Batman Films Discussion

[dr jones]

God, how I'd love to see a detective thriller starring Batman.

But I don't think DC will agree, because, even if the films are PG12 or above, they are targetted (i spelled that wrong, didn't I, ) mainly at teens and young adults.

And the teens of these days, at least the ones I have contact with, don't really appreciate a good detective story.

I noticed this when my friends and I saw the Tv series Sherlock, which is more clever than the movies (which are fun as well). They all preferred the movies as there was more action in it.

[Sam Vimes]

Im not trying to Start another Debate...But I really like most of the Batman Films the Three Films they made in the 90's and BB and TDK...

I Agree with Penguin, TDK, and BB had no major Theme song...Which is probally why Im not the biggest fan of TDK and BB...Batman Begins I like for it's Quotes...

But I am a fan of Quotes, I like TDK, Because of The Long Halloween Refenences in it..

I honestly think that The Dark Knight Rises, will be based of Knightfall, No Mans Land and Year One..Maybe...

Overall...I Like Batman Films...Im Glad they Stoped Making the Films in the 90's with Batman Forever and then brought him back in 2006 (I think It was ) and Made Batman Begins...

[Lothos]

Bane/knight fall killed bats for me, no man's land brought me back, and then Hush made me solid again. killing off BW made me sigh alot.

Anywho!

Year one. Dead on to MIller's work. The story isn't great, but that's a comic book movie..thing, that paid close attention to the source. I guess it would have to be.

I could defend Nolan's choices in film making all I want, but I won't. I enjoy his work alot, some folks don't. I think the next flick will be a good popcorn flick and probably wrap things up nicely.

Bring on the Superman/Batman movie already.

[Siegfried]

Bring on the Superman/Batman movie already.

That's been a dream of mine for a while...

[djmangunz]

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.

From Wired.com

3-D Sonar System

Since the Joker does not have a lair or a base, Batman must track the constantly mobile madman through the streets of Gotham. To do this he uses a cowl-mounted sonar device that triangulates the baddies' cellphone signals and then renders the sound of their communication into a 3-D visual map.

Real-World Counterparts: Lidar and Sonar

Usually utilizing lasers, a Lidar system measures reflected light to find the range, dimensions and other properties of far-off objects. Sonar, of course, is the technology of bouncing sound waves off faraway objects to get a realistic picture of where those

objects are. Combine the two, and you've got the 3-D system Batman uses to hunt his quarry.

I don't know if that really counters your points, but it is the best I can do when I should be wrapping Christmas presents!

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.

Well, shoot, bribe the right traffic officials and you can do anything. Just look at that one man plane that got close to the White House in Washington D.C. and that is a designated no-fly zone where they will shoot your megablocks down if you get too close.

But compared to Burton's version with cats licking Selina Kyle and their nine lives flowing into her, Nolan's version is the model of realistic.

Besides, with two(count em, two) words I shall shatter your arguments and prove once and for all that Nolan's take on Batman is superior. Just for the complete and utter absence of:

BAT-NIPPLES!

I rest my case.

I have enjoyed this discussion gentlemen. It can be difficult sometimes to have meaningful debates with other members on this forum without someone loosing their cool. This has been a delightful conversation.

Merry Christmas gents!

Edited December 24, 2011 by djmangunz

[The Penguin]

BAT-NIPPLES!

I rest my case.

Burton never had Bat-nipples in his movies! He had BDSM, raping, seduction, incest and such but never Bat-nipples!

SHUMACHER! *waving my fist in the direction of Hollywood*

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

[Vimes]

Burton never had Bat-nipples in his movies! He had BDSM, raping, seduction, incest and such but never Bat-nipples!

Well said! And outrages! In comparison to those necessary story elements that "nipples" seem way out of place!

I thoroughly enjoyed Burtons movies, but I'm also ok with Nolans take on the Bat franchise.

It's just another interpretation of the character (multiple interpretations of Batman seem to be a tradition), and, hands down, there have been worse ones:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19537_the-7-stupidest-attempts-to-reinvent-batman.html

[Siegfried]

I don't know if that really counters your points, but it is the best I can do when I should be wrapping Christmas presents!

