Batman Films Discussion

[dr jones]

I understand what both of you mean, and I do agree on some points (alot of them actually)

But the way you brought your arguments makes it sound as if the movie on its own, without the (big) changesNolan has made,sucks.

The way I see it, you can still enjoy the movie for its storyline, apart from the source material.

And as for the comics. I'm glad I'm not the only bat-geek on this forum, I and think that you and I share a same passion for the winged crusader. Just some other views.

[Lothos]

It's important to remember this, about the Nolan Films: They're nolan films guest starring Batman.

I think folks are looking far into this. Alot of version of batman have been done. As far as not looking at the source material I can only shake my head.

Bruce's training was depicted as learning what it means to be a criminal, in the comics bruce went to go learn how to combat a criminal, newsflash, gotta be one one for a bit to think like one.

Joker, in the comics, particular in the killing joke he says he prefers to have a multiple choice when it comes to his history past, whatever. Nolan took that idea nd ran with it, I, unlike alot of "hard core" batman fans weren't a fan of the lack of an origin. Giving something an origin, like a sadistic clown that pulls off heists, ruins the fear that runs through the idea. sure, Jack Napier/red hood/bored criminal falls into a vat o' chemicals, suprise Joker. I prefered the "One of the inmates from Arkham." Ok, so he's nuts, how nuts is he? The mystery is what made me go "Hey, this joker idea is awesome." I know I don't stand alone on that but I think alot of bat-fans were putting out soap boxes and ranting. Whatever, it's the internet.

Scarecrow, the idea was fantastico. It was a realistic version of the charachter.

Ras, I was a little mad that he wasn't as he was in the comics, but for the movie, and the idea of the villian, it worked fine. I disagree with killing him off, but them's the breaks.

Lucious Fox/ Jimmy Godron, So, you're telling me that the two smartest side charachters in the bat-universe couldn't figure out that Bruce is batman? Really? Gordon's one of the best cops in the city, if not the best, and Fox was a genius. The connection with bruce wayne and batman might as well be neon lights with fireworks for those two. Logical progression in a movie like these requires this sort of thing to happen. It's like Perry White not knowing Clark Kent isn't Superman, he's too good of a reporter not to figure it out.

Two-face: For the movie he served his purpose. In one comic in particular, where they pulled some of the source for, He wasn't a dominating factor as Twoface until the last 50 pages of a graphic novel.

In short, read more.

Edit, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or kick someone while they're down, but it really irks me when "comic book" fans get mad about a movie. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They'll never be as good as the actual comic. ever. The watchmen being the exception.

/end fanboy rant.

I do prefer the comics over the movies, but I'm able to seperate the two genres. If that makes sense. Movie Batman is totally different the comic book batman and that's a-ok with me.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Lothos

[Scorpiox]

snip

I agree 100% with all of that, especialy about the Joker. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Scorpiox

[Siegfried]

It's important to remember this, about the Nolan Films: They're nolan films guest starring Batman.

...and that's all they will ever be.

Bruce's training was depicted as learning what it means to be a criminal, in the comics bruce went to go learn how to combat a criminal, newsflash, gotta be one one for a bit to think like one.

That was a small part of his training. In the movie it was clear he had lost his way. Not very Batman. He is far more driven than that, often to the point of stupidity, for example Knightfall.

Joker, in the comics, particular in the killing joke he says he prefers to have a multiple choice when it comes to his history past, whatever. Nolan took that idea nd ran with it, I, unlike alot of "hard core" batman fans weren't a fan of the lack of an origin.

Indeed, but he wasn't funny! For example in the Killing Joke when he shoots Barbara he starts making book jokes and says that her value is reduced due to a damaged spine. Sick+funny=Joker. Sick by itself is just missing the point.

Scarecrow, the idea was fantastico. It was a realistic version of the charachter.

No major problem with Scarecrow. Too cool, too cute, but I suppose that brings in the women. I like Scarecrow to be a bit of a looser in his "real" persona, but I can accept small variances like that. I do have a problem with what Nolan sees as realistic though. For example once he included the Batpod he lost me 100% on that angle.

Ras, I was a little mad that he wasn't as he was in the comics, but for the movie, and the idea of the villian, it worked fine. I disagree with killing him off, but them's the breaks.

