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

[scifiwolf]

Lol - I've been through eight semesters of Latin. I don't remember much of the language, but it did wonders to shore up my grammar. On these boards, however, I think there's some amount of leeway for mistakes. I just have fun pointing them out every now and then.

Since I'm posting, I might as well contribute to the topic at hand. I think that, no matter the interpretation, the director is going to naturally limit himself. Batman's mythos is so deep and rich, probably more so than any other comic character, that directors have to pick a certain vision and filter out that which doesn't work within that vision. Burton went fantasy, Nolan went gritty drama, and Schumacher went...well, Schumacher went stupid. I think the only version I've seen that's really not so limited is TAS, but only because there are hundreds of episodes in which to explore different concepts and stories.

I don't think that Nolan's choice to ground the Bat-verse in plausibility is a drawback. While he may not be able to do a shapeshifting Clayface, he can do things like push the limits of Harvey's facial damage, which we haven't seen before outside of the comics.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

So, could Man-Bat be done in Nolan's world? I say yes. Of course, Nolan would have to make some changes to the character just as he did The Joker. Maybe there would be no flight ability. I don't know. But I have every confidence that Nolan could take most of Batman's rogues gallery and make them work in his world.

I'm still trying to figure out how the Joker's character was changed. I think he was interpreted as accurately as possible.

 

[The Major]

The face paint instead of permanent white skin, he wasn't a genius at chemicals or technology, no gimmick weapons like Smilex, acid in plastic flowers etc.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

The face paint instead of permanent white skin, he wasn't a genius at chemicals or technology, no gimmick weapons like Smilex, acid in plastic flowers etc.

He pretty much had to be fairly talented when it came to chemistry/technology the way he built all of those bombs and set up all of those traps like for the helicopters and the cellphone bomb in the crazy guy.

He did use gimmicks too, they just were not as blatant. He had the knife in the shoe, the gas bomb he left in the bank manager's mouth and the pencil trick.

The only real change was a physical one, the lack of permawhite skin and the smile, which doesn't change the Joker's personality which is more important.

 

[The Major]

He pretty much had to be fairly talented when it came to chemistry/technology the way he built all of those bombs and set up all of those traps like for the helicopters and the cellphone bomb in the crazy guy.

He is good at that stuff just nowhere near the level he is in the comics. Batman's the same in Nolan's films.

He did use gimmicks too, they just were not as blatant. He had the knife in the shoe, the gas bomb he left in the bank manager's mouth and the pencil trick.

Not the same gimmicks.

The only real change was a physical one, the lack of permawhite skin and the smile, which doesn't change the Joker's personality which is more important.

That's the most obvious.

Nolan did change and tone down much of the Joker to fit in TDK. I liked his version but it wasn't completely faithful. He simply updated the concept into his universe.

 

[Doc Samson]

I think there is a point here, to what Julio is saying. I think therein lies the catch-22 however, because if these films weren't handled with some form of realism or seriousness to it, I doubt alot of the actors may have been involved with it. You gotta remember, Batman Begins was following up Batman & Robin, NOBODY wanted to be involved with Batman at that point, and there really was no other way to go about Batman in the same way we've seen before and expect it to work.

I know personally, that a lot of people I know who've seen TDK never saw BB because they just weren't interested anymore, they weren't aware of how different it was. The marketing (which was ingenious and like nothing I've ever been a part of before) the rave reviews and Heath's tragic death all helped put spotlight on TDK that wasn't there for BB, allowing people to become more familiar and excited with it prior to its opening. These films had to have this tone IMO, nothing else would've worked because of the damage done by B&R. Using some of the more fantastical villains would've just offset everything that was good about Nolan's approach, and it wouldn't of been fresh and new. Noone tackled Bruce's origin before, nobody showed Batman in a realistic light before, and nobody had such great actors to take part in a comic film like this before, it all worked hand in hand, and a large part is due to the tone

 

[Maggotx9]