Nope, in fact it makes it worse! LIDAR? No phone that I know of has ranging Lasers, which all things considered is a good thing. Besides, I'd already said on point 4 I wasn't going to pick on the feasibility of a phone being a sonar device... as there there really is no need.

Besides, with two(count em, two) words I shall shatter your arguments and prove once and for all that Nolan's take on Batman is superior. Just for the complete and utter absence of:

BAT-NIPPLES!

I rest my case.

...and the jury is unswayed by your poorly researched closing point.

But Merry Chrismas just the same....

[5150 Lego]

Man!! I take it all back! You guys are as bad as TF fans!

If most of them are not, it doesn't make that a general rule.

It does if you want them to be successfully. I can't think of one comic book/video game based movies that had fans in mind first that was a financial success at the box office.

Again about Burton. In my opinion both of his films found a reasonable and "golden" balance between fans and wide audience. Batman who kills is a no,no, but Batmay, who's 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! )

I agree 100%. Burton's movies were the best for me as well and had the captured the batman I've grown to love. But the problem is particular "balance" has been done before. Nolan's take may not be to your liking, but it is a fresh take. And that's what you need to keep a franchise alive.

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

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

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

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

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

8) Emotionless Batman.

I have to say, based on your comments here, I'm not even sure you were watching TDK. But I'll address a few...

3- I thought the joker was quite funny. I loved his "pencil trick", his henchmen "try-outs". quite funny.

4- Really? Did you not see the Batman's "interrogation" of the Joker? Your telling me you saw no emotion in that?

5- Dent showed great passion with his work and maggie. Not to mention when he became two-face.

6- Realistic?.. Yes. As much as you can get for a guy that dresses up as a Bat to fight crime. As far as the cell phone surveillance, Batman has always had wild before its time gadgets. Some more believable than others. But that said, i think they found a good balance with Batman's traditional gadgets.

7- I don't see anything wrong with the plot. A sicotic madman wants to destroy a city by making them as mad as him. Easy.

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.

You are looking wayyyyy to far into this. As i responded to The Penguin's post, Batman in every carnation, in every series has had some kind of wild, over the top gadget at his disposal. Why should this movie be any different? Yes using cell phone radar might be a little far fetched, but considering you opened yourself up to a crime fighter who ...

1.- Dress up like a bat..

2.- The police not only approve of..

3.- they call him via a giant spot lamp on the roof of police head quarters.

Your fine with that premises, but your problem is the cell phone tracking system. If you constantly let these things bother you, your never going to enjoy the movies.

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 easily fly over big cities on a plane like that unregistered. In China. :septic:

Good day, ladies and gentlemen! )

Again, your fine with a Rich guy dressing up as a bat that local law enforcement approves of, but are criticizing his methods to extradite the baddies?

And how do you know the plane is unregistered? And who said it was easy? It was obvious that the whole operation was paid underground.

At some point you need to let go of reality, remember what your watching and have a little fun.

[Siegfried]

3- I thought the joker was quite funny. I loved his "pencil trick", his henchmen "try-outs". quite funny.

The only part I thought was funny was the pencil trick... and I really liked it and expected more. This left me disappointed.

At some point you need to let go of reality, remember what your watching and have a little fun.

You're saying that to the wrong person; you should be telling Nolan that. I was only saying how unbelievable the sonar is as the Nolanites were saying it was realistic and I was saying...

The problem is that the Nolan movies are just as unbelievable as the rest.

It's clear you haven't been reading this whole rant (and I don't blame you ) so I'll fill you in.

I'm cool with Batman being unbelievable, in fact I think it's best that way. But Nolan is insisting changing things to make them more "realistic"... yet he fails. Thus I wish he'd drop the whole realism angle altogether and stop butchering Batman characters for no reason.

[The Penguin]

I think Dini (you know who Dini is, don't you? ) said it best: "The more realistic you make a Superhero the less believable he becomes."

Something Nolan simply can't see.

Good day. ladies and gentlemen! )

[Vimes]

I think Dini (you know who Dini is, don't you? ) said it best: "The more realistic you make a Superhero the less believable he becomes."

Pirate Batman!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[5150 Lego]

It's clear you haven't been reading this whole rant (and I don't blame you ) so I'll fill you in.

