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

[Julio Alejandro]

There's no question he wouldn't be the main antagonist, but would be a great addition to the series.

 

[scatterax]

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

nothing i guess. i just prefer the powered up clayface.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

That would've been good for Schumacher's movies.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

There's nothing wrong with my demeanor

To you of course not, but you're not the recipent of the demeanor ... so how could it be anything but ok to you? I'm saying I have a problem with it, and it doesn't allow me to have entertaining discussion with you because you like to argue for the sake of arguing, and have admitted you find joy in pointing out flaws in the things people say. I come here for enjoyment, to talk about entertainment. I can do this with most people on these boards, but everytime I read your posts whether directed at me or not ... I have seen for sometime now the snobish mentality that accompanies your posts. And I doubt I'm the only one who has addressed this at some point as well. I can't reply to you because it isn't about reciprocal conversation for enjoyment with you, you argue this stuff to be considered "right" or "wrong". And it's juvenile.

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.

You aren't really the one whose opinion is credible when discussing how you come off to people. And obviously if people complain about your demeanor, don't you think there is a running theme there? One wouldn't complain about a demeanor unless it was deragatory or demeaning in nature.

All I said is I have to refrain from conversation with you because of so ...

You seem intelligent enough, but you take yourself way too seriously, and as I've said it is obvious you take more joy in being considered "right" instead of just discussing things in a fun manner. You argue semantics, break down posts almost word for word. If you have that much energy and willingness and enjoyment to argue. Go be a lawyer.

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

Ok. That's why I said I don't want to discuss anything further with you. Because my perception is reality to me. And I know I'm not the only one who has at some point questioned you on the way you communicate with people here.

 

[Saint]

To you of course not, but you're not the recipent of the demeanor ... so how could it be anything but ok to you? I'm saying I have a problem with it, and it doesn't allow me to have entertaining discussion with you because you like to argue for the sake of arguing,

This is a discussion forum. Everyone here is here for the sake of discussion. You said things I disagree with, so (gasp!) I voiced my disagreement. This is how discussion works. If we took any of my posts and sprinkled my arguments with niceties, you wouldn't complain. If I had stapled "IMO" to the end of my paragraphs, you wouldn't complain. I'm sorry, but I don't care about your need for window dressing.

and have admitted you find joy in pointing out flaws in the things people say.

Ha; this is a gross oversimplification (and misrepresentation) of what I actually said, but I suppose I'm not surprised at this point. Let's see if I can make it a little simpler: I don't like "pointing out flaws," I like pointing out the truth. I like taking about what I think or what I know, as the case may be. If it bothers you when that happens to involve disagreement or correction, well, I'm not sympathetic.

I can't reply to you because it isn't about reciprocal conversation for enjoyment with you, you argue this stuff to be considered "right" or "wrong". And it's juvenile.

I will accept the opposing viewpoint when it demonstrated to be valid. I will change my mind when I am given reason to. I will consider any idea that is shown to work. If none of these criteria are met, I'm going to explain the opposing viewpoint is not valid, why I've been given no reason to change my mind, and why the ideas presented do not work. That is reciprocal.

I'll have a reciprocal discussion with anyone who makes a good point, whether I disagree or not. If you don't make a good point, I'll tell you, so you can either change your mind or make a better counterpoint, and change mine. This is still reciprocal.

The problem is that many people don't like that. Don't want that. They want to say "My opinion is X, nevermind why," and be done with it. If I disagree, and they throw a fit about my demeanor, how am I the one avoiding reciprocal conversation? Make your case! If it's good enough, my ideas will change. If it's not good enough, they won't That's how discussion works, and I fail to see the problem.

You aren't really the one whose opinion is credible when discussing how you come off to people.

I wasn't talking about the way I come off to people; I was talking about what I do. That people misinterpret my attitude is unfortunate, but frankly I don't care to change it for the sake of the unreasonable and oversensitive.

And obviously if people complain about your demeanor, don't you think there is a running theme there?

Yes: a running theme of unreasonability and oversensitivity.