But in what way was he Ra's? Just by trying to destroy Gotham?

Lucious Fox/ Jimmy Godron, So, you're telling me that the two smartest side charachters in the bat-universe couldn't figure out that Bruce is batman? Really?

I didn't even mention Gordon, but you're missing my point. Fox is virtually told that Wayne is Batman. That's my problem. It's as dumb as letting Vicky in the cave in movie 1.

Two-face: For the movie he served his purpose. In one comic in particular, where they pulled some of the source for, He wasn't a dominating factor as Twoface until the last 50 pages of a graphic novel.

Do you mean "The Long Halloween"? In any case I stand by my point. Too short a life.

In short, read more.

Gee man, are you trying to cause trouble? "Read more"? How about "Get over yourself"? This is all just opinions.

Edit, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or kick someone while they're down, but it really irks me when "comic book" fans get mad about a movie. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They'll never be as good as the actual comic. ever. The watchmen being the exception.

Down? Is that a feather joke? But you're wrong, there already is a good Batman movie; Mask of the Phantasm. I also thought Sin City was good.

I do prefer the comics over the movies, but I'm able to seperate the two genres. If that makes sense. Movie Batman is totally different the comic book batman and that's a-ok with me.

Sure movie Batman is different, just like the 70s TV Batman is different, and the original Batman is different (who used a gun and killed). But to me it's like saying M%g^ Bl*ks and LEGO are the same just because they fit together. To me Nolan doesn't understand Batman, and I suppose that means I'm saying that you don't either.

But the way you brought your arguments makes it sound as if the movie on its own, without the (big) changesNolan has made,sucks.

I personally liked Batman Begins as a movie, but The Dark Knight I didn't like at all. Things like the Batpod and the mobile-phone-radar-system are just too laughingly stupid (in a 70s James Bond kind of way) for me to like in an action movie. If someone needs to create rubbish technoligy to resolve a story I think he needs to work on his story writing skills. (...and that's why a lot of Star Trek The Next Generation sux.)

And as for the comics. I'm glad I'm not the only bat-geek on this forum, I and think that you and I share a same passion for the winged crusader. Just some other views.

Well it's all just opinions, and when people are passionate about things they aren't always passionate in the same way. But that's half the fun.

[djmangunz]

My point is that Nolan is a good (and perhaps a very good) director, but it does not mean he can take on any task. Batman is simply not his world. I hope you understand me. Burton lived in the demented Gotham reality. Heck, even Shumacher showed a bit of on-drugs insanity of it. Nolan failed. Not because he's a bad director, but simply because it's just not his.

I agree completely that Nolan has been taking a grounded approach to his version of Batman choosing to have everything as realistic as one can make a movie about a billionaire who dresses up as a bat at night. Burton and his movies are typically demented and a little off-kilter. In my opinion, both styles work well for both directors. I understand that you prefer the latter and due to the power of blu ray you can enjoy Burton and Keaton's campy goodness whenever you want.

As for me, I eagerly await the passing of seven months till Nolan's final chapter.

[Siegfried]

I agree completely that Nolan has been taking a grounded approach to his version of Batman choosing to have everything as realistic as one can make a movie about a billionaire who dresses up as a bat at night. Burton and his movies are typically demented and a little off-kilter. In my opinion, both styles work well for both directors. I understand that you prefer the latter and due to the power of blu ray you can enjoy Burton and Keaton's campy goodness whenever you want.

The problem is that the Nolan movies are just as unbelievable as the rest. That portable microwave heating thing, phone-system-radar and the Bat-pod are the best examples of that.

The funny thing is I did recently buy the Blu-ray set of the first four. Here's what I thought;

1. Batman. Good, but it's too dominated by Joker, the plot is all over the place, and it's a bit slow in parts.

2. Batman Returns. Aside from a few scenes (such as the hijacking of the Penguins speech) it's very good still. I think this is still the best live action Batman movie.

3. Batman Forever. Terrible. The music, the Riddler, the neon, the nipples... it was a struggle to get to the end.

4. Batman and Robin. I got to the scene where the ice-skates poped out of Batman and Robins shoes and I could watch no more. I might try another time. It's pretty bad.

