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

[scatterax]

You can go down the typical comic book movie, stylized fluff when this realistic, and more intelligent franchise is done. When Chris hangs it up, you can get as flayboyant and cartoonish as humanly possible. Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Man-Bat, Killer Croc and all that other stupid crap ... have at it.

oh, ya. of course when this is done. i just ment if i made 1 from scratch.

and try not to bash comic books so much. it's superhero hype.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

I'm not bashing quality comic books. More the super geekified stuff like that ...

 

[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.

Killer Croc is 'super geekified'? The skin condition the character suffers from is genuine, it's some of the more fantastical additions to the character that make him seem silly. The way he was used in Gotham Knights would be the perfect way to introduce him in any film series, and tying him in with The Scarecrow makes sense. His skin condition coupled with The Scarecrow's toxins cause him to look like a giant croc to those around him. In the hands of the right director that could make for a stunning visual, without it being too silly.

The original story behind Clayface is hardly geeky - it's just a bit cliched as time has went on. I'm not a big fan of the shapeshifting aspect later added to the character (or the numerous Clayfaces that followed him/preceeded him with the shapeshifting).

Man-Bat, however, I agree isn't really all that good.

 

[scatterax]

'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.

Killer Croc is 'super geekified'? The skin condition the character suffers from is genuine, it's some of the more fantastical additions to the character that make him seem silly. The way he was used in Gotham Knights would be the perfect way to introduce him in any film series, and tying him in with The Scarecrow makes sense. His skin condition coupled with The Scarecrow's toxins cause him to look like a giant croc to those around him. In the hands of the right director that could make for a stunning visual, without it being too silly.

The original story behind Clayface is hardly geeky - it's just a bit cliched as time has went on. I'm not a big fan of the shapeshifting aspect later added to the character (or the numerous Clayfaces that followed him/preceeded him with the shapeshifting).

Man-Bat, however, I agree isn't really all that good.

the cartoon clayface was classic tho.

 

[The Batkilt]

I must admit the cartoon Clayface was very well handled, and I did like the way the shows producers/writers drew from the character's original background as well. In that regard they tapped into the tragic aspect of it and probably heightened it, but I'm just not big on the shapeshifting ability. The one time I liked it was as part of Hush, but that's it really.

 

[scatterax]

i like the shape shifting part. to me it sets him apart from all the other batman villains.

 

[Anita18]

You have very good points in responding to my post earlier and Doc Samson's. The thing for me I think (and I may be proven wrong) is that the most amazing aspect of TDK's success is that it's one of the darkest summer blockbusters (quite possibly is the darkest) to date. Yet it's huge commercial success is thanks largely to the fact that it's a BATMAN movie. Put that level of darkness in a SUPERMAN movie (or comic book) and tonally it's wrong.

Batman films have always done pretty well, but not "$500 million domestic" well. None of the LOTR, Spidey, or POTC films have gotten up to that level, although POTC was closest. TDK became a phenomenon because of a bunch of other factors, in addition to it being a very good, very well-made film.

 

[In a Pickle]

What was so unrealistic about that Penguin? I mean, my only problem with it is they basically gave him the Joker's world besides the penguins and the sewer.

You're kidding, right?

The entire premise is absurd. A baby is raised by penguins that just so happens to...gasp...look like a penguin? How did he learn how to talk? If you look at the history of feral children, none of them learned to talk when they lived in the wild. He salivates black goo...WTF?? I could go on and on but it really is ridiculous that I even need to mention any of this.

 

[The Guard]

Burton's Penguin is definitely out there, but I don't think The Penguin was raised by Penguins in BATMAN RETURNS. I think it's made pretty clear that he was raised, at least partially, by the Red Triangle Circus.

 

[Saint]

The original post is mostly correct; Nolan's approach is restrictive. It requires many of Batman's enemies and allies to be either removed completely or revised beyond recognition. The upside, though, is that it is the approach is extremely well suited to other characters--or, at least, is viable to adapt other characters to with minimal revision. This is an atmosphere that suits characters like Black Mask, the Penguin (though, personally, my interest in the Penguin is zero), or the Riddler. Hell, even Bane would be exciting to see in Nolan's films (though he would require considerable screentime dedicated to his origins, which I imagine Nolan would be adverse to).

The Nolan films should be considered an opportunity to paint those characters in ways that would not be available in a more stylized film. When Nolan is done, then hopefully we'll have another series that presents a Watchmen approach to the mythos, where we can see the sci-fi and fantasy elements of Batman--Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy.

