The Dark Knight Rises Why Would Nolan Make A Batman That Is Outta the Rest of the Superheroverse

[Team Andino]

wow, seriously? I gotta watch that.

I dont remember where he says it but I know I heard it an I remember my jaw dropping when I heard the stupid banter between those idiots doing commentary

 

[The Guard]

"Why would Batman keep operating if there were other heroes?"

Come on, people...

I dont remember where he says it but I know I heard it an I remember my jaw dropping when I heard the stupid banter between those idiots doing commentary.

I'm pretty sure he never said that. He talks about how they used a teleportation power for her instead of the Psi-blade.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I think your giving him to much credit. In the DVD commentary he says some stupid stuff like claiming he created the character Psylock

Great fodder for my Ratner hate. By the way, I think it's spelled Psylocke, yes?

Also, I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore. Is it the same ol same ol Nolan's Batman won't within the JLA?

 

[gwynplaine]

Why would Nolan make a Batman blah, blah, blah ?
Answer : Because he can.

 

[Ring Deacon]

You have the slight issue of one C. Bale, regardless of whether WB wants Nolan's Batman amongst other DC heroes, he seems very much in tune with Nolan's vision that this Batman doesn't hang with super powered beings, if that's his stance and he doesn't want anything to do with it, then the whole DC universe on film using the Nolan Batman is basically dead as is.

Don't forget he has said he is all for a team up movie with his Batman and Routh's Superman. In fact his WB contract states that there will be a team up movie. All I am saying is never say never. It would be very easy to place other heroes in Nolan's so called universe. Remember for one thing it isn't his universe, it is the WB's.

 

[X-Maniac]

I think your giving him to much credit. In the DVD commentary he says some stupid stuff like claiming he created the character Psylock

He never said that at all. He talked about combining the abilities of some characters - for instance, rather than using Callisto, Caliban and Quicksilver, he added Caliban's mutant-detection power and Quicksilver's speed to Callisto. I'm not 100 per cent sure I liked Quicksilver's powers being added on.. but Callisto has enhanced speed and reflexes anyway...

Psylocke's movie power (either camouflaged against a wall or teleporting) is another matter. The comicbook version can teleport and she can also use her psychic powers to affect people's perceptions so she can appear invisible. Whether she teleported or was camouflaged in the movie, both those fit with the comicbook character. It's a shame we didn't see more of Psylocke - the actress said scenes with the psi-blades were filmed - but we're never going to get everything we want....

 

[thedanmachine]

Because Nolan is an elitist ******* who thinks that the batman that he has created is "above" working with other less "realistic" superheroes.

 

[protoctista]

Because all other DC characters are awful.

They've got embaressingly bad costumes, rubbish powers and worse motives, un-iconic and boring villains, poor storylines that only surpass the last by being more ridiculous, and a host of other flaws including, often, flat characterisation; all of which mean that they shouldn't ever get even a film adaption, let alone inclusion within a decent franchise like Batman.

God forbid Nolan's franchise so much as mention them.

Especially Superman, who is completely unrelatable as a character, ridiculously overly powerful, and ridiculously dressed.

Bah.

 

[Anubis]

Because Nolan is an elitist ******* who thinks that the batman that he has created is "above" working with other less "realistic" superheroes.

Now that sounds about right.

 

[Anubis]

Because all other DC characters are awful.

They've got embaressingly bad costumes, rubbish powers and worse motives, un-iconic and boring villains, poor storylines that only surpass the last by being more ridiculous, and a host of other flaws including, often, flat characterisation; all of which mean that they shouldn't ever get even a film adaption, let alone inclusion within a decent franchise like Batman.

God forbid Nolan's franchise so much as mention them.

Especially Superman, who is completely unrelatable as a character, ridiculously overly powerful, and ridiculously dressed.

Bah.

.......yah huh.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Because Nolan is an elitist ******* who thinks that the batman that he has created is "above" working with other less "realistic" superheroes.

I'm going top go ahead and let Nolan be elitist. He's earned it.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Because all other DC characters are awful.