I do think Batman Begins is probably the second best Batman movie, but considering the age of the first, and the deliberate excessive campiness of the Joel ones, it's not a fair comparison.

[5150 Lego]

And you, with all respect, make it sound as if Nolan's films are just as bad as, I don't know, the third Transformers or GI Joe.

TF: Dark of the Moon was awesome. Just thought i'd add that. G.I. Joe on the other hand, was a good movie, just not a good G.I. Joe movie. But i guess that's another discussion entirely.

Quite simply Nolan has no respect for the source material. One could say "why does it matter"... but it does. If he's going to use actual Characters then he should use them as they are. The people who don't know Batman wont know or care, and people like me will be happier.

I totally agree with Siegfried. I wouldn't be able to say it better.

My point is that Nolan is a good (and perhaps a very good) director, but it does not mean he can take on any task. Batman is simply not his world. I hope you understand me. Burton lived in the demented Gotham reality. Heck, even Schumacher showed a bit of on-drugs insanity of it. Nolan failed. Not because he's a bad director, but simply because it's just not his.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

LOL You both remind me of TF fans complaining about Micheal Bay and how he ruined their childhoods. (well your not nearly that bad ). And what's funny is while you both and many other Batman fans don't care for Nolan's approach on the caped crusader, many in the TF fandom are wishing upon a star that Nolan would give his take on the TF franchise.

Point being its different when your a non fan looking in. Your not looking at all the specifics. The small details don't bother you. Your going in more or less enjoying a movie. And IMO, that's a good thing. I won't use the term fan boy as i don't want to offend anyone (some consider it derogatory ), so I'll just use "serious fan".

Quite simply Nolan has no respect for the source material. One could say "why does it matter"... but it does. If he's going to use actual Characters then he should use them as they are. The people who don't know Batman wont know or care, and people like me will be happier.

But the problem is the traditional take on a particular character may not necessarily work in a certain adaption. So it may need to be tweaked. Batman and his stories are over 70 years old as someone has already mentioned. There must be a dozen or so different takes on the subject and characters. So is there really one right way of doing Batman? If people see the characters and they still carry the same characterization as well as a similar look, then whats the problem? So far from what I'm seeing, Batman, Bruce Wayne, catwomen, Bane are all recognizable from at least there looks from the trailer. (and this is coming from someone who doesn't read any comics and have seen the occasional animated series episode as the Burton and Schumacher movies). From the outside looking in, things appear to look like "Batman".

I learned along time ago these type of movies aren't made for fans. There have, and always will be made for the general public. Many may not like that, but its fact. Movies built to to this scale need the general audiences approval to be successfully. That being said, that's why alot of of comic book/80's cartoon movie adapt-ions don't always take a familiar take. What works with the fans, doesn't always work with the average Joe. Fans are catered to with comics, novel books, and TV shows, while movies need to reach out to a broader audience.

Personally Nolan's adapt ions have been up and down for me. I found BB to be a bit boring, while TDK had a much better story and better characters (Heath Ledger played an incredible Joker and really made the movie). I still think Tim Burton's moves were the best adapt-ions period, but I'm a bit biased since i saw them both in the theaters as a little boy.

But in the end i guess thats one of the problems of being a "serious fan". Your going to have high expectations and wether or not you want to admit it, you have your own vision of what said franchise should look like on the big screen. Fans what something familiar. The general audince wants something fresh.

[The Penguin]

2. Batman Returns. Aside from a few scenes (such as the hijacking of the Penguins speech) it's very good still. I think this is still the best live action Batman movie.

I do think Batman Begins is probably the second best Batman movie, but considering the age of the first, and the deliberate excessive campiness of the Joel ones, it's not a fair comparison.

Exactly my thoughts. BR is still my number one Batman film, not just because of Penguin being there, but because the general atmosphere in the film is chilling (no pun intended! ) Even now after wathching this film for like 100 times the opening scene still looks awesome to me as in the first time. The film has its flaws like Penguin;'s speech, or Batmobile running loose, but generally it's one of the best and deepest, if I may say so, films for me.