In Darkness Dwells (Madhouse)
"The police respond to a riot in a cathedral where Cardinal O'Fallon was giving a sermon. According to eyewitness testimony, the Cardinal was abducted by a large lizard-monster and taken down into the crypts below the cathedral. Lieutenant Gordon, Crispus Allen, and Anna Ramirez investigate; Gordon has a brief conversation with Batman, who agrees with Gordon's theory that the Scarecrow's fear toxin is behind the riot as the doctor has been at large since the riot at the Narrows (during the event of Batman Begins). Batman gives Gordon an earpiece that will allow them to stay in contact and descends below ground, trying to find Cardinal O'Fallon and his abductor. A homeless man living in an abandoned subway station identifies the abductor as Killer Croc. Batman and Gordon briefly discuss the villain's past, but are cut off when Killer Croc himself shows up, under the influence of the fear toxin, and attacks Batman. Batman defeats him, but not before sustaining a bite that transfers some of the toxin to him....." - wikipedia

Killer Croc works in this nolan world since he appeared in gotham knight

"Batman: Gotham Knight is a 2008 animated direct-to-DVD anthology film of six animated short films set in-between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight." -wikipedia

 

[The Major]

Batman's mythos is so deep and rich, probably more so than any other comic character, that directors have to pick a certain vision and filter out that which doesn't work within that vision.

Wrong.

Many super-hero franchises have great mythos. They just haven't been shown to the public like Batman has.

Superman is better off, but the films have covered very little in its creative potential.

 

[scifiwolf]

I didn't say he had the only good one, or that his is definitely superior. I was more or less stating a preference for it. My ultimate point is that, with any franchise so vast, a director is always going to limit himself in some way because there's only so many places you can go with a certain vision. If you want to incorporate something that doesn't fit, you need to get a new take on the franchise (if not new, just pick a different take).

 

[The Major]

scifi:

Agreed.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

He pretty much had to be fairly talented when it came to chemistry/technology the way he built all of those bombs and set up all of those traps like for the helicopters and the cellphone bomb in the crazy guy.

He did use gimmicks too, they just were not as blatant. He had the knife in the shoe, the gas bomb he left in the bank manager's mouth and the pencil trick.

The only real change was a physical one, the lack of permawhite skin and the smile, which doesn't change the Joker's personality which is more important.

I guess I don't need to say anything.

 

[Doc Samson]

Wrong.

Many super-hero franchises have great mythos. They just haven't been shown to the public like Batman has.

Superman is better off, but the films have covered very little in its creative potential.

Actually I'ma have to agree with scifiwolf on this one. No other character has as many classic comic books, movies, and cartoons as Batman, that's pretty much a fact, and there's a reason for that. Batman as a character, lends himself to great art. To me, although I'm equal parts a Hulk Fan, Batman easily has the greatest villains and stories of any other character ever created, and it's been successfully reinterpreted in almost every aspect of media and pop culture (they just need to get those Batman videogames in shape )

I mean, The Dark Knight Returns alone restructured how comic books were made from that point on, The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing movie of all time, and Batman: The animated series I think most people will agree is the best comic cartoon we've seen thus far. Even the animated movies, like Phantasm, are considered classic. Batman is just a very complex and rich character study, there are so many different ways of telling the story, Nolan just chose what wasn't done previously. But let's not forget Burton's first Batman film broke plenty of records as well at the time, with a wildly different approach, which was still Batman for all intents and purposes. Batman's just a great hero, period, as long as people don't stray too close to the camp, it's hard to screw it up

 

[GL1]

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.

There are things that have to be changed, Joker can no longer be comical, maniacal or even extremely extroverted, he has to be darkened and made more subtle. Batman can no longer be the iconic single minded avenger of the night, he has to have pathos, doubts, concerns, fears, and a lack of resolve, to tell the story.