They've got embaressingly bad costumes, rubbish powers and worse motives, un-iconic and boring villains, poor storylines that only surpass the last by being more ridiculous, and a host of other flaws including, often, flat characterisation; all of which mean that they shouldn't ever get even a film adaption, let alone inclusion within a decent franchise like Batman.

God forbid Nolan's franchise so much as mention them.

Especially Superman, who is completely unrelatable as a character, ridiculously overly powerful, and ridiculously dressed.

Bah.

I hope you are only kidding otherwise you've just shot yourself in the foot, then shoved you foot in your mouth. Almost all DC characters are fantastic, I'm guessing if you are seriuos you're just either a Marvel fanboy, or worse, someone who never read the comics, was introduced to Batman through Nolan, and now claim to be a source of knowledge on al things Batman by claiming that compared to him al other superheroes are crap. Superman has the potential to be the greatest Superhero film ever, just like a lot of other DC heroes and villains he is a three dimenional and intriguing character. Batman has his share of awful sorylines too, but I think a lot of people ignore that because that love "Teh Darkknes!" and realism. There is no realism, just a believably told stoy.

 

[hatebox]

I'm going to go ahead and let Nolan be elitist. He's earned it.

What he said.

Although seeing as how I only like Batman and couldn't give a f**K about any of the other (mostly crap) DC characters it's easy for me to agree with Nolan.

 

[jmc]

Don't forget he has said he is all for a team up movie with his Batman and Routh's Superman. In fact his WB contract states that there will be a team up movie. All I am saying is never say never. It would be very easy to place other heroes in Nolan's so called universe. Remember for one thing it isn't his universe, it is the WB's.

Ah, no, it is Nolan's universe, he came up with the interpretation of the character, not WB, regardless of who the character actually belongs to, the interpretation will always remain with Nolan, the same goes for Richard Donner's Superman, this isn't like Marvel who kept a very tight ship in making Iron Man and Hulk, WB gave Nolan virtually limitless freedom to do what ever the hell he wants. And as for Bales contract, no-one here knows what his contract stipulates, but one things for sure, contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on, if Bale doesn't want to do a third film if Nolan's not involved, he doesn't have to do it, there's always loopholes and get outs.

 

[BlueLightning]

I believe you guys didn´t even read the Nolan interview do you? (Sorry for those who did read it though)

My beliefs is that the Nolan movies works so well because they are grounded in reallity. That´s the path Nolan choose, and its working pretty well. During his conception, Batman was created as a solo vigilante figure. You saw him fighting "non-superhuman" people most of the times. You didn´t see a crossover with Superman or the League until many many years later. And it worked.

Those who read the interview will understand. Sure, there could be a JL movie, or a World Finest movie. It´s almost a fact, viewing the way Marvel Studios is treating their characters, DC and WB would want to follow the same path. I just hope Nolan can do the third movie before anything of this happens, and that if they do this, make Batman the first "superhero" like in the Bruce Timm animated universe (Nitpickers don´t mention "The once and future thing" please). I just want a pure Batman trilogy (Or maybe more).

 

[batsone]

ok so nolans bats could inhabit a JLU movie, not the otherway around.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Superman is a great character. People should read more.

 

[The Batkilt]

?????????
Even tho TDK was excellent....no im serious...superb
but it pisses me off that Nolan's Bat isnt in the superheroverse. Cuz now in order to have a JL movie they would need a different Batman

Understandably cuz Nolan bat is realistic, but still

How many 'superheroes' can actually be adapted to fit into the limitations of our world and still ring true? Granted there are a few, but not many. It's not about being realistic, it's about plausibility. Despite a lot of people claiming it's restricting and unimaginitive of Nolan I think it was a bold decision that has both artistically and financially paid off.

I especially thought that after watching Iron Man. IM had a solid cast and a good story, but it was quite comfortable in being a comic book movie. Nolan's Batman films aren't placing themselves in that genre, and although TDK was a huge success think of the criticism that would have been levelled at Nolan and WB if a 'serious drama' adaption of a comic book film had flopped. It was a bold move.