And I agree that for me BB is the second best non-animated film. But I strongly believe that Nolan should've stopped here. It would've been much better in my opinion to think of him as a ingenious director who was never given a chance to make more films rather than to see the downfall of quality of the series with every next film.

I learned along time ago these type of movies aren't made for fans. There have, and always will be made for the general public. Many may not like that, but its fact. Movies built to to this scale need the general audiences approval to be successfully. That being said, that's why alot of of comic book/80's cartoon movie adapt-ions don't always take a familiar take. What works with the fans, doesn't always work with the average Joe. Fans are catered to with comics, novel books, and TV shows, while movies need to reach out to a broader audience.

If most of them are not, it doesn't make that a general rule. Again about Burton. In my opinion both of his films found a reasomable and "golden" balance between fans and wide audience. Batman who kills is a no,no, but Batmay, whos pain you can almost fell in the film, is a definite welcome! Remember the scene with Wayne bringing two roses to the crime scene. And now remember the brick-wall face of Bale.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Sam Vimes]

There is Talk about a Batman Reboot After Nolan is done, if this happens, Who Do you want to see in it for Villians and Who should Direct it?

[Siegfried]

TF: Dark of the Moon was awesome. Just thought i'd add that. G.I. Joe on the other hand, was a good movie, just not a good G.I. Joe movie. But i guess that's another discussion entirely.

To be honest I disliked the first so much I haven't found the courage to watch anymore!

LOL You both remind me of TF fans complaining about Micheal Bay and how he ruined their childhoods. (well your not nearly that bad ). And what's funny is while you both and many other Batman fans don't care for Nolan's approach on the caped crusader, many in the TF fandom are wishing upon a star that Nolan would give his take on the TF franchise.

That is pretty funny. I'm with the anti-Bay fans on this one.

Point being its different when your a non fan looking in. Your not looking at all the specifics. The small details don't bother you. Your going in more or less enjoying a movie. And IMO, that's a good thing.

It's very true. For example I liked Spiderman 2... but I know very little about Spiderman. Chances are I'd feel different if I was a fan.

So far from what I'm seeing, Batman, Bruce Wayne, catwomen, Bane are all recognizable from at least there looks from the trailer.

"Bane" looks nothing like Bane, and speaks with the wrong accent. This implies a very different background. The only reason why I know he's supposed to be Bane is because of the promo stuff.

I learned along time ago these type of movies aren't made for fans. There have, and always will be made for the general public. Many may not like that, but its fact. Movies built to to this scale need the general audiences approval to be successfully. That being said, that's why alot of of comic book/80's cartoon movie adapt-ions don't always take a familiar take. What works with the fans, doesn't always work with the average Joe. Fans are catered to with comics, novel books, and TV shows, while movies need to reach out to a broader audience.

That is also generally true. Fan service movies, such as Final Fantasy Advent Children, are not targeting the general public.

And I agree that for me BB is the second best non-animated film. But I strongly believe that Nolan should've stopped here. It would've been much better in my opinion to think of him as a ingenious director who was never given a chance to make more films rather than to see the downfall of quality of the series with every next film.

Very true.

There is Talk about a Batman Reboot After Nolan is done, if this happens, Who Do you want to see in it for Villians and Who should Direct it?

Yeah I've heard about that. I personally have no actor preference, if anything I'd rather an unknown. As for a director I'll be delusional and say Ridley Scott.

[Scorpiox]

But the problem is the traditional take on a particular character may not necessarily work in a certain adaption. So it may need to be tweaked. Batman and his stories are over 70 years old as someone has already mentioned. There must be a dozen or so different takes on the subject and characters. So is there really one right way of doing Batman? If people see the characters and they still carry the same characterization as well as a similar look, then whats the problem? So far from what I'm seeing, Batman, Bruce Wayne, catwomen, Bane are all recognizable from at least there looks from the trailer. (and this is coming from someone who doesn't read any comics and have seen the occasional animated series episode as the Burton and Schumacher movies). From the outside looking in, things appear to look like "Batman".

That's a very good observation. I don't see anyone complaining about Arnie in Batman and Robin, so why complain about the late Heath Ledger outstanding acting as the Joker in TDK. His performance really is the best true acting I've seen in a very long time.

