You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 9

Really interesting interview.

 

Josh Horowitz does some of the best interviews in the game. He did one with Nolan a few months ago that's really worth checking out.

 

Is it me, or WB and DCFU are surprisingly silent as of late? No rapid announcements or anything...

 

'm re-reading the Jim Starlin and Bernie Wrighston classic The Cult and I have noticed a lot of simularities between TDKR.

It all starts from the sewers by an analog Ras al Ghul, Deacon Blackfire.
Gotham's politicians are assassinated.
Gotham is undersiege and completely cutt off from the mainland by blocking it's bridges. Some of the bridges are blocked Just like in TDKR.
The complete nationale guard enters the sewers and gets killed.
Gordon gets injured and visited by Batman in the hospital. They have a simulair
conversation as in the movie.
Batman gets beaten and comes back to Gotham to save it.
Cops are getting hanged in the city.
The Deacon takes GCPD's complete arsenal(in the movie it's Batman's and the GCPD's arsenal)
There a page spread of Gotham almost the same as in Begins!

There's just too many...

 

JL ended up being a massive disappointment and a money waster, no surprise they remain silent about whatever it is they are currently doing.

 

Can't claim TDKR isn't faithful to the comics

 

To one or three comics maybe.

And they defiated a lot from The Cult, Knighfall by Bruce giving up his cowl.

 

A lot more than that. Several.

 

To that, I give this quote straght from the director himself.

 

O man that's unbelieveble. To me a straight up testimony that Nolan does not get 'Batman'. Batman is not just a symbol that any man can bear. He can't be anybody. Bruce trained it, honed it to almost perfection and eventually will pass it on to a handfull of other exeptional men (either Dick, Jean Paul, Terry, Damian).

Nolan needed another credible characterization, to substitute one that was already established well. To use a general fear of the unknown beast in the dark, that's why Bruce became the Batman. And to top that all he first had to overcome that fear. Weird thing is, that Nolan set that up much better than his little private jet converstation about a symbol.

 

That's the TDK trilogy for you. Firmly rooted in the comics.

You're misreading his quote. He's not saying Batman can literally be any ordinary Joe nobody to slap on a costume. Or do you think he spent nearly in hour in BB showing us Bruce going through great pains to train with the LOS, conquer his demons, and perfect himself as Batman using his considerable resources as a message that anyone can do this? He's saying the symbol of Batman is that he could be anyone under that cowl.

Dent on Batman in TDK; "Gotham City is proud of an ordinary citizen standing up for what's right"

The public thinks it's a regular citizen taking a stand. Batman is meant to inspire people like that. And just like Bale's Batman, he doesn't enjoy it, and wants to see an end to it at one point;






Nolan 'gets' Batman alright. Even the comic book people will tell you that;

https://screenrant.com/best-batman-movie-version-comic-book-writers/

 

Nolan even said not every Batman fan will agree with that interpretation, but for me it's a valid cinematic interpretation if you're trying to tell a finite version of the story.

The plane conversation says it all. Bruce wants to send a message to the good people of Gotham as much as he wants to frighten the criminals. In this trilogy, it was all about the symbol and what it can mean for Gotham.

I think it's fair to say you don't agree with his interpretation, but saying he doesn't 'get' Batman goes a bit far IMO, especially when he acknowledges that his take might not sit right with every Batman fan. There's a lot of takes out there. Frank Miller's Batman isn't everyone's Batman, but it's still a valid interpretation. I've been a Batman fan my whole life, I think I can safely say I 'get' the character, and this cinematic interpretation worked for me.

 

Always makes me laugh when ppl only see the surface level of the "anybody can be Batman" point. Joker nailed it with his post.

 

Haha..I've been reading Batman books since 1990. Nolan just pulled a few things from here and there, just like The Joker is doing to make his point. You can't do that and say "He got it".

Nolan contradicts Begins (that was al about overcoming fear and becoming Batman) in this interview and in the following movies, by saying: guy transforming himself into Batman, for a 5 year project. He literally spells it out (like he does in the trilogy all to often) in TDK that Bruce is a normal guy, never at his peak, that hung up after a few setbacks.

