The Dark Knight What Nolan Changed

[gqxsensazn]

Nolan's movies have been called the closest and best adaptation of the comics. However there were some changes he made in both movies that were different from what happened in comics:

1. Bruce trains with Ra's Al Ghul
2. The Wayne's attend an opera rather than watching a Zorro movie
3. Bruce fears bats (Actually I don't know if this was a change)
4. Two-Face transformed by fire, not acid from Maroni
5. Two-Face's death
6. Addition of Rachel Dawes

I could've sworn there was more but I guess not. My question is did any of these changes bother you or not?

For me it didn't. I absolutely loved the storytelling. It was exciting to see Nolan's interpretation and it made for much stronger drama.

 

[Lando81]

Nolan's movies have been called the closest and best adaptation of the comics. However there were some changes he made in both movies that were different from what happened in comics:

1. Bruce trains with Ra's Al Ghul
2. The Wayne's attend an opera rather than watching a Zorro movie
3. Bruce fears bats (Actually I don't know if this was a change)
4. Two-Face transformed by fire, not acid from Maroni
5. Two-Face's death
6. Addition of Rachel Dawes

I could've sworn there was more but I guess not. My question is did any of these changes bother you or not?

For me it didn't. I absolutely loved the storytelling. It was exciting to see Nolan's interpretation and it made for much stronger drama.

at no point was nolan's films were going to be shot for shot with the comics. these are just minor issues that really shouldnt need to be brought up.

 

[Sonic1002]

surprised you didn't bring up makeup clad, scarred joker

 

[Byron Long]

surprised you didn't bring up makeup clad, scarred joker

Yeah that's a huge change.

 

[Bathead]

at no point was nolan's films were going to be shot for shot with the comics. these are just minor issues that really shouldnt need to be brought up.

To some people, they're not minor issues. It's a legitimate topic of discussion, although some could argue these have been discussed already. If you feel they don't need to be discussed, you don't have to participate.

 

[Valerie_f4]

They didn't have the joker dropped into the liquid that made his face like that and made him go crazy because of the surgeries after surgeries to get his face fixed when they couldn't. In this joker kept his appearance with makeup and kept it scarred. There was no time time he was on air with his makeup off.
And yes, they had to add a love interest for Bruce. I just don't get why they made him pimpin' in the other series with all these woman to be with, rather than be with one like Rachel Dawes.

 

[El Payaso]

at no point was nolan's films were going to be shot for shot with the comics. these are just minor issues that really shouldnt need to be brought up.

Ra's being Bruce's mentor or the addition of Rachel are everything but minor details.

Amongst the changes I totally hated were Flass and Comm. Loeb being nothing like the original characters.

But most of the changes worked fine.

 

[Copyright 2008]

Also Two-Face not being the split personality type from the comics, which worked.

 

[I Am The Knight]

The Zorro to opera change was great.

The fear of bats very famously comes from the comics.

The Ra's as mentor was a nice way to fit him into the story and into a thematic father/son relationship.

Loeb doesn't seems to be corrupt in the Nolan movies, although he is intended to be (I think )

Nolan obviously changed the look of the characters. Scarecrow, Ra's, but was surprisingly faithful to Joker's wardrobe. Guess because it's mainly a suit, albeit purple.

 

[[A]]

buy Nolan candy! takes away the bitterness from Schumacher sour pills

 

[I Am The Knight]

Actually Schumacher would fit "Candy" more.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Amongst the changes I totally hated were Flass and Comm. Loeb being nothing like the original characters.

They're just minor references to Year One, In name only. Loeb and Flass were no particulary strong or defining characters. Didn't these characters serve their purpose in Batman Begins?

There are no rules. No restrictions. These movies were inspired by the Batman universe. It refers to some particular stories, plot points, and iconic images. TDK was a stunning example of creativity in modifying the characters to enhance your story. You can say which version you prefer, but you cant claim an original or definitive version of anything. Batman is as fresh as it was 60 years ago, and that is because of creative minds toying with what seem to be ultimate versions of these characters, and inventing new ways to look at them. Somethimes I'm just baffled by fanboys' ignorance. Perhaps it's a cruel word to use, but it's really the only fitting one.

