Batman Films Discussion

[Professor Flitwick]

Sorry, ment to post this in the Arkham City thread!

Edited July 22, 2011 by Professor Flitwick

[Professor Flitwick]

Bane, as seen on the set of The Dark Knight Rises.

[Praiter Yed]

An image of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle can be found here. Sorry if this has already been posted.

[Commander Assassin]

Filming took place at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. Apparently Bane interrupts a football game and blow up part of the field.

[The Penguin]

You may have seen it, people, but UGH! He sounds like Voldemort! I guess the voice will still be edited, but so far everything that the filmmakers have shown us is rather disturbing.....

I guess we should have faith in Nolan's genious.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[K-Nut]

I'm really looking forward to this. I don't see how Anne Hathaway resembles a cat in that costume, but as Penguin said, we should put faith in Christopher Nolan's genius. I know this will sound really pathetic, but I still haven't seen the Dark Knight yet.

[Ceroknight]

This picture seen yet?

EDIT: Whoops way too big:Image location

This too

Edited August 19, 2011 by ceroknight

[The Penguin]

I haven't seen the second one. I wish I hadn't seen the second one.

They simply can't find a director who will stay faithful to comics, can they?

I'm 100% sure, should they reboot the franchise and make it look like in comic stories (modern ones), they will have endless opportunities for making new films and adding new characters. But, no, we need some twisted director-oriented view in every film: scrap the characters' appearance, their characters, their mannerisms, we know better!

Why is it always Batman, who's being experimented on?! Why doesn't Superman get some twisted horrible approach, like Batman did in B&R (curse you Shumacher!!!!!!!! ) I personally would love to see Batman: Arkham asylum film, based on the comic stories and the game. That would be a heck of a thriller, if told properly, with Arkham's story! But, no instead we get spykid's villaness?! Directors like actors should go on the peak of their career.

I expect dozens of tomatoes in my direction, but frankly, people, I'm tired of seeing Batman being raped in every film (except Burton's and Begins, perhaps). It's a very difficult character to portray, nearly impossible, but heck, use comic foundation, not your personal wish-to-be concept! Ugh!

Bruce timm was absolutely right: "The more realistic you make a superhero (Batman), the less believable he is." (my interpretation.)

I agree with him.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[simonjedi]

I haven't seen the second one. I wish I hadn't seen the second one.

They simply can't find a director who will stay faithful to comics, can they?

I'm 100% sure, should they reboot the franchise and make it look like in comic stories (modern ones), they will have endless opportunities for making new films and adding new characters. But, no, we need some twisted director-oriented view in every film: scrap the characters' appearance, their characters, their mannerisms, we know better!

Why is it always Batman, who's being experimented on?! Why doesn't Superman get some twisted horrible approach, like Batman did in B&R (curse you Shumacher!!!!!!!! ) I personally would love to see Batman: Arkham asylum film, based on the comic stories and the game. That would be a heck of a thriller, if told properly, with Arkham's story! But, no instead we get spykid's villaness?! Directors like actors should go on the peak of their career.

I expect dozens of tomatoes in my direction, but frankly, people, I'm tired of seeing Batman being raped in every film (except Burton's and Begins, perhaps). It's a very difficult character to portray, nearly impossible, but heck, use comic foundation, not your personal wish-to-be concept! Ugh!

Bruce timm was absolutely right: "The more realistic you make a superhero (Batman), the less believable he is." (my interpretation.)

I agree with him.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

Sorry if I'm reading this wrong but you like Begins but not TDK (which you have and haven't seen)? The film that shares the same writer/director? I don't really get what you're on about here

Edited August 19, 2011 by simonjedi

[The Penguin]

Don't worry, it's mostly fantalk. I'm jumping from film to film, and the above speech is not structured at all.

And no, I do not like TDK very much. Not when it stands next to Begins.

Same director and scriptwiter does not always mean that the film will be equally good.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Brainbox]

And no, I do not like TDK very much. Not when it stands next to Begins.

Same director and scriptwiter does not always mean that the film will be equally good.