That said... who the heck cares? Do we go around to every movie that isn't fantastical and say 'ah, The Die Hard Franchise is so limited, why can't they have some sci fi, like Terminator...' It's a very silly gripe. It's nice to point out that Baleman isn't the be-all end-all of the Batman mythos... but it's still exceptional storytelling and exceptional filmmaking.

And all, every single one, of Batman's villains can be done realistically. Every. Single. One. I know we all loved BTAS, but if that's the most you know of these characters, then you have no idea if they can be done nolanized or not. Man-Bat is a bat-human hybrid. And while the 'transformation' aspect is too surreal (while, for psychological reasons, chemical properties are okay), the guy's kids were half-bat creatures as well, which is entirely possible, and as Bats mature faster than people, well... Man-Bat.

And Ventriloquist? Really? He's got potential to be the most sadistic dark character in the whole frikkin franchise! You get this mute hitman with a puppet in his briefcase that does all his talking for him? That's crazy!

Now there are some characters powers, most of which were not original to the characters, that can't be adapted... like Poison Ivy's plant control, Clayface's Shapeshifting or again, Man-Bat's transformation ability... but if you think that these characters revolve around the powers they had in BTAS... dude... reed moar comics.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

I'm a little lost on how a half man half bat is still at all realistic...

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

And all, every single one, of Batman's villains can be done realistically. Every. Single. One. I know we all loved BTAS, but if that's the most you know of these characters, then you have no idea if they can be done nolanized or not. Man-Bat is a bat-human hybrid.

t:
and now please tell me how in the real reality we all live two creatures that don´t match genetically could interbreed so that the result would be a bat-human hybrid. it. just. doesn´t. work.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Since Nolan's only going to do one more batfilm, if that, any supposed limitations don't matter. He can still use the majority of the villains in the rogue's gallery. Even some of the ones with powers could be used with a little tweaking.

 

[COMPO]

You lost me here. Burton, in my opinion, did the exact opposite, and that film's portrayal of the character likely ties in with why Nolan and co apparently want to shy away from him. I really don't see what's more realistic about Burton's take on him - it was essentially just a Tim Burton character.

The only two things I liked about the handling of him was having him run for major, and that his motivation was to kill the first sons of Gotham. The latter I thought was especially standout. But other than I hated it, despite DeVito's performance.

He did give good speeches loved the bit were he's addressing the penguins. Hated the bit that he'd eat cats whats with taht

Good job. Did you figure that out by yourself? Hence the genre "comic book movie". My point is Chris Nolan is limiting himself to how much fantasy he puts into these movies, when a lot of the characters that would be pretty great to introduce are pretty fantastic, such as: The Penguin, Man-Bat, Killer Croc, Clayface, Scarface, The Mad Hatter, etc.

well he can still do fantasy he'd just do it in a realistic fashion.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

and now please tell me how in the real reality we all live two creatures that don´t match genetically could interbreed so that the result would be a bat-human hybrid. it. just. doesn´t. work.

The only way I could see Man-Bat being done is if its some crazy guy who literally files his teeth, goes blind, and surgically grafts webbing under his arms and enlarges his ears.

I suppose that isn't out of the question, its just still stupid.

 

[The Batkilt]

One positive thing I'll say about Burton's portrayal of The Penguin is his death. I found it quite touching to see how the penguins react, like one of their group has fallen. Which it has obviously. But yeah, for me Burton got the emotion there I imagine he was pushing for.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

I see I have made a successful thread.

 

[DavidTyler]

The only way I could see Man-Bat being done is if its some crazy guy who literally files his teeth, goes blind, and surgically grafts webbing under his arms and enlarges his ears.

I suppose that isn't out of the question, its just still stupid.

Try this take and see if it works for you:

Langstrom is meddling with Bat DNA. He believes that bats ability to use sonar and their resistance to disease would be a boon to mankind. (not unlike the origin from the comics). At the climax of his studies, he creates a serum which seems to give lower animals the ability to 'see' sound. Burning desire to see the effects himself, Langstrom injects himself.

