Your top 5 things that needs to be "fixed" for the Batman reboot

[Shikamaru]

Didn't imply any of the sort on a more comics suit being the reason it's "dumbed down".

This is nothing about the comics. I am saying he had to dumb down his vision because the fanboys and/or Sony had him change because of all the flack the first suit received.

How is that dumbing down your own vision? Dumbing down your own vision would be using an idea not as good as the one intended. So as long as there are no problems with the new suit, I don't see how it is dumbed down. Regardless of what the director had in mind, it is all about the quality in the end and the new suit looks like it's possibly going to be the best suit we ever got in live-action.

But, you bring up a point on Webb wanting a more comics accurate suit in the first place...if that was the idea, then what explains the first suit being so different and then all of a sudden all the different intricate pieces on the first suit is gone? Everything is different except for the spider logos on the front and back. Besides that and different eyes, it's Raimi's suit.

The first suit was a rough draft. Assuming Peter finds way better materials and better design, I don't see why he wouldn't change it completely.

Everything except the spider logos on the front, back, the amount of blue near the waist area, and the raised webbing. I do see a bit of the old suit there and it's enough for me. And the suit isn't that similar to the Raimi suit either. Only things they have in common are the raised webbing (which the TASM suit had too) and the honeycomb fabric pattern. Everything else including the coloring is completely different. Raimi's suit is a straight adaptation of the comics suit so it is a bit silly IMO to expect no similarities at all whatsoever between the new suit and the Raimi suit since they're both trying to be really spot on to the suit we all know.

And fabric does not even work well. Go look at Batman: Dead End and fabric would just seem so odd in live-action and I doubt we will ever see that in a Batman film, so that's why leather is really the basis that you see with Batman, as much as it seems that honeycomb fabric is used for Spidey the most.

The Dead End suit? You mean the cheap spandex suit from a low budget fan film made ten years ago?

Picture the Arkham Asylum/City suit on the big screen. That's the type of fabric suit I'm talking about. That's what Batman should wear.

The Dead End costume is not a good example because it is essentially a spandex suit. Batman does not wear spandex in the comics but fabric. He's just often drawn as if he's wearing spandex because it visually looks better in the comics and is easier & faster to draw than fabric.

Here are some low budget fabric suits....

From a low-budget porn parody:

Spoiler

From the low-budget City of Scars fan film:

Only change I would do to these is to remove the black undies.

A nice photoshop image I found online:

I'll leave this fan-art here too:

If the people behind these images made the suit from the comics look good with little to no money, I don't see why Hollywood can't do it.

Lighting will play a major part too. Batman spends most of his time in the dark and whenever he doesn't, he usually has his cape covering most of his costume.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That City of Scars costume is one of the best I've ever seen.

How can fans support endless rubber costumes knowing that costume can be made for way under-budget?

 

[Tequilla]

Wait, why shouldn't it be compared again?

and lets face it, if Iron Man was more like Ang Lee's unfocused and meditative Hulk movie, it would've bombed and Marvel Studios would've went bankrupt and there wouldn't be any Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, GotG, Avengers 2, Ant Man, and Dr. Strange.

Superhero movies would've died a long time ago. I'm not sure how that would be an improvement from Marvel Studio's fanboy-pleasing formula.

It was a little hyperbolic of mine t: Yeah , they can be compared. I just think quality wise they are so distant , thats its almost unfair to group them. Iron Man is also a nice film , but everything that followed it ...i don't like it. Ang Lee's Hulk is just a great motion picture of its own.

 

[The Guard]

I think overall what the new franchise needs is more consistency in terms of characterization, or at least better evolution of certain concepts.

Batman as a creature of the shadows not just suddenly dropping that approach with no real exploration, then adopting it again with no real exploration.

Bruce Wayne not just forgetting about his parents and their legacy for huge periods of time.

Things like that.

More memorable theme music - very much opinion when Zimmer's theme is as classic as Elfman's.

Come on now.

Look, I like Zimmer's theme. It's very cool. It's memorable, and it works well for the films. It's not remotely as classic as Elfman's, nor, by any objective standard, is it as impressive a piece of music.

 

[regwec]

I think the trilogy's finest achievement is its unusual take on The Joker. Although by no means 'my' interpretation, it is the single element which remains compelling and original, and which is likely to be remembered long into the future.