And I agree that for me BB is the second best non-animated film. But I strongly believe that Nolan should've stopped here. It would've been much better in my opinion to think of him as a ingenious director who was never given a chance to make more films rather than to see the downfall of quality of the series with every next film.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

I love TDK, I think that everyone here is all going on about how bad it is. Please, name a few strutured points, without basing them on comparison to other Batman stuff, about why it is bad. Then I recommend that you go and ask a 12 year old outside, they'll love it for what it is, but your comic's have made you hostile toward these films. When you all laugh at TDK, you are careful to not mention the outstanding features, Heath Ledger is the best Joker in my book, end of. The action is realistic and exiting, the film is engaging and Two-Face is played very well. Though I agree Bale has as much emotion as boulder.

[Siegfried]

That's a very good observation. I don't see anyone complaining about Arnie in Batman and Robin, so why complain about the late Heath Ledger outstanding acting as the Joker in TDK. His performance really is the best true acting I've seen in a very long time.

You're either betraying your age here or you were humming really loud at the time. Loads of people complained about it, even I did and I'm a huge Arnold fan. He did an OK job in the end, but ultimately it suited the absurdity of the whole movie. As for Heath (who's death is nothing to do with the conversation) his acting was wonderful in the role of a psychotic disfigured person, but it sure was not the Joker. Jack Nicholson's version was off base, but Heaths was way way off base.

I love TDK, I think that everyone here is all going on about how bad it is. Please, name a few strutured points, without basing them on comparison to other Batman stuff, about why it is bad.

Well I've only watched it once (remembering that I don't like the movie), and your request is unreasonable, but I'll give it a try.

* Implausible plot. For example no criminal is dumb enough to work with someone who clearly kills all of his gang.

* Boring, implausible and dragged out scene on the boats.

* Music is horrible.

* Bale mumbles really badly.

* Absurd plot. There's not enough connection between Batman and Joker for any such motivation. Dent by himself would be a more obvious target.

Now it's your turn; please, name a few structured points, without basing them on comparison to other Batman stuff, about why it is good.

Then I recommend that you go and ask a 12 year old outside, they'll love it for what it is, but your comic's have made you hostile toward these films.

I hope not; it's not meant for 12 year olds.

[dr jones]

I share Lothos' opinion on this one.

And as for Ridley Scott? He'll do the same as Nolan, just a bit more stylised. Like Robin Hood, but that as well, is another conversation.

Edited December 23, 2011 by dr jones

[def]

You can count me as not a fan of The Dark Knight. The plot doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's so relentlessly gritty that it got tiresome. And I thought they handled Two-Face really poorly, and shouldn't have had him in the movie.

I don't hate it at all. I watched it once in the theater, and once at home after. I just didn't love it, and the massive over-hype doesn't help much.

Ledger and Bale do fine with the roles. But the Joker wasn't "the Joker" in my opinion. There was no whimsy, which is a key part of the character to me.

I'll catch the new one on DVD.

Still waiting for that animated Killing Joke movie... It's just a matter of time

[The Penguin]

That's a very good observation. I don't see anyone complaining about Arnie in Batman and Robin, so why complain about the late Heath Ledger outstanding acting as the Joker in TDK. His performance really is the best true acting I've seen in a very long time.

Actually Arnie got quite a blizzard storm of negative comments on this role. And even now some remember this as his possibly worst role ever. I remember it this way as well! I remember going back from a cinema after the film with only one thought: "WTF was that?!". Later however I turned my hatred to Shumacher.

Then I recommend that you go and ask a 12 year old outside, they'll love it for what it is, but your comic's have made you hostile toward these films.

12 year old? Do you seriously think that the target group for Batman films in modern times is 12 year olds? I don't really care what they think of it, since i\m mofre interested in having a conversation with mature adult people.

* Implausible plot. For example no criminal is dumb enough to work with someone who clearly kills all of his gang.

* Boring, implausible and dragged out scene on the boats.

* Music is horrible.

* Bale mumbles really badly.

* Absurd plot. There's not enough connection between Batman and Joker for any such motivation. Dent by himself would be a more obvious target.

Now it's your turn; please, name a few structured points, without basing them on comparison to other Batman stuff, about why it is good.

Let me add just a few points.