Bruce didn't hang up his cape between the TDK and TDKR and again after TDKR, because there was no crime in Gotham, that's impossible! He stopped because he was tired and broken after 4/5 years of being Batman, because it was a little naive rich kid side project he had going on. He just got lucky with Gordon's Taskforce and Gordon gives that win to him in his little speech.
You can't save a city from 100 years of corruption in a few years. You can't become Batman for a period of 5 year.
But Nolan's Bruce did so that alone tells me Nolan's Bruce wasn't driven like the Bruce in the comics. Nolan almost nailed it in Begins but he took it way offcourse in TDK and TDKR.

The 'original' Bruce Wayne would never stop, he doesn't enjoy what he's doing (I never said that, did I) and he also want's to end it badly. But he knows his task is never done.

 

Umm yes he did retire because he wasn't needed anymore, AND there was no point going out there on the streets helping people when he's supposed to be percieved as a lunatic murderer. Even if he did go out after TDK under the radar like how we see Keaton's Batman early on in the 89' movie (where cops don't see him & criminals aren't sure if Bats will kill them or not) he still retired at some point because organized crime was wiped out. Batman was no longer needed. He didn't hang up the cowl because he was tired, or because of Rachel's death or whatever else. He simply wasn't needed anymore and had to paint a specific picture to the public.

 

I edited my post a few times. Never having read yours..srry 'bout that.

Organized crime wasn't wiped out, that's ridiculous. I know that is what they are saying but it's just dumb reasoning and lazy writing. Crime never sleeps, and stoping organized crime isn't Batman's sole purpose. If there's one thing he's adamant about in the comics it is to stop murder.

 

Do tell. What am I missing from my "pulling things here and there" post?

Where in TDK does he spell out Bruce is a normal guy, not at his peak, and he hung up after a few setbacks? Quote the dialogue he spelled this out in please.

No offense, but you are talking total nonsense. For starters, since you are so observant in how Nolan spells things out, how did it fly under your radar that it was spelled out in TDKR that Bruce gave up the cowl not because he was tired and broken from years of being Batman, but because he was not needed as Batman anymore because organized crime was wiped out.

Gordon: "We were in this together. Then you were gone"
Batman: "The Batman wasn't needed anymore. We won"

Blake: "When you and Dent cleaned up the streets you cleaned them good. Soon we'll be chasing overdue library books".

Dent's legacy with the Dent Act cleaned up Gotham to minimum crime levels. In fact crime levels dropped so low that they even say Gordon is going to get early retirement from the Mayor. How much more clear did this need to be spelled out?

Of course you can. Who are you to set realism boundaries? In a fantasy world where we are asked to believe one man can put on a cape and cowl, and be a one man army against an entire city full of organized crime, ancient worldwide ninja organizations etc, being Batman for a finite period, and wiping out organized crime in one city is tame by comparison.

The 'original' Bruce will never stop because if he does then no more Batman. No more comics. No more of one of the most popular characters ever. Just like they will never kill the Joker, and end decades worth of entertaining feuds between him and Batman. But movies like Batman '89 have no qualms about killing the Joker. In fact all CBMs but a finite stamp on things that are infinite in the comics.

But putting all that aside, look at the comics themselves e.g. The Dark Knight Returns. One of the most iconic and popular Batman tales. Yet its a version where Bruce quit being Batman for 10 long years. Even worse he did it when the city was still ravaged with crime and badly needed a Batman. Unlike Bale, who did it because Batman wasn't needed. Yet such a selfish quitting Batman is hailed as one of the best Batman tales ever.

Because Batman can and would retire if he had the chance. "Organized crime was not wiped out", "Batman retired because he was tired of being Batman" etc. This is all false. Your whole argument is based on what you want to believe, not what is factual.

 

To quote your own post:

Dent on Batman in TDK; "Gotham City is proud of an ordinary citizen standing up for what's right"
The public thinks it's a regular citizen taking a stand.

Then in TDKR he shows us that Bruce is just a normal reclusive guy, with knee problems. It heavily implies that Bruce gave up because of all the hurt.

Again, the knee thing and the whole reclusive thing.

Gordon saying that shows that things weren't done, just that Batman left sudden.

I've seen the movie, but it's not believable. So they take out a few crime-bosses and corruption, and all of a sudden 'poof' all crime is gone? Like I said Batman does more than fight organized crime and corruption.

Is just lazy reasoning.

I'm very found of TDK Returns, but like I said you can't pick an choose. Batman is more than just DKR. Just like Nolan tried to find a valid reason for Batman to quit, Miller tried but failed just as Nolan did.