Otherwise, the trilogy has a strangely bland, cautious feel. It rarely seems at ease with itself, treating its characters as hollow concepts and depriving them of much colour or nuance. It is as if everyone except The Joker was on Valium.

I think Batman Begins works well as a bridge between our world, and the fantastical world of the Batman mythos. But maintaining the washed out, bland and dry atmosphere beyond the origin story didn't really work satisfactorily, in my opinion. Compare BTAS reinvention of an unpromising character like Mr Freeze, to TDKR's treatment of Catwoman.

I suppose I want a director who really loves and understands the mythos, and isn't embarrassed by it. It's okay to do something new with it, if you have a great idea- see Ledger's Joker. But please don't reduce it to nothing under the disingenuous objective of 'realism'.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I have none of that. But a thread about what needs to be fixed which consists, other than of Detective skills (hence the one getting heavy discussion), of nitpicks.

The thing is, every filmmaker will attempt to make the mythos their own in some way. If the next guy "fixes" many of these relatively superficial points, he will make other changes that will just piss off the purists. It is a game that will never be won.

Thank you!

Dude. If you don't like what I'm saying just ignore it. How is insulting someone who never disrespected you ever justified?

For some one who isn't dense themselves you act like being civil on a superhero forum is rocket science.

So instead of acknowledging your mistake, you'd rather try to call out on me not being civilized.

Have you watched "City of Scars"?

Of course I did, but I don't view that suit being great on a full-fledge live-action film either.

How is that dumbing down your own vision? Dumbing down your own vision would be using an idea not as good as the one intended. So as long as there are no problems with the new suit, I don't see how it is dumbed down. Regardless of what the director had in mind, it is all about the quality in the end and the new suit looks like it's possibly going to be the best suit we ever got in live-action.

And the TAS-M 2 suit isn't as good, for thematic reasons. The first suit fit with the "grounded" idea Webb was trying to create and that idea has to be thrown out with the new suit now.

The first suit was a rough draft. Assuming Peter finds way better materials and better design, I don't see why he wouldn't change it completely.

How does he find way better materials on his salary of literally nothing then?

Everything except the spider logos on the front, back, the amount of blue near the waist area, and the raised webbing. I do see a bit of the old suit there and it's enough for me. And the suit isn't that similar to the Raimi suit either. Only things they have in common are the raised webbing (which the TASM suit had too) and the honeycomb fabric pattern. Everything else including the coloring is completely different. Raimi's suit is a straight adaptation of the comics suit so it is a bit silly IMO to expect no similarities at all whatsoever between the new suit and the Raimi suit since they're both trying to be really spot on to the suit we all know.

Imo, it's simply not enough to remember of the old suit. A few ideas from the old says nothing about keeping the essential idea of the old suit.

The Dead End suit? You mean the cheap spandex suit from a low budget fan film made ten years ago?

And that's what it is. A cheap spandex suit that wouldn't look great on a film.

Picture the Arkham Asylum/City suit on the big screen. That's the type of fabric suit I'm talking about. That's what Batman should wear.

The Asylum/City fabric is more of armor than fabric.

Spoiler

Spoiler

The Dead End costume is not a good example because it is essentially a spandex suit. Batman does not wear spandex in the comics but fabric. He's just often drawn as if he's wearing spandex because it visually looks better in the comics and is easier & faster to draw than fabric.

Here are some low budget fabric suits....

From a low-budget porn parody:

Spoiler

From the low-budget City of Scars fan film:

Only change I would do to these is to remove the black undies.

A nice photoshop image I found online:

I'll leave this fan-art here too:

Yah...I don't like any of these examples, lol.

If the people behind these images made the suit from the comics look good with little to no money, I don't see why Hollywood can't do it.

Lighting will play a major part too. Batman spends most of his time in the dark and whenever he doesn't, he usually has his cape covering most of his costume.

I don't see "Hollywood" trying to make some spandex suit for Batman, and especially fabric for that matter.

Batman as a creature of the shadows not just suddenly dropping that approach with no real exploration, then adopting it again with no real exploration.

If you're speaking on TDK, yes, I agree that's something Nolan dropped the ball at as he was very much this "creature of the shadows" in BB and TDKR.

