The Dark Knight What Nolan Changed

[jmc]

Can't we just enjoy the series for what it is instead of worrying about how 'accurate' everything is? Nolan got the core elements correct, that's all that matters, as long as those basic elements are there, everything else is an optional extra.

 

[[A]]

No one's worrying about accuracy here.. Not in this thread, at least t:

 

[gwynplaine]

Nolan has changed things forever.

 

[[A]]

There's no going back.

 

[gwynplaine]

Bingo !

 

[christhn]

Can't we just enjoy the series for what it is instead of worrying about how 'accurate' everything is? Nolan got the core elements correct, that's all that matters, as long as those basic elements are there, everything else is an optional extra.

Oh I do enjoy it. I just felt bored and wanted to read this board, I'm sure a lot of us feel that way.

 

[TheBatman072]

1. Bruce trains with Ra's Al Ghul

But before we or Bruce knew he was Ra's, he was Ducard. And Bruce did train with a Ducard in the comics. The Man Who Falls specifically.

2. The Wayne's attend an opera rather than watching a Zorro movie

Tomato, tomahto.

3. Bruce fears bats (Actually I don't know if this was a change)

Bruce feared bats in Frank Miller's Year One and DKR.

4. Two-Face transformed by fire, not acid from Maroni

And yet he looked and acted just like a comic accurate Two-Face should.

5. Two-Face's death

Oh well. Much better than what we got last time, even if he did die.

6. Addition of Rachel Dawes

She was MEANT to be killed by Joker. But she also provided a good conscience for Bruce.

 

[gwynplaine]

I preferred when Bruce was going to see Zorro with his parents. That opera with those bat/ballet dancers was trying too hard (to fit with Bruce phobia)and a bit ridiculous imo (maybe it should have been Pagliacci, the one about the tragic clown, wink).

But I understand why they had to make the change, going to see a douglas fairbanks jr movie nowadays would make no sense and stockshots of that stupid Banderas film would have been very ridiculous.

Hopefully if they ever make a period Batman one day (with a Joker who looks like my avatar)they'll get back to the zorro reference/homage.

 

[Magenta666]

There's no going back.

see you them, your just a director....like me!

 

[Doc Samson]

I've always said if you go far enough into the comics, you can find instances that contradict at one point or another, that they usually try to explain away with hypertime or retcons are whatever they feel like making up at any particular time. Frank Miller made Year one, and most writers adapted that into canon as the real timeline for that part of Batman's career, while at the same time discarding things that they didn't want, like Catwoman being a prostitute. So to me, comics are never the end all be all, it's just the inception of the idea. Certain things are set in stone, like the murder of the parents, the cave, Alfred and so on, but beyond that, most of these characters have went through multiple interpretations already, so there's a bit of leeway there, at least IMO

 

[Mr. Earle]

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?

I've been saying that for ages! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
The least the comics should do is adopt the memory cloth cape and the tumbler. At least!!!
I would also suggest they give the comics joker ledger-joker's motives instead of using him as a murdering fool. But i know this is too radical.

He changed the fact that there's not gonna be a Robin.

Robin is too young to be included in the story. In other words, Nolan chickened out. He wouldnt even consider using him after the Schumacher debacle.

there's no Batmobile either

Raaaage!

 

[Mr. Earle]

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

I loved it! (Just commenting IamTheKnight. Not that you are wrong or anything)

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

I dont think that he was, he just wasnt as competent as Gordon (as competent as Gordon and GPD can be).

Nolan obviously changed the look of the characters. Scarecrow

SC just didnt wear the suit. Crane just didnt need to look like a real scarecrow. I think it sufficed.

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

Well half of Year One was about Gordon vs corruption. BB was about Bruce and his journey. The movie didnt have time to show us every little detail of YO. Besides, it wasnt supposed to be "YO: the film". The movie did a fine job of establishing corruption in Gotham. Fanboy's whining about Flass is what made Nolan name the Mexican female cop Ramirez (being a traitor and all).

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.

Just stating my opinion here because your post sparked my interest. I consider BTAS my version of Batman. BB came very close to realising BTAS in live action. Even the suit looked a lot like the BTAS design to me (broad chest and arms). I also enjoyed Nolan straying from cannon and giving his own twist to the mythos. I loved what they did with the villains (only complaint: Make Ras immortal. Same Neeson ninja Ras though!) and i loved Batman's origin story in Begins. Much more thought out and justified than "he became batman at 8" origin.

Anyway, the comics have been going on for ages now, that's why BTAS and Nolanverse are better to me than the comics. The comics just keep bringing people back from the dead, have batman beat up Darkseid, merge with Wolvering into DarkClaw, go through tenths of Robins.
BTAS just felt more solid to me than "hurr its the year 2200. Where do we take batman now? Hurr he has a new (the 9th) Robin, he is a much bigger ***hole, the 8th Robin came back from the dead, etc".

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Laderlappen]

My question is did any of these changes bother you or not?