1) Joker standing maskless on the street, then risking everything and killing his own men after telling them that the boss actually does that. How dumb should you be.

2) I'd watch how a school bus can breat a wall in the bank and then carefully go with a row of other clean buses. People in this area must be blind.

3) Joker says one joke: Maggie Gulinhaal is beautiful.

4) No connection of Joker and Batman whatsoever. Not even an attenmpt.

5) Dent doesn't make me feel anything towards him. Nor love, no hatred.

6) Realistic, you say? Plane getaway, cell phone survelliance, Two-Face.... etc.

7) The plot just doesn't look rigid at all. it seems like different writesrs were added to the film while its production.

8) Emotionless Batman. Captain Obvious as Alfred.

9) No music at all. Even Molussus from BB would've worked if repeated during the whole film rather than this. Try to start humming any theme from this movie. Even Shumacher's ones had it ok.

10) I need to go to a final test with my students. To be ciontinued, if you wish.

Still waiting for that animated Killing Joke movie... It's just a matter of time

Indeed. Meanwhile:

Now, THAT is The Joker! )

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

Edited December 23, 2011 by The Penguin

[djmangunz]

The problem is that the Nolan movies are just as unbelievable as the rest. That portable microwave heating thing, phone-system-radar and the Bat-pod are the best examples of that.

6) Realistic, you say? Plane getaway, cell phone survelliance, Two-Face.... etc.

10) I need to go to a final test with my students. To be ciontinued, if you wish.

If you watch the special edition of TDK it has an interesting extra about the technology used in both of Nolan's movies and how he worked with the Department of Defense and retired CIA to make sure they utilized weapons and tech that either existed already or could exist.

And as far as plane getaways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system

But far be it for me to quibble with a fellow educator

Good day, gentlemen....er, Merry Christmas!

[Siegfried]

If you watch the special edition of TDK it has an interesting extra about the technology used in both of Nolan's movies and how he worked with the Department of Defense and retired CIA to make sure they utilized weapons and tech that either existed already or could exist.

Well I don't agree with them!

Problem 1: How can you install software remotely on so many phones of different carriers and makes without permission? Answer? You can't.

Problem 2: How can you get everyone's phone communicating via cell towers at once? You can't.

Problem 3: How can he get access to that kind of data? He could via the FBI/CIA taps that every exchange in the USA has. But he'd need physical access or permission... and the systems aren't designed to tap everyone.

Problem 4: Can phones output a high enough pitch and then accurately receive it omni-directionally with direction data? I don't think so, but I'll be generous and say yes!

Problem 5: How could he turn that echo into usable data? It's possible, but I doubt it would be very clear. You'd need to use accelerometers to pre-process the data and send it on.

Problem 6: What happens when all the phones go flat because somehow he managed to pull off problem 1-5 and had everyones phone running all the time? I'll let you answer that one since you've seen the DVD.

I don't have a problem with the plane sequence though.

[The Penguin]

Just a quick remark before I return to checking the final tests ( Bat-geek is stronger in me that a responsible professor)< when speaking about plane I don't really mean the getaway, but just the entire operation. All the fight and it looks like as if you can easilly fly over big cities on a plane like that unregistered. In China.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Princess Muttonchops]

Wow, this is really turning into a heated debate! I'll just come right out and say I don't like the Nolan Batman films, he's butchered the story too much for my taste. The characters portrayed in his movies are too far removed from their comic book origins to be recognizable. Scarecrow's too hot and hunky, so to my mind truly lacks motivation, Ra's al Ghul is, um, confusing, who knows what the hell's going on there, Joker is a complete and utter psycho (accurate) but forgets to try and be funny. And I'm sorry, but every time Micheal Caine opens his mouth, I'm expecting him to repeat his much loved line from that other famous Nolan film, The Prestige...

I'm not saying Nolan is a horrible director, to the contrary, I loved The Prestige, and get goosebumps whenever I think of David Bowie as Tesla. I think the problem lies in the fact that each director increasingly feels the need to put their own indelible mark on the Batman legend, by reinterpreting well established characters and creating new stories. There are so many great stories in Batman, why can't they just pick one and do it? Knightfall would make a great two part film, and it incorporates so many characters, ah, I get excited just thinking about it... And before anyone says anything, the upcoming Batman movie could be vaguely linked to Knightfall, but without Jean Paul going steadily crazy and modifying his suit every week, it doesn't count. Okay, that's my two cents worth, sorry for wading in like that...

