything interesting.

There has to be something more to the character.

Yes. Fortunaltely Devito’s Penguin has it: the sad childhood, the abandonment feeling, the apparently kind heart that is merely a disguise; the paradox of being a monster that tries to be only a human in a monster’s body that is really a monster due to the treatment he had suffered. He could have been human in spite of his appaerance, nevertheless he chooses to be a monster pretending to be human. And still, he honestly claims he wants to recover his “basic humanity.”

I agree that all those monsters above are interesting (the Penguin less so) but there was more to a classic character like Frankenstein's monster than just the fact that he was a monster.

Great you mention it: in fact, Frankenstein and Devito’s Penguin have so much in common: both abandoned by their creators just for being ugly and deformed, both pathetic, both trying to re-gain their birthright (Penguin his place in society, Frankenstein’s monster a bride), both having their plans ruined, both chased by authorities and the city, both wanting a bitter revenge at the end, both longing to feel human, both having no problem in killing.

Also, penguin shares many elements with Richard III: the deformity, the longing for power, the manipulation of people and authorities.

And also Biblical references: Penguin being rescued from the river, being 33, being attacked and condemned by the crowd, sending to kill the city’s first borns.

Ok. But you again missed what I was saying.

Prove it beyond stating it?

The Penguin from the comics wanted to drown all of Gotham's first borns?

I think you’re confusing the term. Motivations points to the need or reason to do something, not the “something” itself; the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal, not the “goal” itself; the reason for the action not the “action” itself; that which gives purpose and direction to behavior, not the “behaviour” itself.

The motivation is the same, the actions might be different, see?

 

[Julio Alejandro]

no it wouldn't. that's why as much as i like him, i just don't want him in these movies if he's gonna be compromised.

How would he be compromised?

 

[The Major]

I don't see how, but I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility. Or it may be that we have differing standards for what qualifies as "recognizable."

I'm willing to let fantastic elements like Poison Ivy having green skin, dressing like a stripper and having biological powers be dropped in exchange for a more realistic version which doesn't is an attractive not super-model gorgeous scientist eco-terrorist that uses chemicals to duplicate stuff like hypnotism and plagues instead of sentient mutant plants.

Would you consider that recognizable to you?

 

[scatterax]

How would he be compromised?

well, i meant that he wouldn't be the super powered clayface that i know and love, so I'd rather they just not use him at all, because w/o his powers he's a completely different clayface than the 1 w/ powers.

 

[The Batkilt]

Nonsense. Realism makes emotional resonance easier, because the tools are more familiar, but any competent filmmaker can create this same emotional resonance in a stylized film--it just takes more talent (and may require the substance of the film to be less overt, which is not necessarily a bad thing). The reason it's not done as often is because Hollywood is full of cowards.

I completely agree with this statement. The original Star Wars trilogy, for example, is completely fantasy in terms of style but the core of the story is what happens to the people/creatures involved. Hell, The Empire Strikes Back proves that easy - the entire climax to the film is what Vader says to Luke while they're duelling, and Luke's reaction, and furthermore the audiences reaction to that.

well, i meant that he wouldn't be the super powered clayface that i know and love, so I'd rather they just not use him at all, because w/o his powers he's a completely different clayface than the 1 w/ powers.

Clayface wasn't originally superpowered though, to be fair, but I can get where you're coming from.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

well, i meant that he wouldn't be the super powered clayface that i know and love, so I'd rather they just not use him at all, because w/o his powers he's a completely different clayface than the 1 w/ powers.

And what's wrong with him not blasting clay from his body and things of that nature?

 

[The Guard]

He wouldn't be able to carry a movie, but "master of disguise" original Clayface could work, too.