That's my biggest issue with Nolan's trilogy. He went back into hiding twice and let murder happen in Gotham. Atleast Miller made sure Bat's came back for good.
For some weird reason Nolan pulled an open ending out off his ..., by Bruce passing the torch to Blake. Put what for? Like you said there was no crime anymore? But he didn't leave a tumbler for Blake to collect overdue library books?


But you know what, it doesn't matter. You like the trilogy. I'm happy for you. I don't, I have to treat it like an 'Elseworld' story. It doesn't fit in anywhere else with my view of Batman.

 

I grew up in New York City in the 90s. Organized crime was pretty much brought to its knees during that era because Mayor Giuliani came down hard on it. It can happen. The murder rate is much lower than it was in the 80s too. Sure, it wasn't wiped out entirely, but the mob isn't anywhere close to what it was in prior decades. For a fictional movie-universe where we have caped heroes and masked villains, I didn't think it was too big a stretch to see something similar play out.

And again, Batman's stated purpose in these films was to "show the people of Gotham that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt". It was never about stopping every mugger or random murderer. It was about inciting a societal shift back to good.

You can of course agree or disagree with that take on the character, but it makes total sense for a cinematic version more grounded in realism for Bruce to make his mission more focused on the root of the problems and not just a never-ending, self-indulgent attack on the symptoms.

And it was also something new. We've already seen the "I'll be Batman...forever" arc in the 90s. In the comics, time is kind of frozen and unless it's an origin story like Year One or a retirement story like DKR, he's basically having all these adventures frozen in time as a 34-35 year old Batman. For a more realistic cinematic telling where things like age and the physical toll of waging a one man war on crime are addressed, it simply made sense for Bruce to have a more specific endgame in mind when he first puts on the cowl.

You can agree or disagree with whether or not Batman should've been adapted this way for the screen, but it's an internally consistent take on the character. There's no contradiction anywhere.

It's totally fine if you don't like the trilogy Cobblepot, I'm just pushing back on it not being a valid take on the character and it not being an internally consistent one.

 

Press the fat link in my signature and decide; ballot to fill or not?

 

There is no such implication. AT ALL. It is specifically stated he gave up being Batman because he wasn't needed any more. That is a fact, not an opinion. There is no room for debate on that. It's a cold hard fact.

Your impressions of implication are just that. Your own impressions.

What about it? As soon as the threat of Bane came about, and Batman was needed again, he sorted out his knee and came out of seclusion. So what is your hang up on his knee injury and being a recluse?

How does Gordon saying that show that things were not done? He simply confronted Batman with the fact that he left all of a sudden. Bruce responds with his reason why he did that. Because Batman wasn't needed any more. Gordon did not refute that reason by saying he was needed. He responded by saying that their victory was based on a lie. The Dent cover up.

So explain in great detail please how Gordon's response states things were not done.

I've seen the movie, too. I say it is believable. You take out all the major crime bosses, and organized crime falls. All your left with is the little fish who are easily swept up.

We're talking about a universe where an ancient ninja organization has been balancing the world for centuries. Where one man can make an entire city's crime organization run scared. And you're calling foul because organized crime being wiped out is too fantastical.

To you maybe.

Of course you can. Every adaption of Batman has picked and chosen from various stories and eras. For nearly three decades of his existence Batman was campy. But the movies ignore that. Does that make Adam West's Batman more valid than the dark and serious versions?

I agree. Good thing Nolan incorporated so many more comics besides that one into his movies.

Miller didn't fail. If he failed then DKR would be a failure instead of a fan favorite.

When did he go back into hiding twice and let murder happen?

After a 10 year absence when the city was ravaged with crime. Is his permanent return going to bring back all the dead bodies that piled up because of the high crime rates in those 10 years?

Watchful protector.....a Dark Knight. There will always be a Batman there should Gotham need one again.

Fair enough.

But that does sound contradictory coming from someone who is obviously a fan of the Burton movies, judging by your avatar, which are even further removed from the comic book lore.

 

Meh. The more I see people's nitpicks of TDKR, the more I realize that not only does Nolan get Batman, he gets the character more than the people who claim he doesn't.

 

I finally saw War for the Planet of the Apes, and I think it's the TDKR of its series.

 

War was bland, predictable and forced the sentimentality a little too much for me. Woody Harrelson as a villain was also underdeveloped. It was well directed for the most part and I had no problems with the acting, but the writing was the weakest link. I also didn't buy the ending with Caesar.