I'll give you that one, I think. I'm not the biggest fan of Begins either, to be honest, but it was probably better than TDK. I understand that not everything that works in the world of comics would work on screen, for a general film-going audience who perhaps aren't as familiar with the source material as we nerds are. But that's not to say that a film has to be completely different!

It'd certainly be nice to see a movie costume for Batman that isn't made of molded rubber (or whatever it is). But the biggest thing BB/TDK did wrong? Batman killed. He broke his biggest rule. In refusing to save Ra's, he killed him. In pushing Two-Face off that ledge, it's heavily implied that he killed him. But surely... Batman doesn't kill?

Some things do probably need changing, but there are plenty that should be sacrosanct, for want of a better word.

[The Penguin]

I'll give you that one, I think. I'm not the biggest fan of Begins either, to be honest, but it was probably better than TDK. I understand that not everything that works in the world of comics would work on screen, for a general film-going audience who perhaps aren't as familiar with the source material as we nerds are. But that's not to say that a film has to be completely different!

Indeed so. Actually some Nolan-Batman fans do forget that Batman is a fictional character living in a slightly warped fictional world. If you go realistic, then you should go till the end. Otherwise, Tubmler jumping on rooftops, Batman's voice, etc, etc. just looks ridiculous.

Not to mention (oh, the heresy!) that phylosophical message in burton movies looks far stronger for me than in Nolan films.

It'd certainly be nice to see a movie costume for Batman that isn't made of molded rubber (or whatever it is). But the biggest thing BB/TDK did wrong? Batman killed. He broke his biggest rule. In refusing to save Ra's, he killed him. In pushing Two-Face off that ledge, it's heavily implied that he killed him. But surely... Batman doesn't kill?

Well, yes. That is quite true.

I really hated the fact that in BB Batman (Nolan) have inverted (?) the no-killing idea. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you!" No, Batman HAS to save a life, even if it's a life of a monster like the Joker.

Some things do probably need changing, but there are plenty that should be sacrosanct, for want of a better word.

Well, i sure hope that the reboot will stay closer to comics. Like the later animated movies!

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Gryphon Ink]

Actually Batman began his comic book career using guns constantly and killing on a regular basis. He killed throughout his first year in Detective Comics, World's Finest, and the first issue of the Batman solo book. "Batman NEVER, EVER kills" wasn't in Bob Kane's original vision for the character. It was invented by an editor. Also, he's done the "I refuse to save you" routine with Ra's al Ghul before. The thing about Ra's is he is constantly being resurrected in the Lazarus Pit, so not saving him doesn't really do much. And once when he was killed by somebody else, Bats had his body cremated so the Lazarus Pit couldn't save him. It works out to basically killing him.

[The Penguin]

Actually Batman began his comic book career using guns constantly and killing on a regular basis. He killed throughout his first year in Detective Comics, World's Finest, and the first issue of the Batman solo book. "Batman NEVER, EVER kills" wasn't in Bob Kane's original vision for the character. It was invented by an editor. Also, he's done the "I refuse to save you" routine with Ra's al Ghul before. The thing about Ra's is he is constantly being resurrected in the Lazarus Pit, so not saving him doesn't really do much. And once when he was killed by somebody else, Bats had his body cremated so the Lazarus Pit couldn't save him. It works out to basically killing him.

Yep, as well as the fact that originally Batman used an ordinary car and hated Japs. Why the heck doesn't he do that now?! And hey! Joker was electrocuted by Bob Kane as well! Why the heck is he still running around?! ( , just in case)

Batman, during his 70 years history has aquired certain basic rules of behavior, certain traits of character, shared by the majority of the community.

In Begins Universe such thing as Lazarus Pit is unlikely to exhist, not to mention that even if it did, Batman knew nothing of it.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Brainbox]

Actually Batman began his comic book career using guns constantly and killing on a regular basis.

Don't you go lecturing me on comic-book history!

And while, yes, it's true that he carried a gun for his first year of publishing, that's pretty much been retconned out since. At least, until Grant Morrison took over for his (excellent) run on the Bat-books. There he stated that Batman carried the gun that killed his parents (but never used it) for a bit, haunting Joe Chill, before giving him said gun to jolly well make him think about the hurt he caused. Of course, it's heavily implied that Chill then used the gun to commit suicide, and it's siggested that this is what ol' Bats wanted, but we'll gloss over that.