Bruce Wayne not just forgetting about his parents and their legacy for huge periods of time.

He didn't really do this. I mean, he dropped the ball on his parents' legacy because of the energy fusion project, but it hurt to where he becomes a recluse.

Come on now.

Look, I like Zimmer's theme. It's very cool. It's memorable, and it works well for the films. It's not remotely as classic as Elfman's, nor, by any objective standard, is it as impressive a piece of music.

It's why I said it's all opinion. To you and to Messiah, it may not be memorable, but I can remember every tune to Nolan's trilogy as much as Elfman's theme for Batman.

 

[The Guard]

I suppose I want a director who really loves and understands the mythos, and isn't embarrassed by it. It's okay to do something new with it, if you have a great idea- see Ledger's Joker. But please don't reduce it to nothing under the disingenuous objective of 'realism'.

Agreed.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I think the City of Scars suit is awful, as well as the rest of that fan film's art direction

 

[DACrowe]

Again, imaginative villains, Batman being shadowy, sidekick inclusion, iconic imagery, revamped Batsuit, Batman being a master planner, Batman, with a broader variety of perfected skills, Batman being the true face, strong BTAS influence, and strong Arkham game influence are NOT NITPICKS!

All these together potentially create a totally different movie from Nolan's with unique storytelling, characters and overall Bat-world.

A nitpick is saying the ears are too short.

Complaining that Nolan chose to show a more plausible depiction of an angry man coming to realize he will become Batman in his 20s, as opposed to making a vow at 8 and never wavering in his entire life questioning that thought, is a nitpick to me. Complaining that he never covered his body with the cape enough also is pretty superficial. Saying we never got "shadowy" Batman when the original complaints of BB was the fight scenes, to create the illusion of a shadowy creature coming from all angles, were too confusing is a nitpick. Especially when Nolan shows fights in the sequels and is criticized by fans for it.

Another way to put it is when Nolan first came on, fans were ecstatic that he so heavily drew from Year One for BB. In TDK, he heavily drew from The Long Halloween and he made The Joker scarier and Harvey Dent a tragic hero, which also got applause. But fans get tired of the same vision and by the third, which also drew heavily from No Man's Land and included a near panel-by-panel recreation of the one great scene in Knightsfall, people were tired of it and began obsessing over mostly cosmetic changes (the Joker wears make-up, Batman has a gravely voice, Catwoman doesn't have a cowl and is only called "The Cat," etc.).

My point is, no matter who makes the next one, he will makes changes. Fanboys who were unhappy with Nolan's pretty comic-influenced vision will still find reasons to complain. It will happen to Whedon too in a few films. They shrug now that he makes Thor break character for a joke or rewrites the Banner/Hulk dynamic. But in two films? They will be furious.

 

[regwec]

I will always be a fan of the comics first and foremost, but I do try not to judge things purely by their fidelity to them. I would say that Burton and Nolan's movies are equally departures from the source material. Burton's movies- particularly the first- just captures more of its atmosphere and appeal.

I feel that we have moved beyond a point where, to gain some sort of validation, a comic book movie needed to have a director that didn't really feel comfortable with comic book movies, and tried to turn the films into something different in order to mask their origin.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Good God, those suits posted above look horrible. That's the type of think I'd expect to see in a parody film.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought the suits looked like crap.

 

[regwec]

Would you care to expand on what is wrong with them? I don't endorse any of them per se, but the last one follows the same principle as the TDK(R) suit, except with less ugly segmentation.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The last one isn't that bad, but it is just a drawing. Light fabric like that won't display the muscle structure like that in real life. The first two looks like a halloween costume. There isn't really anything to recommend about them at all. A big issue is that they are grey. A full grey and black bodysuit in real life looks awful. Batman is supposed to be the ultimate badass superhero that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. People won't buy that if he looks like a guy in pajamas. It would be almost as bad as putting Wolverine in bright yellow.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I like the City of Scars suit. I'm not surprised Nolan fans don't like it.

and I'd imagine if they had a multi-million dollar budget it would look even better.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Asking the Batman films to be like the comics is impossible, even ignoring the differences between the two mediums. Batman isn't a book like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, where there is one story, by a single author, with a specific tone. Batman is a series of different stories by different writers and artists over a 70+ year period, with drastically different tones depending on the time period. The comics of the early 40s, early 60s, and early 90s couldn't be more different from each other. The Adam West Batman was very accurate for the time, just like Nolan's Batman is accurate to the Batman of Year One, The Long Halloween, and Dark Victory.