This is not specifically directed to you El Payaso, it was more that your comment triggered some associations. You weren't satisfied with these very, very minor characters, and I strongly remember alot of people flipping over the new versions of Joker and Two-Face. Who are very major characters.

 

[Valerie_f4]

look at the cgi too. Different looks in colours this one is dark that last one was cartoonish...

 

[Ibn]

They're just minor references to Year One, In name only. Loeb and Flass were no particulary strong or defining characters. Didn't these characters serve their purpose in Batman Begins?

There are no rules. No restrictions. These movies were inspired by the Batman universe. It refers to some particular stories, plot points, and iconic images. TDK was a stunning example of creativity in modifying the characters to enhance your story. You can say which version you prefer, but you cant claim an original or definitive version of anything. Batman is as fresh as it was 60 years ago, and that is because of creative minds toying with what seem to be ultimate versions of these characters, and inventing new ways to look at them. Sometimes I'm just baffled by fanboys' ignorance. Perhaps it's a cruel word to use, but it's really the only fitting one.

This is not specifically directed to you El Payaso, it was more that your comment triggered some associations. You weren't satisfied with these very, very minor characters, and I strongly remember alot of people flipping over the new versions of Joker and Two-Face. Who are very major characters.

That's the problem though. Alot of "fanboys" want lay claim to Nolan's work being just that - definitive, which is simply not the case. But alot of times, it's the majority that feels that way. I hate alot of what Nolan's done. But I've been patronized for having for the most part the same mentality as you. You mentioned ignorant fanboys, but alot of times it's the other way around. Good post though.

 

[Bathead]

There's a kind of dichotomy here. Nolan has made a number of changes to the Batman universe, both major and minor, yet he also seems to have come the closest to realizing the Batman of the comics, moreso than anyone else to this point. As a so-called traditionalist, I am somewhat bothered by those changes, but I still think his is the best interpretation we've gotten so far. I can live with those changes, even while wishing he had gone with a more comics-like approach.

 

[Nirvana]

Surprised no one brought up that Ducard and Ra's were the same person.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

That's the problem though. Alot of "fanboys" want lay claim to Nolan's work being just that - definitive, which is simply not the case. But alot of times, it's the majority that feels that way. I hate alot of what Nolan's done. But I've been patronized for having for the most part the same mentality as you. You mentioned ignorant fanboys, but alot of times it's the other way around. Good post though.

Indeed. It's very plausible that WB will juist keep on making Batman films. Especially after TDK's succes. When Nolan concludes what probably will be his Batman Trilogy, it's just not possible that those are the last Batman films ever and thus the definitive, ultimate, final version of Batman on the silver screen. It's a cash cow. It always has been. And has turned into an even bigger one this year. Batman will always be on the move. Within all this richness of material there is plenty that I love. Ranging from good to genius. Everybody has a favourite way of looking at this universe. And it doesn't have to stand in the way of debate.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

As long as you capture the heart of the characters its fine by me. Joker while he looked radically different, was written and acted as close to the character as could possibly be. My question is this; why is it okay for a comic writer to come along and make all these changes and at times improvements to a character, but once a Hollywood director comes along and does it its a problem?

 

[Magenta666]

im surprised no one brought up that joker didnt kill bruces parents

 

[[A]]

..but that didn't happen in the comics











..I think

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

It didn't happen in the comics thats why its not on that list.

 

[Magenta666]

oh you


i was joking

 

[[A]]

I was right (for oncet

 

[.:TheDarkKnight]

I personally liked the way Nolan made changes. Then again, I haven't read all the comics. And obviously he wasn't going for the exact storyline of them, he wanted it to be a realistic story in our current time.

 

[christhn]

He changed the fact that there's not gonna be a Robin. Also, thus far, there's no Batmobile either. I haven't read the comics, but I would assume I'm pretty safe with these two statements. Correct me if I'm wrong.