[def]

Knightfall would make a great two part film, and it incorporates so many characters, ah, I get excited just thinking about it... And before anyone says anything, the upcoming Batman movie could be vaguely linked to Knightfall, but without Jean Paul going steadily crazy and modifying his suit every week, it doesn't count.

I really think a person's age informs their idea of good Batman stories. The Bane/Kinghtfall thing was really unpleasant, in my opinion, and that got me to stop reading any Batman stories for over a decade. I picked up The Long Halloween a few years back, on account of its reputation, but I thought it was so-so, and I doubt I'll ever really get into them again.

As I mentioned before, I love the Killing Joke, and I love the Miller Batman too. For me, the best Batman stories though were the 1970's ones, with Neal Adams doing the art. Short stories, no crossovers, and heavy on the detective work. I like that Batman is at heart a detective. I think that is a key aspect of the character which gets lost from time to time.

[Clone OPatra]

I like that Batman is at heart a detective. I think that is a key aspect of the character which gets lost from time to time.

It's certainly not an aspect that they chose to use in the Nolan films, but I didn't really see it in the previous live action films either. Keep in mind, though, that this topic is supposed to be just about the existing Batman Films, and there is a separate topic for Batman in general. It's easy to cross over, but it's good that there are two separate topics so that we can have a directed discussion of the films in this one.

[Scorpiox]

You're either betraying your age here or you were humming really loud at the time. Loads of people complained about it, even I did and I'm a huge Arnold fan. He did an OK job in the end, but ultimately it suited the absurdity of the whole movie. As for Heath (who's death is nothing to do with the conversation) his acting was wonderful in the role of a psychotic disfigured person, but it sure was not the Joker. Jack Nicholson's version was off base, but Heaths was way way off base.

Well I've only watched it once (remembering that I don't like the movie), and your request is unreasonable, but I'll give it a try.

* Implausible plot. For example no criminal is dumb enough to work with someone who clearly kills all of his gang.

* Boring, implausible and dragged out scene on the boats.

* Music is horrible.

* Bale mumbles really badly.

* Absurd plot. There's not enough connection between Batman and Joker for any such motivation. Dent by himself would be a more obvious target.

Now it's your turn; please, name a few structured points, without basing them on comparison to other Batman stuff, about why it is good.

I hope not; it's not meant for 12 year olds.

1. Arrgghh! I need to read the whole topic throughaly (Spelling? ) before posting in future.

2. All are valid points. And very good ones.

3. I'll give it a go

* Uhh, I liked the action scenes, for example when Joker is in the lorry.

* Great acting by Heath Ledger, whether he was a 'good Joker' or not, the acting was brilliant.

* Err, moving at points

* I think it's still a good film, even if it doesn't fit Batman in parts.

4. I thought it was PG12, but I probably misread that as well.

Actually Arnie got quite a blizzard storm of negative comments on this role. And even now some remember this as his possibly worst role ever. I remember it this way as well! I remember going back from a cinema after the film with only one thought: "WTF was that?!". Later however I turned my hatred to Shumacher.

12 year old? Do you seriously think that the target group for Batman films in modern times is 12 year olds? I don't really care what they think of it, since i\m mofre interested in having a conversation with mature adult people.

Let me add just a few points.

1) Joker standing maskless on the street, then risking everything and killing his own men after telling them that the boss actually does that. How dumb should you be.

2) I'd watch how a school bus can breat a wall in the bank and then carefully go with a row of other clean buses. People in this area must be blind.

3) Joker says one joke: Maggie Gulinhaal is beautiful.

4) No connection of Joker and Batman whatsoever. Not even an attenmpt.

5) Dent doesn't make me feel anything towards him. Nor love, no hatred.

6) Realistic, you say? Plane getaway, cell phone survelliance, Two-Face.... etc.

7) The plot just doesn't look rigid at all. it seems like different writesrs were added to the film while its production.

8) Emotionless Batman. Captain Obvious as Alfred.