Besides, even sci-fi films/stories have to ring true to an audience in the film's universe to work. Characters such as Superman or even films such as Star Wars aren't a hit because of the fantasy element, it's because of the emotions and stories that are told. Don't believe me? Check out Battlefield Earth.

Considering just how outlandish the previous franchise ended up WB themselves probably knew any Batman film post-Batman & Robin had to have a more grounded approach.

 

[Ronny Shade]

How many 'superheroes' can actually be adapted to fit into the limitations of our world and still ring true? Granted there are a few, but not many. It's not about being realistic, it's about plausibility. Despite a lot of people claiming it's restricting and unimaginitive of Nolan I think it was a bold decision that has both artistically and financially paid off.

I especially thought that after watching Iron Man. IM had a solid cast and a good story, but it was quite comfortable in being a comic book movie. Nolan's Batman films aren't placing themselves in that genre, and although TDK was a huge success think of the criticism that would have been levelled at Nolan and WB if a 'serious drama' adaption of a comic book film had flopped. It was a bold move.

Besides, even sci-fi films/stories have to ring true to an audience in the film's universe to work. Characters such as Superman or even films such as Star Wars aren't a hit because of the fantasy element, it's because of the emotions and stories that are told. Don't believe me? Check out Battlefield Earth.

Considering just how outlandish the previous franchise ended up WB themselves probably knew any Batman film post-Batman & Robin had to have a more grounded approach.

Iron Man's motivation wasn't saving the world, it was making up for what he did wrong as a person. About undoing the damage caused by his business.

Good concept fundamentally, but they didn't explore it too deeply in the film. They didn't get too far into the pain of it.

Batman has a much more universal motivation. He wants to protect Gotham because it needs protecting, not because he's responsible for what happened (at least not at first). If Superman and GL were around, Gotham wouldn't need protecting so much.

 

[The Batkilt]

Iron Man's motivation wasn't saving the world, it was making up for what he did wrong as a person. About undoing the damage caused by his business.

Good concept fundamentally, but they didn't explore it too deeply in the film. They didn't get too far into the pain of it.

Batman has a much more universal motivation. He wants to protect Gotham because it needs protecting, not because he's responsible for what happened (at least not at first). If Superman and GL were around, Gotham wouldn't need protecting so much.

Like I said, I thought Iron Man had a good story and as a character he's one of Marvel's more interesting, but the film seemed to touch on issues rather than go into too much depth. I'd place money on any sequel teetering more towards TDK in terms of depth than the the predecessor.

It's still an enjoyable film though, and one of the best comic book film adaptions made yet.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Just don't deal with GL or Superman. They can share the same universe with Batman. You don't have to acknowledge it in the Nolan movies.

 

[jmc]

Like I said, I thought Iron Man had a good story and as a character he's one of Marvel's more interesting, but the film seemed to touch on issues rather than go into too much depth. I'd place money on any sequel teetering more towards TDK in terms of depth than the the predecessor.

It's still an enjoyable film though, and one of the best comic book film adaptions made yet.

Very true about Iron Man, basically you can sum it up in one line - good movie, but very standard. As for a sequel having more depth, I wouldn't count on it, Marvel aren't WB, they not going to give Favreau the same artistic freedom Nolan received, things are going to be kept on a very tight lease over at Marvel studios, I'm doubtful they are going to take any real risks.

 

[Thythoutrust]

Nolan doesn't even want a Robin, I can hardly see how he'd want to introduce other heroes.

Besides, they're already making a JL movie so we can all forget 'bout that.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Very true about Iron Man, basically you can sum it up in one line - good movie, but very standard. As for a sequel having more depth, I wouldn't count on it, Marvel aren't WB, they not going to give Favreau the same artistic freedom Nolan received, things are going to be kept on a very tight lease over at Marvel studios, I'm doubtful they are going to take any real risks.

It seems that way. But the man himself does not seem to want to give the film much more depth.

I want to maintain the tone we had with the first one, for the most part. Nolan has cornered the market on that tone and does it well. It’s not what I do well or what I want to see in IRON MAN.

 

[jmc]

If that's the case then Iron Man 2 might get into more trouble than I thought it would.