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

[Dark Victory]

Smokin' Aces showed this could work well in film.

Thank you!!!

 

[Julio Alejandro]

What was that in regards to?

 

[CaptainClown]

What was that in regards to?

Clayface

 

[baerrtt]

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.

Or you could do a 'BLADE' or ROAD TO PERDITION and market the film in such a way that most of the audience have absolutely no idea that the lead character originates from a comic/graphic novel. Which judging from your posts is something you don't want.

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.



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.



My apologies.



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.



Beause they were executed great.

Few DC adaptions get that luxury.



Alright.



I understand that.



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.



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



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



And the other half?



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.



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



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.



I disagree.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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 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.



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.



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.

Batman was deemed worthy of a movie serial only two years after he debuted. It didn't take 'decades' for studios/DC to see the character's potential.

Secondly because I don't want to go over every point you've made the tragic motivation of Bruce Wayne/Batman (losing his parents to street crime) which has fuelled every dark, angsty take on the character similar to say Spider-Man's is EMOTIONALLY more relatable (even for those who thankfully have never experienced such a situation)to most audiences (comic readers or not) than the motivations of well...most of the others.

How are Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), the Flash (any of them), Superman, The Spectre, Wonder Woman's origins etc DRAMATICALLY (the key word) as relatable as a boy who sees his parents gunned down? As for the non-powered heroes their origins are by and large completely generic (reminding people of countless revenge-laden action movies), some even influenced by Batman's origin (for example the Huntress).

From the get go (1939) that character (along with Superman)appealed consistently more to the fanbase of readers than any of the others that came along.

You posts give out the impression that you think that if EVERY character was exposed/marketed the same way every character would be equally popular with equal quality product. Within comic fandom it doesn't work like that (look at the endless cancelled titles in both DC and Marvel's history) and if you're core audience doesn't have the same loyalty for certain characters from their inception no matter how you showcase them (DC's Silver Age) the general audience sure as hell won't.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Clayface

I'm lost. What does that have to do with Clayface?

 

[CaptainClown]

I'm lost. What does that have to do with Clayface?

In smoking aces there was a character who killed somebody then assumed their identity, he was a master of disguise that would slip in and out of characters to make a hit.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Oh, you mean Soot? That was kinda interesting.

 

[WeaponXProject]

I realized that instead of Chris Nolan making a badass comic movie, he makes a great suspensful movie that happens to have batman in it. Which is great to me.

 

[The Guard]

Nolan isn't limiting the movies in terms of their maturity level. He's limiting the kinds of themes he explores. Rather than do an exploration of Batman as a character that features many of the classic themes, he seems to have chosen a select few. He applies this to the villains in the series as well.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

This has been my point the whole time.

 

[the_scream]

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

In your opinion. The Penguin is less interesting as a character compared to the Joker. I don't believe Burton made him more appealing in BR. If anything, he became less so.

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

See how you know it’s an exaggeration, not a complete change?[/quote]

Now we are debating magnitude rather than all or nothing. My point is that the magnitude was so great that he ceased to be the same character. And no, the motivations were not the same. As I stated before, this Penguin was motivated to murder first borns. Even while basking in the praise of Gotham, he silently plotted his revenge.

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.

Not interesting to you. However, he was interesting enough to be one of the most popular characters in Batman's gallery of villains for decades. Nolan changed some aspects of the Joker but, once again, we are not talking about all or nothing here. It is impossible to create a perfect interpretation of a comic character but Burton took the original idea of the Penguin and eliminated the very essence of the character. The Penguin is not a monster.

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.

And yet again, simple saying he was an "average, chubby guy" doesn't do any justice to the character like saying the Joker is just a "face painter". There is more to these characters than you give credit for. You offer a lot more detail for your evaluation of Burton's Penguin but make sweeping, simple evaluations of the original Penguin to further embellish your biased point.

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).

Not really. It was more to do with the fact that once you had seen DeVito in two scenes, that was pretty much it for the film. Not a bad performance but not as special as some people claim it to be either.

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.

He never tried not to be the monster. Even when running for mayor he was quietly toiling away recording all the names of Gotham's first borns. Sorry, I'm tired of all this over-analysing of Burton's Penguin character. Enough already, please.