I'm cool with Batman being unbelievable, in fact I think it's best that way. But Nolan is insisting changing things to make them more "realistic"... yet he fails. Thus I wish he'd drop the whole realism angle altogether and stop butchering Batman characters for no reason.

No reason? maybe to give the audicne something they've never seen before. Like it or not, you have to expand beyond the common thinking of the standard comic book realms. You may not aprove, but $1 billion profit says his fomula worked, and worked well.

As far as the cell phone radar, I don't know if that's really possible. The way I look at it was meant to represent that Bruce Wayne/Batman had technology and gadgets that were yrs ahead of our time and had acces to technology that the average comupter geek could only dream of.

I think Dini (you know who Dini is, don't you? ) said it best: "The more realistic you make a Superhero the less believable he becomes."

Something Nolan simply can't see.

Good day. ladies and gentlemen! )

No, i don't know who dini is. Should I?

I agree with that to a point. But in this case the problems you guys seem to have are so mi-nute. Your looking into things way to much. Don't get me wrong. Its your right. Just think your being a little to critical.

Pirate Batman!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

And people actually liked this junk?

[def]

No reason? maybe to give the audicne something they've never seen before. Like it or not, you have to expand beyond the common thinking of the standard comic book realms. You may not aprove, but $1 billion profit says his fomula worked, and worked well.

Money and profit is never a sign of success. It is a sign of money and profit. I can point you in the direction of Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Transformers 2, or Alvin and the Chipmunks as all wildly profitable movies in recent years. If you want to explain how they "worked well", go ahead

[Vimes]

And people actually liked this junk?

At least someone at DC Comics thought so...

[Siegfried]

No reason? maybe to give the audicne something they've never seen before. Like it or not, you have to expand beyond the common thinking of the standard comic book realms.

But that is what I want. What the public has never seen is a live action Batman that's true to the source. Burton was about 60%, Joel about 40% (Batman wasn't always dark and gloomy!), but I think Nolan is down to below 30%. What do I want? As a start;

1. Pick a bigger actor, a no-name if need be.

2. Tone down the suit. It's too thick and ditch the fake muscles. Batman Dead End did it, so why can't the studios?

3. Leave the histories untouched. Don't do silly things like saying the Joker killed the Waynes.

4. No love stories that contravenes the existing history.

5. Don't like the existing bad guys? Create a new one! It's done all the time, and it's a better option than butchering existing ones.

6. Try not to kill characters. It's not very Batman and it just increases the chance of yet another re-boot and yet another Batman origin scene!

7. Forget believably. Batman may be more believable than many comic books, but he's still amazing beyond belief. But it's supposed to be a modern day fantasy. Aiming for realism is insane.

And people actually liked this junk?

I think they're trying to give the audience something different.

[5150 Lego]

Money and profit is never a sign of success. It is a sign of money and profit.

This is just not true. Sorry, but your wrong. I challenge you to say this statement to any business owner and see what their response is.

I can point you in the direction of Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Transformers 2, or Alvin and the Chipmunks as all wildly profitable movies in recent years. If you want to explain how they "worked well", go ahead

Like it or not, the companies that bring you the movies like Batman, Transformers, POTC, etc are all in it to make money. Same goes for the companies that own said franchises such as Hasbro, marvel, DC Comics, Disney etc. People can believe all they want about staying true to roots/ source material etc, but when it comes down to it, its all about giving the consumer what they want. Take CD Comics for example.

Hard core fans like to make the argument that comic books and most TV series there based on have more substance, better writing, dialog etc. than many of the big budget movies. There fore there better and they care more about the consumer and fans than they do making a profit. That couldn't be farther from the truth. All their doing is catering to a particular audience. Comic book readers are looking for different things than say the audience of a big budget block buster. What appeals to one group, might not apea to others. You need profit in order to continue making products for every genre. You can't pay your employee's on hopes and wishes.

As far as your examples...

Transformers 2 wasn't the best of the 3 movies in the eyes of fans and fandom. But the money that was made from the movie paved the way for many new lines, as well as two new TF TV series. These lines and shows have done well with fans as well as consumers across the boards, so I'd defiantly call that success.