Absolutely not. I actually prefer that he took his own take than just copyd everything. Being alowed to chage some things, you have more control of the story.

Two-face's death kinda bugged me. Not because he died, but because we got to see so little Two-face. Rachel wasn't a that great character. These are minor changes anyway.

 

[Valerie_f4]

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

Yeah, remember when joker didn't kill young Bruce's parents in Batman begins?

 

[El Payaso]

Well half of Year One was about Gordon vs corruption. BB was about Bruce and his journey. The movie didnt have time to show us every little detail of YO. Besides, it wasnt supposed to be "YO: the film". The movie did a fine job of establishing corruption in Gotham. Fanboy's whining about Flass is what made Nolan name the Mexican female cop Ramirez (being a traitor and all).

The movie did fine establishing the corruption in Gotham. My point is an entirely different one.

I'm talking about the character and the way it was portrayed. If it's because of the time; you don't need any more time than what was used for BB's Loeb; same time, better characterization. Flass was a much more interesting character than the generic fat corrupted cop.

But I'm glad to know all the whining on mischaracterization bore fruits.

 

[Two-Face]

see you them, your just a director....like me!

 

[Mr. Earle]

The movie did fine establishing the corruption in Gotham. My point is an entirely different one.

I'm talking about the character and the way it was portrayed. If it's because of the time; you don't need any more time than what was used for BB's Loeb; same time, better characterization. Flass was a much more interesting character than the generic fat corrupted cop.

But I'm glad to know all the whining on mischaracterization bore fruits.

Yeah i agree. Nolan worked a lot less on these characters than Y.O. did but i didnt mind really. BB had its own villains to deal with and Loeb and Flass were not them.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Nolan's worst change was Bruce getting all his skill from mainly a single source (Ras).

1) It takes alot more than ninja mysticism to become Batman, the worlds greatest detective and the greatest powerless superhero. It took dozens of mentors each highly specialized in something Batman requires for his war on crime. Escape artistry from a master escape artist. Forensics from a master detective. Disguise from a disguise master. Countless styles of fighting all from masters. Sabotage and counter-surveillance again from ex-CIA and military. All this before most kids go to prom. This Alexander the Great type training is so exceptional that mixed with Bruce's natural genius it allows for near superhuman crime-fighting. Why limit this story to a single source? A premature Ras Al Ghul.

2) Ras is someone Batman should've been challenged by when he reached his prime when he was considered worthy successor. That was a story worth telling.

3) The gun is something Bruce hated the day his parents were killed. He trains from childhood specifically to avoid guns that's one of the biggest reasons he's so apt at weaponless combat. In the movie he considers using one until Joe Chill is shot. Major change that distorts the deep hatred Bruce has for guns.

 

[ronny]

The only change I had a big problem with was Dent's scarring. It loses some of its power when it's taken out of the courtroom setting and becomes the responsibility of another freak.
I'll grant you, it was done brilliantly in the movie. It was incredibly emotive, especially how Nolan broke the rules of film and killed Rachel off before she could give a heartwarming speech. But I still wish that he hadn't been burned by the fire. But rather it added to the pressure on him so that the scarring and his subsequent rampage were all the more understandable.

 

[Judson Caspian]

4. Two-Face transformed by fire, not acid from Maroni

It doesn't have anything to do with the comics, but didn't he become Two-Face in a similar way in The Animated Series?

 

[gqxsensazn]

It doesn't have anything to do with the comics, but didn't he become Two-Face in a similar way in The Animated Series?

Ah yeah, that's right. I wasn't even thinking of the cartoons.

 

[deathfromabove]

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.

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?

i have never understood this. as long as the idea has merit its source shouldnt be an issue.

these characters have been reimagined and retooled a plethora oftimes in the last 70 years. they are not static and it is a collaborative effort.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I'll agree with the Two-Face scarring, it was great, but it does lose a lot of its power from not being in the courtroom. What I loved about Harvey's turn in the comics is that it was the incredibly cruel irony of his life's work being undone before him. Everything he ever did as DA had lead to that courtroom where he would finally free the city of its evil, this was the one place that was fair to him, the one place where HE had the power to make things right. And then he lost everything, not in the sense that his wife died or anything, but all that he had worked towards was shattered before him, along with his face and reputation.

This is not a criticism of the Nolan film, as I really liked the scarring there also, but I hope to see one day the courtroom scene in media, not even BTAs did that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

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.

Exactly. But if you asked anybody else, unless its Nolan, they'll tell you they weren't true to the source material. I know you'll say he did it better or right. But still, you can't do everything from the comics. But from the beginning, I loved the changes. I was down with the new Joker look when everyone was pissy about it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

None of the changes bother me. In fact, some of them are better than the comics. The Waynes are rich. The opera scene was very good in my opinion because it tied in the fact that they are wealthy with Bruce's fear of bats. I actually like the Heath Joker look better than the comics. Rachel Dawes, I could do without. However, he got rid of her in the second movie so that's fine with me.