Regardless, the whole "Batman doesn't kill" thing is so ingrained that it's taken as given fact.

Comic books aren't realistic, comic book superheroes aren't that realisic, the world they live in isn't that realistic. It just sort of falls apart if one does too much to lose that tongue-in-cheek sense of fun...

[Gryphon Ink]

Yep, as well as the fact that originally Batman used an ordinary car and hated Japs. Why the heck doesn't he do that now?! And hey! Joker was electrocuted by Bob Kane as well! Why the heck is he still running around?! ( , just in case)

I don't mean to argue. Every Bat-fan has his own interpretation of what Batman really stands for and what is important about him, and I think that's really one of Batman's great strengths as a comic book character. He's far more multidimensional than characters like Superman, and he's full of contradictions. That's why every director, as well as every comic writer, likes to put his own spin on the character (that wild experimentation that you were talking about, which has also produced dozens of Elseworlds comics and some mighty fine non-canon graphic novels). Also, Batman evolves much more than most superheroes. That dark, violent and possibly racist version of Batman was certainly a legitimate vision for a pulpy character in the late 1930s, a character who was influenced by dozens of totally racist and misogynist detective characters. At least Bob Kane thought it was legitimate, and if we're arguing about auteurs tampering with established facets of an established character I definitely think the creator's vision should count for something. You can't just say "oh, we shouldn't mess with the established character traits" without considering that the established character traits are already a violation of the original vision.

Batman, during his 70 years history has aquired certain basic rules of behavior, certain traits of character, shared by the majority of the community.

Of course, and I'm happy that he did. If he'd remained a violent, gun-toting, Jap-hating thug I very much doubt that I would like him at all. I LIKE the core rules that have been established during those seventy years. I like the idea that he doesn't kill. I like Robin, who was also an editor-mandated addition to the canon. Batman, to me, is not Batman without Robin, any more than the Three Musketeers can exist without Dartagnan. His strict rules and his human side which Robin represents are key to his appeal. If he didn't have these things, he'd basically be the Punisher - and in my opinion, the Punisher is a terrible comic book hero.

Something that's important to remember about Batman's cardinal rule - in comic books, the "I never kill" philosophy was also the rule for all comic book villains, established way back when in the Comic Code. Look back through your Golden and Silver Age Batman collection, or any superbook collection for that matter, and tell me how many people you can find that were actually killed onscreen by villains. There's darn few, and when it happened to a major character it was a paradigm-breaking event. Gwen Stacy killed by the Goblin? Holy crap, that was a moment that shook the Spider-Man fandom to its core. Robin killed, or even Batgirl crippled, those were genre-defining moments, not things that happened routinely. These guys were supposed to live forever, like soap opera characters. Batman never killed - and neither did most other members of the DC Universe. You could have an alien invasion that spanned the globe, the gates of Hell might spew hordes of demons - and NOBODY died.

And then a funny thing happened later on in Batman's career - a lot of people started to notice that for a guy who claims to believe in the law, Batman sure does like to break the laws. And he's truly a terrifying figure who's THIS close to being a psychotic villain just like the guys he puts away in Arkham. Sure, he doesn't kill - but he's certainly not afraid to put a serious hurt on criminals. He breaks their bones, he beats them to a pulp, he terrorizes them, he hauls them in without due process, and he definitely violates some Constitutional rights and other laws in his crusade against crime. Breaking and entering? He's done it a thousand times. Planting evidence? Yep, done that too. Searching a house without a warrant? That doesn't even count as a crime to Batman. Spying on people? Conducting illegal surveillance operations, phone taps, hacking people's computers? ALL THE TIME. He's basically a one-man Gestapo, who thinks he can do anything he wants to as long as he thinks you're guilty of something, and the only thing that keeps him even remotely trustworthy is that one cardinal rule which he so often comes close to breaking.