I personally can't stand Alvin and the Chipmunks. I'd rather sit though the whole twilight series building with mega blocks than watch one of those stupid movies. But you know what? If they have found an audience for that franchise then so be it. Just because something doesn't interest you doesn't mean it isn't going to capture someone Else's eye.

just so where clear, I'm not saying that something that makes more money than something Else automatically makes it better. But the bottom line is people don't pay for things they don't want/like. Period. In the case of Nolan's Batman you don't make $1 Billion dollar profit on chance. His vision was meet with mass approval. like it or not, he did something right.

[Princess Muttonchops]

Wow, it's cool how passionate this topic is getting. Like Sieggy, I would love a "Dead End" style Batman, with a big guy in a thin, figure-hugging suit...hmm, big guy in thin, figure-hugging suit...oh sorry...rather than the increasingly rubberised suits we're getting. I mean, really, there's no substitute for a big guy in a thin, figure-hugging suit. Why can't those big wigs in Hollywood just go down to Muscle Beach, pick up some buff, tall, good looking body builder, give him a few acting lessons, and presto, one authentic looking Batman who doesn't need fake rubberised muscles, thank you. And before I get too side-tracked by the thought of sweaty, muscular men doing bench presses on the beach, this would also add to the "realism" of Batman, which seems to be so hot right now. To me, it's far more realistic that he wears a lighter suit made of a tough, specially-made material that gives him freedom of movement than a rubber suit that looks like you'd need half-an-hour to get into...

[Clone OPatra]

What the public has never seen is a live action Batman that's true to the source.

From a film-making perspective, the fact that nobody has ever been 'true to the source' is probably a very good thing. Comicbooks are created to run and run and run, endlessly. Usually, that tends to make actual plots close to nonexistent, and characters often become one-note-ish. While you, as somebody who clearly likes Batman in his comic iteration, can argue that I'm quite wrong and all of these characters are very deep, I (as somebody who has never liked Batman as a character in the comics) feel that he would not transfer very well into film just as he is.

The Bat-suit in the Nolan films I find to be just wonderful. Ok, so that's not how Batman is 'supposed to be' or whatever, but it looks fantastic. It is big, thick, and looks both strong and imposing. The average criminal with a gun doesn't have much against the Nolan Batman in his big imposing suit. If he was to wear some grey spandax with a bat symbol on it, it would frankly looks pretty dumb. It looked dumb in the old TV show and film, but worked since the entire thing was played for laughs. In an action movie with a serious tone, and where Bats gets into hand-to-hand combat, I think the new-style thick suit looks awesome.

Why does the backstory of Batman have to be 100% the same as the comics? So long as he's still a billionaire who's parent die, and he wants to fight crime etc. he's still recognizably Batman. If it's done well (and the back story was handled quite well in Batman Begins, in my opinion), what's the problem? In the X-Men movies, they made Wolverine's claws come out of his knuckles and not silly holes in the middle of his hands. In the Spider-Man trilogy, Spidey actually spins and shoots web. Both of these are examples of deviations from the original concepts of the characters, but so what? I think both of these are cases of changes that work really well on film, and it's not like Peter Parker isn't Peter Parker anymore just because he didn't invent a device that shoots web-like substances. What I'm trying to say with this is that I don't find these so-called 'deviations from the source material' any problem whatsoever. As long as they are blatantly stupid to a casual viewer of the film (and I don't think any of the Batman changes are), there is no problem. Only those that truly are into the comics care about such things,

What's wrong with a bit of a love story? Nolan actually gave Bruce somebody real to care about who wasn't another one of these super-villian people. I haven't read much of the comics so I don't know if there are other romantic interests to choose from, but inventing a new one doesn't present any problems that I can tell. In The Dark Knight especially the love interest was used to great ends: it connected Bruce and Harvey Dent, and then give Two-Face an actual reason for hating Batman (a bit illogically, but he's super angry, come on) other than Two-Face just wanting money. What harm did this love story do?

As to believability or that these Batman films are 'realistic' - I don't think they are, but 'realistic' doesn't mean actually possible. It just means that Gotham looks like an actual place on Earth, that Batman drives a tank-looking vehicle instead of a silly car with fins, that Two-Face doesn't have a custom-tailored half-and-half suit for no other reason than it fits the silliness of his character. It's a mainstream action film, obviously it's not actually possible no matter how many times Nolan claims it is. But I don't see a problem with the stylistic choices that make it a bit more real-world-y than the older films especially.