9) No music at all. Even Molussus from BB would've worked if repeated during the whole film rather than this. Try to start humming any theme from this movie. Even Shumacher's ones had it ok.

10) I need to go to a final test with my students. To be ciontinued, if you wish.

1. I didn't read this topic enough obviously.

2. The comics are just as much (if not more so) aimed at children as they are us. But my rubbish point about 12 year olds is: As a Batman film it may be bad, but as a film in general it is good. I tried to illustrate this by hypothetically having a conversation about TDK with a child. And looking at their reaction compared to that of an adult Batman fan. My reason for using a 12 year old for this comparison was that I was under the impression the film was PG12. And to be honest I don't care much for talking to children about Batman either, so that is why we have this topic. Now I can chat about Batman with other adults, steering clear of the little children!

3. You win!

Moral: Don't have a Batman argument with The Penguin and Siegfried, there is no hope of victory.

Is all well now? After that unusually heated debate that I lost quite badly. My final point stands, as a Batman film: , as a film in general: .

Cheerio!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Scorpiox

[Siegfried]

Moral: Don't have a Batman argument with The Penguin and Siegfried, there is no hope of victory.

Is all well now? After that unusually heated debate that I lost quite badly. My final point stands, as a Batman film: , as a film in general: .

Cheerio!

I don't really think there are any winners or losers here. I do like how there are many different opinions here, even among people who agree in parts. For example unlike Def, I largely liked the Bane/Knightfall series... although I sometimes do wonder why Batman was so stupid to play into Banes hand. I'd really love to seen it done in a movie form, live action or otherwise, but it'd really be a fan movie as it would have to assume too much.

But thanks all for your opinions... seriously. It's great to know that there are many people passionate about Batman on EB!

[Princess Muttonchops]

I really think a person's age informs their idea of good Batman stories. The Bane/Kinghtfall thing was really unpleasant, in my opinion, and that got me to stop reading any Batman stories for over a decade.

I agree Knightfall gets pretty hairy, and really, Batman pays the price for being a complete stick, but hopefully he's learnt something by the end. I really like the Jean Paul Valley character, how he's thrust into the role of Batman while having very serious issues of his own to deal with.

As I mentioned before, I love the Killing Joke, and I love the Miller Batman too. For me, the best Batman stories though were the 1970's ones, with Neal Adams doing the art. Short stories, no crossovers, and heavy on the detective work. I like that Batman is at heart a detective. I think that is a key aspect of the character which gets lost from time to time.

I think the animated series capture this aspect of Batman the best. The recent Rocksteady games also do a great job of portraying Batman as "the world's greatest detective".

[The Penguin]

I agree: out discussions here are not about winning or loosing. We're just sharing our opinions and thus feel united in our general love for Batman, no matter how we or directors see him.

As for Knightfall, it would've been good to see it on screen but with certain alterations. Like def I hated everything which came right after it with all the parade of Batmans and so on, and it even blew me out of water for some time as well. However this series really helped me grow on Bane, since i never really considered him as one of the major villains. However the comic itself was rather good in my opinion.

I also agree about Scarecrow. What I really like about the character is that his background suggests that he's a nerd, a geek and a bookworm pushed to the limit, abandoned by his friends, a person who hates himself for being him. Murpfy is way to handsome to make this impression. However to my taste he was one of the best characters in BB. How can you not love: @Dr. Crane is not here at the moment. If you wish to make an appointment....."

What I would really like to see in Bat-movies is detective work. In my opinion no film actually showed that he's not only the godamn Batman, but also the World's greatest detective. I that matter Rocksteady games, indeed, came closer to that.

And I sure hope to see Mad Hatter on screen. He's not the most popular character, but if we take Arkham Asylum: Serious Plave on Serious Earth version (a demented, twistedgenious and drunkard with a hints to being a pedohile), that may work.

I think the animated series capture this aspect of Batman the best. The recent Rocksteady games also do a great job of portraying Batman as "the world's greatest detective".

Agree. To my mind BTAS was actually the turning point for the entire Universe. Today it may not seem that dark, violent or deep as someone would like Batman to see, but it has all the nessasary elements for future projects. Sort of a golden standart.