So then we got Frank Miller's take on Batman, which was indisputably one of the most influential books in comic book history, wherein it's pointed out that Batman just might be totally insane. Seriously, he rebuilds the Batmobile as a freaking tank, and uses its machine guns to wipe out hundreds of gangbangers. There's even a panel where he's talking to Robin's ghost, and says "rubber bullets. Honest." And you just KNOW that he's lying. Not to mention that even if they are rubber bullets, rubber bullets can and have killed people.

Then we got Arkham Asylum, the graphic novel, which took that even further and was wildly experimental. Another awesome graphic novel which shouldn't be missed by any Bat-fan, even if it isn't canon.

And now we have Christopher Nolan's version, another slightly different take, but a take that's actually very close to the established Batman. A guy who conducts illegal cellphone taps, who engages in violent interrogations, a guy who struggles with his dark, vengeful side, and was taunted to the breaking point by the fact that the criminals DO kill people and get rich doing it. And, again, this was a response to new developments in the real world and in pop culture. Because the world that Nolan's Batman lives in is not the world that Adam West's Batman lived in. It's grim and gritty and dark out there these days. We have serial killers who have fan clubs now. We see twelve-year-olds torturing eight-year-olds and mothers drowning their kids. We have date rape and Stranger Danger and we don't let our kids out of our sight. We're not so innocent anymore, and you can't attract an adult movie audience with the same old cartoon bad-guys we saw in the Sixties and Seventies. The bad guys had to change, and Batman had to change with them.

In Begins Universe such thing as Lazarus Pit is unlikely to exhist, not to mention that even if it did, Batman knew nothing of it.

You're probably right. But here's the thing (unfortunately impossible to debate without a spoiler):

Liam Neeson is in The Dark Knight Rises, and it's probably not in a flashback because there is a different actor listed as playing "young Ra's al Ghul". Ra's isn't dead. I personally believe that Batman knew very well that Ra's had at least a sporting chance of surviving that train crash, whether it was through a Lazarus Pit or just by being the ultimate bad-megablocks ninja, and in his well-established Bat-philosophy, giving Ra's that fighting chance was enough for him to consider that he hadn't actually violated his Golden Rule by leaving him there. And apparently he was right.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

And to you, good sir. I hope I'm not offending by debating these things with you. I appreciate that every fan sees Batman a little differently, and I can assure you I'm not a rabid Nolan fan who thinks he can do no wrong. He did do wrong in my opinion, and neither BB nor TDK are perfect works. I'm just as big a fan of Burton's radically different Batman movies. Still excited to see TDKR when it comes out, though.

[The Penguin]

I don't mean to argue.

Neither do I. Moreover, I didn't quite see any arguing point in your post. Since I agree with mostly all your ideas, so I guess we think alike.

And to you, good sir. I hope I'm not offending by debating these things with you. I appreciate that every fan sees Batman a little differently, and I can assure you I'm not a rabid Nolan fan who thinks he can do no wrong. He did do wrong in my opinion, and neither BB nor TDK are perfect works. I'm just as big a fan of Burton's radically different Batman movies.

"Good day, ladies and gentlemrn!" is a standard form of ending my posts, so don't take it personally. Not in the mocking way. )

Again, no real debate ground is obviously seen here, so I guess it was quite nice to share our views.

Returning to the initial topic, I too am waiting for the film to come out, but everything What's leaked about the film looks quite disturbing to me, frankly. So far I do not like either the look of Catwoman (so-called) or Bane. Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who didn't like TDK Joker! *dodging tomatoes*

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Clone OPatra]

I've never been a fan of Batman in the comics, or even the character much himself. Granted, I haven't read a whole lot besides for some of the really early stuff, but the ideas behind his character are not something I find very compelling.

I've seen all of the live-action films (including the one based on the TV series), and I think these are certainly better than the others. Of the older ones, the one I enjoyed the most was Batman Forever. For whatever reason, I found Batman the most compelling in this one, and Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones did a good job as comic bad guys.

On repeat viewings I really grew to like Batman Begins. I especially love Tom Wilkinson, who played Falcone, and all of other actors did great jobs too. Despite having multiple bad guys and a few different interconnected story lines, Begins doesn't feel too rambling to me, and all of it works.