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

Yep, doing it again.

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.

I don't remember saying you were against the idea.

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.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.

It's the same statement. A monster does not entail being interesting. The "monsters" you referred to were popular because they were more than monsters. You can't plonk a monster on screen and expect people to find them interesting. That requires more thought. I am not trying to change my argument here. Just clarifying something you keep misunderstanding.

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.”

He has the "tragic" childhood that is never played as such. He's a monster even as a baby when he abuses the cat and Burton plays the scene in a silly, slapstick way. There was nothing tragic about the tone of his character. Everything else he does is a front. If Burton had allowed for this insight into his humanity, it would have been a very interesting character. Instead, we are left with fanboys online filling in the depth for Burton instead. I'd like to see your version of the Penguin. It is much more interesting to read your description than watching the one we got on screen.

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.

ditto. Nicely put. A shame Burton never really got this character to emerge from the monster.

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

I can see you have given this a lot of thought.

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...

Prove it beyond stating it?

I've lost track of what we were saying.

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.

Since when are we getting technical about the language we use on a Batman forum . I'm a year off being a psychologist myself so I know all about motivation but I didn't realise you were expecting a journal-style reply. You know what my point was but once again you seem to relish in being condescending. However, I will keep my reply civil:

You were saying that he was motivated to fit in and become more human. I was saying he was motivated by revenge as evidenced by his actions. Saying he was motivated to murder the first borns says the same thing.

Anyway, this is all I will say on the matter. There are more important things in this world then going around on this merry go round.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

How do you guys have the time to respond to all those at once?

 

[The Major]

We type fast.

It doesn't take that long, either.

 

[The Major]

We type fast.

It doesn't take that long, either.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

Damn. That is some crazy ****.

 

[El Payaso]

The Penguin is less interesting as a character compared to the Joker. I don't believe Burton made him more appealing in BR. If anything, he became less so.

The Joker is hard to top. Nevertheless Burton made a better character than the original Penguin. Not the average chubby gangster. Good enough. It doesn't have to be better than Joker.

Now we are debating magnitude rather than all or nothing. My point is that the magnitude was so great that he ceased to be the same character.

Exaggerating the elements of a character doesn't equal making a different one. Even when in this particular case, a different one might be great news since the original is quite weak.

And no, the motivations were not the same. As I stated before, this Penguin was motivated to murder first borns. Even while basking in the praise of Gotham, he silently plotted his revenge.

He was motivated for revenge, same as in comics.

Joker wan't motivated to force people to kill prisoners in a boat. nevertheless it worked okay since even when the actions and plans were different the motivation was the same.

Not interesting to you. However, he was interesting enough to be one of the most popular characters in Batman's gallery of villains for decades.

Time is your argument? He has been there time enough so it's automatically interesting?

Nolan changed some aspects of the Joker but, once again, we are not talking about all or nothing here. It is impossible to create a perfect interpretation of a comic character but Burton took the original idea of the Penguin and eliminated the very essence of the character. The Penguin is not a monster.

What is the "very essence" of Penguin? What is there to say about him? I ask again.

And yet again, simple saying he was an "average, chubby guy" doesn't do any justice to the character like saying the Joker is just a "face painter".

Never said Joker is just a face painter.

But I have been asking you what else is there to say about Penguin.

There is more to these characters than you give credit for. You offer a lot more detail for your evaluation of Burton's Penguin but make sweeping, simple evaluations of the original Penguin to further embellish your biased point.

So please enlighten us about comic's Penguin the same I enlighten you about Burton's Penguin. Let's keep the balance, if possible.

Not really. It was more to do with the fact that once you had seen DeVito in two scenes, that was pretty much it for the film. Not a bad performance but not as special as some people claim it to be either.

I claim it to be better than the original at least.

He never tried not to be the monster. Even when running for mayor he was quietly toiling away recording all the names of Gotham's first borns.

Yes, but it was a fail-safe. It was only when he lost his political power when he used that list. before that he was trying to get back his "basic humanity."

Sorry, I'm tired of all this over-analysing of Burton's Penguin character. Enough already, please.

Ok.

Yep, doing it again.

And you avoiding to answer again.

I don't remember saying you were against the idea.