I once had a religious discussion with some individuals, where expressed that I have trust issues with any organization that invokes authority that can't be verified, and that I find tradition insufficient reason to believe anything. They agreed I was insulting their religion. Of course, nothing I said was an insult, and my tone was much more friendly and accommodating in those days, so there was no reason to complain. The problem was that critical examination of their beliefs offended them. I decided I was not interested in appeasing this ridiculous attitude.

One wouldn't complain about a demeanor unless it was deragatory or demeaning in nature.

Sure they would: you started complaining about my demeanor in this thread, with nothing derogatory or demeaning having been said (that is, until after you complained).

You seem intelligent enough, but you take yourself way too seriously, and as I've said it is obvious you take more joy in being considered "right" instead of just discussing things in a fun manner. You argue semantics, break down posts almost word for word. If you have that much energy and willingness and enjoyment to argue. Go be a lawyer.

Or I could just come here. If I'm "too serious," or if my arguments don't fulfill your "fun" quota, well, the solution is to stop reading my posts. When one responds to me, I will respond the way I always do. If one opts then to complain about my character, I will respond in kind. This seems reasonable to me.

 

[The Major]

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

Smokin' Aces showed this could work well in film.

 

[CaptainClown]

See thats what I have been saying.

 

[scatterax]

That would've been good for Schumacher's movies.

more like burton.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Burton didn't have that kinda world.

 

[scatterax]

Burton didn't have that kinda world.

shoemaker didn't either. he was more or less into neon. and even in b&r nobodys powers were that extreme. like, evry1 w/ powers was a guy in a costume. clayface w/ powers is in the same class as killer croc and manbat when it comes to outthere powers. but his cartoon story is better tho. (cuz he don't rock in the comics at all.) i just said burton cuz he does weirder stuff than he that shall not be named.

 

[The Batkilt]

shoemaker didn't either. he was more or less into neon. and even in b&r nobodys powers were that extreme. like, evry1 w/ powers was a guy in a costume. clayface w/ powers is in the same class as killer croc and manbat when it comes to outthere powers. but his cartoon story is better tho. (cuz he don't rock in the comics at all.) i just said burton cuz he does weirder stuff than he that shall not be named.

No. He's. Not. Croc seems to have evolved into some genuinely mutated human/croc hybrid as time goes on, but he was initially just some cold blooded killer with a skin disease. That isn't an out-there power at all. Both Croc and Clayface have had their 'superpowers' added to their character as time goes on.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Yep. The "powers" were just added later.

 

[The Batkilt]

In my opinion that's what seperates Batman's rogues gallery from most other characters'. A character like Killer Croc or Clayface can always have the reset button pushed and taken back to their human basics. A character that is completely centred around having some sort of superpower can only go so far.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

That's kinda like how almost all of Spider-Man's enemies are products of science.

 

[The Batkilt]

It is, but even most of Spider-Man's main villains are driven by some sort of human emotion before they turn/while they're turning into these villains. Obviously just about every comic book hero has enemies that standout, but very few can boast the depth to even minor villains that Batman has.

 

[The Major]

It is, but even most of Spider-Man's main villains are driven by some sort of human emotion before they turn/while they're turning into these villains.

Don't Bat villains have that, too?

Obviously just about every comic book hero has enemies that standout, but very few can boast the depth to even minor villains that Batman has.

Very few have the exposure and good versions the public sees on a regular basis.

 

[The Batkilt]

Don't Bat villains have that, too?

Uh, I never said they didn't....? I said most of them - even the now outlandish Clayface and Killer Croc example - can be stripped back down to basic human elements.

 

[The Major]

Uh, I never said they didn't....? I said most of them - even the now outlandish Clayface and Killer Croc example - can be stripped back down to basic human elements.

Okay.

I misunderstood you.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

It is, but even most of Spider-Man's main villains are driven by some sort of human emotion before they turn/while they're turning into these villains. Obviously just about every comic book hero has enemies that standout, but very few can boast the depth to even minor villains that Batman has.

The difference is, most of Spidey's enemies are major.

 

[The Batkilt]

This is true. Having said that I personally like the fact Batman has some minor villains. It opens up different possibilities for stories, but I agree with your point about Spidey's villains generally tending to be more major. (For lack of a better word.)