I can't say I felt the same way for The Dark Knight. The performances are still great, but the film felt much longer than it had to be. One of the biggest issues I had with it was the look of Gotham. In Begins, Gotham looks very gritty and at the same time unlike any real place on earth. Sure, it's more realistic looking than the Gotham in the older films, but it still felt like an entirely fictional place. In TDK, Gotham just looked like Chicago, which didn't work for me at all.

I fear that I will have the same problems with TDKR that I did with TDK. Begins felt like one story despite multiple villains because Scarecrow, Falcone, and Ras were all somewhat connected, but the two villains in TDK were not, making the film drag on. Since I expect that Bane and Catwoman won't have much to do with each other, it's likely that this film will also have a very long running time because of the separate nemeses. And it seems that Gotham still looks like Chicago. These issues don't mean I'm not looking forward to seeing it, nor that I won't enjoy it. They're just my thoughts on the Batman franchise.

[Brainbox]

Something that's important to remember about Batman's cardinal rule - in comic books, the "I never kill" philosophy was also the rule for all comic book villains, established way back when in the Comic Code.

I hate to bring up the point again or be pernickity or whatever, but that's not strictly true. The last person Batman gunned down was one of Hugo Strange's monster men, way back in the third story of Batman #1, while remarking "much as I hate to take human life, I'm afraid this time it's necessary." Note that said story was a product of Bill Finger and Bob Kane. The Code wasn't introduced until much later.

Excepting Darkseid, of course, who he mortally wounded moments before he "died".

Returning to the initial topic, I too am waiting for the film to come out, but everything What's leaked about the film looks quite disturbing to me, frankly. So far I do not like either the look of Catwoman (so-called) or Bane.

I think I'm willing to give Catwoman a little more time, just in case some ears show up. But if they don't, then I agree on the "so-called." Bane, however, not really to my taste. I can see what they've tried to do, and the idea of a scary mouth-covering mask is a sound one, but the one they've chosen doesn't really work.

I've seen all of the live-action films (including the one based on the TV series), and I think these are certainly better than the others. Of the older ones, the one I enjoyed the most was Batman Forever. For whatever reason, I found Batman the most compelling in this one, and Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones did a good job as comic bad guys.

I'm rather partial to the Adam West film, myself. Like the TV series, it is quite frankly wonderful.

[The Penguin]

I fear that I will have the same problems with TDKR that I did with TDK. Begins felt like one story despite multiple villains because Scarecrow, Falcone, and Ras were all somewhat connected, but the two villains in TDK were not, making the film drag on. Since I expect that Bane and Catwoman won't have much to do with each other, it's likely that this film will also have a very long running time because of the separate nemeses. And it seems that Gotham still looks like Chicago. These issues don't mean I'm not looking forward to seeing it, nor that I won't enjoy it. They're just my thoughts on the Batman franchise.

Very well said. Actually my thoughts put in a proper form.

As I said before, in most films (those who pretend to be good or even so-called "epical") I'm looking for a message, or a phylosopical idea behind the plot, if you wish. If in BB the idea is indeed interesting, somewhat new and multi-layered, while in TDK I had no such feeling. What is actually the point? Even joker's "dog-chase" chaos phylosopy looks just plain stupid, IMO. I mean, in that matter he looks like a typical criminally insane with higher than average IQ and ability to plot. Joker is no easier character to play and no less deep character than Batman. He's supposed to be scary by his warped twisted mind and view on the world. This joker didn't impress me at all. It's not the actor's blame but it's the director who failed to apprehend the scale of the character.

I'm rather partial to the Adam West film, myself. Like the TV series, it is quite frankly wonderful.

How can anyone not love the show and the film?