He notices within hours that his own DNA has started to rewrite itself because he's now experiencing increased hearing ... not volume but higher pitches.

After a few days, he notices his body beginning to sprout hair in strange places.

After two weeks, his face begins to exhibit signs of deformity and develops a hunched stance. His fingers begin to shrivel and take on a bony appearance.

To make matters worse, his sight is beginning to lose focus and normal lighting is too painful for him.

BUT.. his strength increases and the sonar begins to kick in.

What we have is not a flying man bat but a deformed man with bat like abilities (excluding flight) who can't bear the light.

Just one way to go with the character without delving too far into the fantastic.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Try this take and see if it works for you:

Langstrom is meddling with Bat DNA. He believes that bats ability to use sonar and their resistance to disease would be a boon to mankind. (not unlike the origin from the comics). At the climax of his studies, he creates a serum which seems to give lower animals the ability to 'see' sound. Burning desire to see the effects himself, Langstrom injects himself.

He notices within hours that his own DNA has started to rewrite itself because he's now experiencing increased hearing ... not volume but higher pitches.

After a few days, he notices his body beginning to sprout hair in strange places.

After two weeks, his face begins to exhibit signs of deformity and develops a hunched stance. His fingers begin to shrivel and take on a bony appearance.

To make matters worse, his sight is beginning to lose focus and normal lighting is too painful for him.

BUT.. his strength increases and the sonar begins to kick in.

What we have is not a flying man bat but a deformed man with bat like abilities (excluding flight) who can't bear the light.

Just one way to go with the character without delving too far into the fantastic.

I´m sorry but instant alteration of your genetic code is impossible. that´s not how DNA works

 

[Chris Wallace]

You lost me here. Burton, in my opinion, did the exact opposite, and that film's portrayal of the character likely ties in with why Nolan and co apparently want to shy away from him. I really don't see what's more realistic about Burton's take on him - it was essentially just a Tim Burton character.

The only two things I liked about the handling of him was having him run for major, and that his motivation was to kill the first sons of Gotham. The latter I thought was especially standout. But other than I hated it, despite DeVito's performance.

I agree completely. Plus, I didn't like the clown-thugs angle, especially coming right behind the Joker.

 

[DavidTyler]

I´m sorry but instant alteration of your genetic code is impossible. that´s not how DNA works

I know that but, with it happening over the course of a couple of months, it's a little less obvious. I'm just trying to scale the character down to Nolan usability.

And, how possible is it for Batman to actually have the ability to glide with his electomagnetic cape? It's not anchored in the right place for it to be realistic.

Again, we're dealing with hyperrealism not realism itself. You have to be able to suspend at least a little disbelief.

It's akin to believing that Spock could actually be the son of two absolutely alien races that have different base metals for blood - Iron and Copper.

 

[The Major]

Actually I'ma have to agree with scifiwolf on this one. No other character has as many classic comic books, movies, and cartoons as Batman, that's pretty much a fact, and there's a reason for that. Batman as a character, lends himself to great art. To me, although I'm equal parts a Hulk Fan, Batman easily has the greatest villains and stories of any other character ever created, and it's been successfully reinterpreted in almost every aspect of media and pop culture (they just need to get those Batman videogames in shape )

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.

I mean, The Dark Knight Returns alone restructured how comic books were made from that point on,

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

The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing movie of all time,

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.

and Batman: The animated series I think most people will agree is the best comic cartoon we've seen thus far.

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.

Even the animated movies, like Phantasm, are considered classic.

Same reasons above.

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

Batman is just a very complex and rich character study, there are so many different ways of telling the story, Nolan just chose what wasn't done previously.

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

But let's not forget Burton's first Batman film broke plenty of records as well at the time, with a wildly different approach, which was still Batman for all intents and purposes.

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.

Batman's just a great hero, period, as long as people don't stray too close to the camp,

I could say that with any serious comic adaption.

it's hard to screw it up

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.