 

[Julio Alejandro]

The thing that gives Batman the advantage is that Spidey's minor enemies suck.

 

[The Major]

Basically, its seems that for whatever reason, you have some kind of love for a DC character that you feel hasn't been shown the proper respect yet.

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.

And you believe that once it has, it will have the same level of success, or at least close to, that of Batman.

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.

My point to you, is that WB really has nothing to do with Batman's success, Batman in the medium that he comes from, easily has the best stories of any other character, that's pretty much a given.

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.

Yes I've read comics all my life, I've grown up on it and my real name actually comes from a comic book, so to answer your question, I do have a faint idea of where I'm coming from, and just may have just as much insight as you do, please don't patronize a fellow comic enthusiast.

My apologies.

Batman has loads of interpretations and elements they can use for other media, from the early camp to the noir to the dark and gritty realism,

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.

and most of the time, it's been successful.

Beause they were executed great.

Few DC adaptions get that luxury.

I never said Watchmen needed a popular character in it to be classic, I just stated TDKR is just one story of Batman's that is on the same level of Watchmen.

Alright.

Watchmen is a limited series, Batman has been ongoing for years and has plenty of stories that rank right up there.

I understand that.

It's because of the character, I'm not disrespecting other heroes in DC's catalogue by saying that, its the truth.

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.

In this day and age, people like their heroes a little grittier, for whatever reason.

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

WB right now is planning on a "darker" Superman and that's a huge mistake. Superman isn't that kind of hero, neither is Captain America or Spiderman,

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

or half of DC's roster.

And the other half?

Most of DC's heroes are god-like, cosmic, supreme type beings, which very well could make for interesting stories, but just how many have they had in comics already to be drawn from? Honestly? How many of those stories have influenced the comic medium on a whole? I can give you the Batman stories, I'm interested in these other stories I must've missed.

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.

The villains aspect is also a huge part of why Batman is successful and you can't deny that.

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

How many times have they used Lex Luthor already?

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.

There's a reason for that, although Brainiac and a few others can be just as good, there just isn't too much you can throw against Superman and have it be interesting.

I disagree.

The only reason Lex Luthor is somewhat interesting is because he's smarter than Supes and Clark has morals, so he can't just punch his head clean off and end all that nonsense.

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.

Spiderman is another that has strong villains that can last for years and years of different interpretations and stories.

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.

He's also the most relatable of the Marvel Heroes and what do'ya know, he's also the most successful.

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.

I just don't know who you think is waiting in the wings that DC has screwed over for so many years that will come out

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.

and just crush the superhero landscape.

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 can do that, because he always has, in comics, tv, and movies, it all goes hand in hand, and its not because of WB marketing because they have nothing to do with the stories that helped shape Batman's existence from the beginning.

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.

EVERYBODY knows Batman because he's been a pillar of comicbooks from his inception, unless its Superman or Spidey, no other hero can really compete with that.

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.

Ironman was a good example of what a great superhero movie based closely to its comic can do, and I think some DC heroes can accomplish that, I never disagreed with that, but to me, it seemed like your argument was that ANY character can reach Batman level success if its treated right, and I just don't see that as feasible.

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.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Dude, you really need to go outside.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

I love the intellectual take on the mythology of Batman, but he is limiting the range of where these characters go.

He's not limiting them; he's humanizing them. Comics are about imaginative, over the top dream-world extravaganzas - well, at least the majority portray that type of setting.

Nolan's world is gritty, uncompromising, and relentless. Essentially, he crafted a sewer that one man vows to clean. What makes it all the more special is seeing how Nolan portrays the elite whom Bruce is surrounded by. They're snobbish, insolent narcissists who care little about others, but Bruce is different. He's giving his life to fight corruption at the expense of his health, reputation, and social happiness.

Bruce's therapy is anger in the form of Batman. Even the fighting style is very aggressive and violent. BB and TDK work because they're relatable and Nolan is a master story-teller. Yes, other directors would do other things, but mass audiences will not relate or absorb all things. Nolan crafted a world that Batman fans, film fans, and casual moviegoers would appreciate. That's outstanding.

What's even more outrageous is the fact that I think the guy has much better films left in him.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Possibly