I think the actors did a wonderful job! For me for example, neither Penguin or Riddler have been played better. Yes, they are campy, but the characters were played to the full, as they were seen in 60-s. Though I consider Returns to be the best Batman film so far (closely followed by BB), but neither De Vito Penguin, nor Jim Carrey's Riddler dug that deep in the character as Meredith or Gorshin. De Vito's Penguin is currupted and evil to the last feather and Carrey, well, it's just his usual way of playing, like in The Mask and other films. I never liked him or such humor. To me he was very jokerized (as well as Two-Face). Everything above is IMO.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

Edited August 26, 2011 by The Penguin

[The Penguin]

I think I'm willing to give Catwoman a little more time, just in case some ears show up. But if they don't, then I agree on the "so-called." Bane, however, not really to my taste. I can see what they've tried to do, and the idea of a scary mouth-covering mask is a sound one, but the one they've chosen doesn't really work.

I agree about Catwoman. Let us see. But despite the fact that I still think that Ann can be a very good actress, I still think that she's not really that big to play Catwoman. Good body and moves is not enough to play this character, opr we can return to Berry's Catwoman! Ugh!

As for Bane, he reminds me, for some reason of Shredder from TMNT!

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

Edited August 26, 2011 by The Penguin

[LandShark]

Just before I give my opinions on previous Bat-films, is there a topic for general Batman discussion that would be more suitable for this?

It seems we've all gone a bit of topic (TDKR).

[5150 Lego]

I haven't seen the second one. I wish I hadn't seen the second one.

They simply can't find a director who will stay faithful to comics, can they?

This will never happen. Your looking at these movies and the franchise in general from a fanboy point of view (and i use that term loosely, and in no way mean it as a derogatory).

These movies and others like it, are not made for the fans. There made for the general audience and are designed with a modern, fresh look. Now I'm not saying that this formula always works, but more times than not, the comic book versions focus to much on small details that while intrigues the fans, loose the general audience. Many are stuck in the past, (not saying that you are penguin. You have suggested that they follow the modern day comics) and are not open for change. For the most part, people know the mannerisms and designs of these characters. Thats why in these times, fresh takes are needed to keep the audience interested.

I'm 100% sure, should they reboot the franchise and make it look like in comic stories (modern ones), they will have endless opportunities for making new films and adding new characters. But, no, we need some twisted director-oriented view in every film: scrap the characters' appearance, their characters, their mannerisms, we know better!

If your saying that Batman fans know better as they know how a Batman movie should be, then I'd have to disagree. Its my honest opinion, that if fans had control of how full length, big budget comic book/toy product movie adapt-ions,(this goes to any comic book/toy product franchise fandom) they might be mildly entertaining (like the first Mortal Kombat movie and Super Mario Brothers), they'd be complete financial flops. Nolan's adapt-ions aren't my favorite versions of Batman, but but his version of the Joker was absolutely fantastic. Heath Ledger was incredible as the Joker.

I expect dozens of tomatoes in my direction, but frankly, people, I'm tired of seeing Batman being raped in every film (except Burton's and Begins, perhaps). It's a very difficult character to portray, nearly impossible, but heck, use comic foundation, not your personal wish-to-be concept! Ugh!

While your completely untitled to your opinion and it is a valid one, saying that he's been raped is a little harsh. (I still don't understand how you can say he was good in BB, but not in TDK. That seems to be a bit to critical).

You might like the comic book foundation, but that doesn't mean its the version that the majority want to see, nor does it necessarily mean that its the correct adaption to take reference from. How about a little from everything? The problem with keeping something familiar, you run the risk of it being to familiar and it becomes boring. We need fresh takes on our old school super hero's. Other wise, there going to wither away and die.

[The Penguin]

Yes, thank you for your opinion. However we decided to stay focused on TDKR here.

Should you have any comments or questions, concernig my point of view on current Batman movie franchise, do PM me.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[K-Nut]

I've seen all of the live-action films (including the one based on the TV series), and I think these are certainly better than the others. Of the older ones, the one I enjoyed the most was Batman Forever. For whatever reason, I found Batman the most compelling in this one, and Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones did a good job as comic bad guys.

Signed. Besides, I just love Two-Face.

How can anyone not love the show and the film?

There was a rumor that Adam West was going to make a cameo in this, basically as a test if fans would like it. I heard that people hated the idea and thought it would ruin the movie. I mean seriously? How would one cameo ruin an entire movie? I bet that half those people haven't even seen the show. I personally would like to see this though.