The fanbase will never be happy because there is no single fanbase. The different versions of Batman are as different as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Anybody able to unite the fanbase would find their skills better put to use dealing with North and South Korea.

 

[Snow Queen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the City of Scars suit is ugly. I like the fanfilm but the suit is awful.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The captain America style one is good I think. Sort of New 52 style.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Complaining that Nolan chose to show a more plausible depiction of an angry man coming to realize he will become Batman in his 20s, as opposed to making a vow at 8 and never wavering in his entire life questioning that thought, is a nitpick to me. Complaining that he never covered his body with the cape enough also is pretty superficial. Saying we never got "shadowy" Batman when the original complaints of BB was the fight scenes, to create the illusion of a shadowy creature coming from all angles, were too confusing is a nitpick. Especially when Nolan shows fights in the sequels and is criticized by fans for it.

Another way to put it is when Nolan first came on, fans were ecstatic that he so heavily drew from Year One for BB. In TDK, he heavily drew from The Long Halloween and he made The Joker scarier and Harvey Dent a tragic hero, which also got applause. But fans get tired of the same vision and by the third, which also drew heavily from No Man's Land and included a near panel-by-panel recreation of the one great scene in Knightsfall, people were tired of it and began obsessing over mostly cosmetic changes (the Joker wears make-up, Batman has a gravely voice, Catwoman doesn't have a cowl and is only called "The Cat," etc.).

My point is, no matter who makes the next one, he will makes changes. Fanboys who were unhappy with Nolan's pretty comic-influenced vision will still find reasons to complain. It will happen to Whedon too in a few films. They shrug now that he makes Thor break character for a joke or rewrites the Banner/Hulk dynamic. But in two films? They will be furious.

Bruce needing his entire childhood, teenage life and early adulthood just to train to become Batman isn't a nitpick. It's the only adequate explanation why Batman is better than anyone at scientific method, deduction, tracking, escape artistry, counter-surveillance, espionage, psychological profiling, most forms of combat (not just ninjitsu), bomb diffusion, interrogation, projectiles, sabotage, guerrilla warfare, counter-intelligence, the art of war, reconnaissance, piloting various vehicles, criminology, forensics, disguise, etc.

Audiences have no clue the level of mastery Batman has over all these things or why. They don't know what a person would have to sacrifice to achieve Batman's legendary reputation. They don't even know why he deserves a legendary reputation. They know the character is popular, wears a batsuit, and has some James Bond and ninja skills but that's about it.

That is simply cheating the audience of how impressive the character is and how much of an accomplishment it is to become Batman.

I love that the story of Batman implies that if a person trained for a single purpose using the best genetics, mentors, and commitment our world has to offer, they can become such a masterful warrior that they could stand shoulder to shoulder with immortal gods. And the idea that a small child can focus to meticulously mold themselves to that point is incredibly powerful to me.

Why would anyone discard this from the Batman character?

So, it's definitely not a nitpick to me.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Asking the Batman films to be like the comics is impossible, even ignoring the differences between the two mediums. Batman isn't a book like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, where there is one story, by a single author, with a specific tone. Batman is a series of different stories by different writers and artists over a 70+ year period, with drastically different tones depending on the time period. The comics of the early 40s, early 60s, and early 90s couldn't be more different from each other. The Adam West Batman was very accurate for the time, just like Nolan's Batman is accurate to the Batman of Year One, The Long Halloween, and Dark Victory.

The fanbase will never be happy because there is no single fanbase. The different versions of Batman are as different as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Anybody able to unite the fanbase would find their skills better put to use dealing with North and South Korea.

I think BTAS and the Arkham games recieved near universal praise and loyalty from the fanbase so it's not impossible if there's an honest attempt.

 

[regwec]

The Adam West Batman was very accurate for the time, just like Nolan's Batman is accurate to the Batman of Year One, The Long Halloween, and Dark Victory.