So your implications were all unnecessary?

It's the same statement. A monster does not entail being interesting. The "monsters" you referred to were popular because they were more than monsters.

Just like Burton's Penguin.

In fact I don't recall one example of a character being just a monster and nothing else.

I am not trying to change my argument here. Just clarifying something you keep misunderstanding.

Indeed, I kept misunderstand that your statement wasn't properly written according to what you were trying to say.

He has the "tragic" childhood that is never played as such. He's a monster even as a baby when he abuses the cat and Burton plays the scene in a silly, slapstick way. There was nothing tragic about the tone of his character.

Maybe your dvd player is skipping scenes. When he's talking to Schreck you can see sadness in him and his claims, and he doesn't have to pretend that before Schreck since he's blackmailing him. Then again we have the moment when he's rejected by the crowd and renounces his humanity and finally when he dies.

The tone is overall tragic. Nevertheless Burton doesn't go and overpity the character nor does he equals tragedy with tears and violins. Penguin's evil cruel nature is there too and yes, comedy is there; one thing doesn't deny the other nor are they mutually exclusive.

Everything else he does is a front.

so?

If Burton had allowed for this insight into his humanity, it would have been a very interesting character.

You mean if he did in a more obvious spoonfeeding way.

Instead, we are left with fanboys online filling in the depth for Burton instead.

That's what exigent movies do. They don't serve everything in a spoon for you to simply swallow.

I'd like to see your version of the Penguin. It is much more interesting to read your description than watching the one we got on screen.

El Payaso's ideas being better than other people's is not a rare thing. But we're getting off-subject now.

ditto. Nicely put. A shame Burton never really got this character to emerge from the monster.

Watch the scenes I mentioned.

I can see you have given this a lot of thought.

Which means Burton did too. All those references are not coincidental.

Ok...

Exactly.

I've lost track of what we were saying.

I've lost track of how many times this has happened to you in this thread.

Since when are we getting technical about the language we use on a Batman forum .

Since people need to keep the level of discussion high by replying with a proper use of words.

I'm a year off being a psychologist myself so I know all about motivation

but the meaning of the word?

but I didn't realise you were expecting a journal-style reply.

Only one where you didn't confuse action and motivation.

You know what my point was but once again you seem to relish in being condescending.

Whatever your point was, motivation of the character was the same, actions were different.

And then again, Batman has never interfered every cellphone in Gotham City or Joker has never done the trick with the pencil and the thing with the boats and the bombs in the comics, so as you can see new actions for the characters are all over the movie adaptations.

However, I will keep my reply civil:

You were saying that he was motivated to fit in and become more human. I was saying he was motivated by revenge as evidenced by his actions. Saying he was motivated to murder the first borns says the same thing.

Not at all. Revenge is the motivation of both the comics' and the movie's Penguin. The actions he does in order to have revenge might differ though. Same as Batman's, Joker's and Two-Face's. I don't recall Two-Face's motivation is his girl being murdered.

Anyway, this is all I will say on the matter. There are more important things in this world then going around on this merry go round.

End of the discussion then.

 

[Eggyman]

I feel older after reading all that.

I am older

 

[Julio Alejandro]

What the **** is up with all the multiple quotes?

 

[Anita18]

What the **** is up with all the multiple quotes?

People feel like they're being better debaters by picking apart every single line.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

HAHAHA. I would go crazy answering all of those.

 

[El Payaso]

People feel like they're being better debaters by picking apart every single line.

 

[Jick]

while I hope they stick with the realistic kind of villains for the third movie...I do hope that, in the next movie franchise, they go the fantastic route, using villains like Bane, Croc, and even Clay-Face.

 

[Julio Alejandro]

What's funny is that those characters don't necessarily have to be fantastic.

 

[The Batkilt]

That is fantastic.

 

[the_scream]

Indeed, I kept misunderstand that your statement wasn't properly written according to what you were trying to say.


I've lost track of how many times this has happened to you in this thread.


Since people need to keep the level of discussion high by replying with a proper use of words.


but the meaning of the word?


Only one where you didn't confuse action and motivation.

Just a little highlight of your attempts to bog this down into something personal. As such, I am through trying to discuss this with you.