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?

You can go down the typical comic book movie, stylized fluff when this realistic, and more intelligent franchise is done.

Stylization and fluff do not go hand in hand. Realism and intelligence do not go hand in hand.

 

[The Major]

Saint:

Realistic Nolan style Batman villains may be different from their comic counter-parts but they don't have to unrecognizable to work. Like with all adaptions they'd be altered and I do think it could work with the majority of his villains, even people like Freeze and Ivy.

 

[Doc Samson]

The original post is mostly correct; Nolan's approach is restrictive. It requires many of Batman's enemies and allies to be either removed completely or revised beyond recognition. The upside, though, is that it is the approach is extremely well suited to other characters--or, at least, is viable to adapt other characters to with minimal revision. This is an atmosphere that suits characters like Black Mask, the Penguin (though, personally, my interest in the Penguin is zero), or the Riddler. Hell, even Bane would be exciting to see in Nolan's films (though he would require considerable screentime dedicated to his origins, which I imagine Nolan would be adverse to).

The Nolan films should be considered an opportunity to paint those characters in ways that would not be available in a more stylized film. When Nolan is done, then hopefully we'll have another series that presents a Watchmen approach to the mythos, where we can see the sci-fi and fantasy elements of Batman--Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy.


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?


Stylization and fluff do not go hand in hand. Realism and intelligence do not go hand in hand.

I completely agree Saint, I just think they might've meant those characters in a Nolan version of Batman working. I'm with you though, the next batch of movies down the road should return to the more stylized fantasy world of Batman, I don't really think they can try to continue Nolan's vision without Nolan at the helm

 

[Anita18]

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?

I think pretty much anything can work on film, but the real question is, would they work in a film that has additional restrictions, mostly regarding time constraints and other characters? Like as you said, Bane would probably be cool on film, but then you'd have to go into his history and they might not be able to do that for the film they aim to make. It's all about picking and choosing.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

i generally like to skip extra long posts like those.

And you think I read it? I already know 97% is gonna be fanboy ********.

 

[Saint]

I think pretty much anything can work on film, but the real question is, would they work in a film that has additional restrictions, mostly regarding time constraints and other characters? Like as you said, Bane would probably be cool on film, but then you'd have to go into his history and they might not be able to do that for the film they aim to make. It's all about picking and choosing.

Obviously the filmmakers have to prioritize their goals. What I know Nolan's priorities to be suggests Bane would be problematic; his origin is both lengthy and absolutely critical. Most other villains don't suffer from this condition (or other comparable ones), so for the most part, I imagine they are workable under the priorities of other directors, so long as one of those priorities is not super-realism.

Bane is an interesting challenge. In another franchise, I could see the film detail the rise of Bane in Gotham and Batman's fight against him, mixed with two parallel streams of flashbacks: one detailing Bane's origin in the prison, and the other Batman's origin and his travels around the world.

 

[Saint]

Saint:

Realistic Nolan style Batman villains may be different from their comic counter-parts but they don't have to unrecognizable to work. Like with all adaptions they'd be altered and I do think it could work with the majority of his villains, even people like Freeze and Ivy.

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."

 

[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 over look some details if the version is good enough and the character is faithful in its spirit.

Deadshot, for example, would need a complete costume upgrade to be more realistic. He's a sniper, after all.

 

[CaptainClown]

Freeze could use a high powered liquid nitrogen type gun to break bank doors but later used as a weapon and could suffer from a chronic illness in which he might sometimes need a breathing regulator Then give him the arc like in tas

Clayface could be turned into someone who is a master of disguise and you never see his real face, just the people he is portraying

The only one I have a problem including is Man-bat but it isn't like we won't be missing out on much if he is never included.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Yeah, we can do without Man-Bat. Clayface could be very easily portrayed though.

 

[CaptainClown]

That would be interesting if Clayface wasn't really casted just the rest of the cast is playing him.

 

[scatterax]

That would be interesting if Clayface wasn't really casted just the rest of the cast is playing him.

i normally don't like the version of clayface w/o powers, but that would be awsome.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

I don't exactly like the idea of Clayface with "powers".

 

[CaptainClown]

I think Powers clay face certainly has its time and place but a non powered more cloak and dagger clay face could certainly cause as much damage.

 

[scatterax]

I don't exactly like the idea of Clayface with "powers".

i like it cause thats the clayface i grew up w/.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

It wouldn't work in this series though.