Which makes Nolan's Batman archaic, if you're right. Year One is edging towards 30 years old, with the Loeb/Sale stuff lagging just a decade behind.

I don't think Batfans are all that hard to please. All like BTAS, almost all like the "Arkham City" game (I haven't played it, so can't comment). A faithful adaptation of Batman has never really been attempted in a movie, however.

 

[regwec]

I think BTAS and the Arkham games recieved near universal praise and loyalty from the fanbase so it's not impossible if there's an honest attempt.

Hah! Snap!

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I for one didn't like the art direction the Arkham games... wayyyy too much colour variety. Felt like a rainbow at times. BATS I liked more, with the deco style.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think BTAS and the Arkham games recieved near universal praise and loyalty from the fanbase so it's not impossible if there's an honest attempt.

Not any more than Nolan's trilogy. Notice that TDK was much better received than Mask of the Phantasm.

There are numerous problems with both. I'll stick to BTAS for now, as someone else already commented on Arkham Asylum.

- Some episodes are downright atrocious (ex. Batman in My Basement, Cat Scratch Fever)
- Until her last couple of appearances Catwoman was reduced to a standard damsel in distress type
- They went with the terrible Tim Burton Penguin
- The animation quality varied widly depending on what animation house did that particular episode
- Many of the more complex villains lose their primary motivations after their origin episodes (ex. Mad Hatter, Two-Face) and just because standard criminals
- Batman isn't any more of a detective than he is in the Nolan films
- Late in the series the supporting cast becomes bloated and Batman's role is reduced in favor of Robin and Batgirl
- Killer Croc is a joke
- Bane is almost as bad
- The show is too childish in many spots and not dark enough.
- The character design after the revamp is wretched for nearly every character (Scarecrow being the main exception). Does anybody think this is a good Joker?

I'd give more examples, but I have to go for the time being. I can list more later if you want.

 

[DACrowe]

Bruce needing his entire childhood, teenage life and early adulthood just to train to become Batman isn't a nitpick. It's the only adequate explanation why Batman is better than anyone at scientific method, deduction, tracking, escape artistry, counter-surveillance, espionage, psychological profiling, most forms of combat (not just ninjitsu), bomb diffusion, interrogation, projectiles, sabotage, guerrilla warfare, counter-intelligence, the art of war, reconnaissance, piloting various vehicles, criminology, forensics, disguise, etc.

Audiences have no clue the level of mastery Batman has over all these things or why. They don't know what a person would have to sacrifice to achieve Batman's legendary reputation. They don't even know why he deserves a legendary reputation. They know the character is popular, wears a batsuit, and has some James Bond and ninja skills but that's about it.

That is simply cheating the audience of how impressive the character is and how much of an accomplishment it is to become Batman.

I love that the story of Batman implies that if a person trained for a single purpose using the best genetics, mentors, and commitment our world has to offer, they can become such a masterful warrior that they could stand shoulder to shoulder with immortal gods. And the idea that a small child can focus to meticulously mold themselves to that point is incredibly powerful to me.

Why would anyone discard this from the Batman character?

So, it's definitely not a nitpick to me.

Personally, I think one man mastering all those skills is ridiculous. Not studying, but being the world's greatest at all of the above is akin to a Greek demigod. That is why I actually prefer the Batman of stories like TLH, DV and YO where he makes mistakes. Ironically the same writer of the last one created the "Bat-God" in The Dark Knight Returns.

I actually find a young man lost in anger throwing away his life by 21 to learn a number of unknown skills (he had been lost for 7 years before he met Ra's Al Ghul in BB and clearly had studied martial arts, thievery and other unknown practices) a little more plausible as a human reaction than one who makes a vow at 8 and never grows a little perspective and realizes just how childish that vow could be perceived as. Batman as a culmination of struggle as opposed to the pre-ordained destination of an 8 year old is preferable to me.

Beyond that though, while I do wish more of the Batman's cunning was on display in the films, especially in terms of detective works, I do not want another origin or even flashbacks to one when showing him with a chemistry set at 12 or on a gymnastics vault at 11 adds little to the fact that he is Batman by the story's meat. As I doubt we are going to spend a whole film of him training with Zatanna and touring Asia, it does seem main thrust. Just my opinion.