Let me not sound like I am absolutely in love with the Nolan films though, because that is not the case. Batman Begins, on multiple viewings, I quite like. I think the part in Tibet or wherever is just fine and a fun part, I don't mind Bale's stoney face (he is happy in the movie sometimes), etc. Really there isn't much that I dislike about Batman Begins.

I have more problems with The Dark Knight. First of all, it's way too long. The whole part with Two-Face after the Joker is dealt with feels like it's tacked on and doesn't have that much to do with the main plot. It's not like it doesn't fit in with the story being told, but the way that the whole Two-Face part is handled doesn't make it flow very well. Or maybe they could've gotten rid of some other sequences and then it wouldn't be so bad.

Another fault with The Dark Knight is the geography of Gotham. While it is kind of the same as it was in Batman Begins, we don't really see the underworld anymore, and the island where the prison and more slums were in Begins have just about disappeared. I liked how in Batman Begins even though Gotham looks 'realistic,' it still doesn't look quite like any actual city on Earth with its islands and the way the elevated trains are.

It was still interesting to see a film where the villain is actually a terrorist whose goal is not something like world domination, but actually just to terrorize. I can honestly say I don't see that much in regular action movies; usually the bad guy just wants to take over the world or blow a lot of things up for some reason that doesn't really make sense. If Joker was true to his comic character than what, would he really be out to be in control of the mobs or get rich or something? Being a lunatic who wants to cause chaos because he thinks it's fun seems a bit more interesting to me.

[Siegfried]

This is just not true. Sorry, but your wrong. I challenge you to say this statement to any business owner and see what their response is.

But in the context of this website and topic, that is a discussing Batman movies on a LEGO fan site, I think he's right. It may have been a successful business endeavor, but that doesn't mean that it's a successful Batman movie. The fact that a movie is profitable or not is irrelevant to the conversation.

just so where clear, I'm not saying that something that makes more money than something Else automatically makes it better. But the bottom line is people don't pay for things they don't want/like. Period. In the case of Nolan's Batman you don't make $1 Billion dollar profit on chance. His vision was meet with mass approval. like it or not, he did something right.

Actually people do pay for things they don't like. If you get the hype big enough and have prior successes, a sequel can make money regardless of how good it is.

From a film-making perspective, the fact that nobody has ever been 'true to the source' is probably a very good thing. Comicbooks are created to run and run and run, endlessly. Usually, that tends to make actual plots close to nonexistent, and characters often become one-note-ish. While you, as somebody who clearly likes Batman in his comic iteration, can argue that I'm quite wrong and all of these characters are very deep, I (as somebody who has never liked Batman as a character in the comics) feel that he would not transfer very well into film just as he is.

Well at least you're honest. Have you seen Dead End? (It's a short non-professional movie.)

The Bat-suit in the Nolan films I find to be just wonderful. Ok, so that's not how Batman is 'supposed to be' or whatever, but it looks fantastic. It is big, thick, and looks both strong and imposing.

It's not Batman. Stupid or not, unbelievable or not, Batman doesn't wear thick armour; he doesn't need it. It'd be like giving Superman jet boots. I'd like Batman to be able to wear the suit under his clothes so he can do some undercover work. With the current designs he can't and it's limiting the story.

Why does the backstory of Batman have to be 100% the same as the comics?

Well I never said 100%. When I said "histories" meant the big things, such as Batmans origin. Sure things can be changed; the comics do it all the time. There have been several re-boots afterall. In fact, looking at what changed and what did not over the years would be a good way of judging what is the "core" of Batman.

What's wrong with a bit of a love story?

Batman is too focused on his job.

[Clone OPatra]

It's not Batman. Stupid or not, unbelievable or not, Batman doesn't wear thick armour; he doesn't need it. It'd be like giving Superman jet boots. I'd like Batman to be able to wear the suit under his clothes so he can do some undercover work. With the current designs he can't and it's limiting the story.

You're talking about Batman like he is a real person, or as if the comic books with the spandex-suited Batman are the Bible. It sure as hell isn't comic-book Spider-Man to spin his owns webs, but it doesn't hurt the story.

You want Batman to be a detective, but he still can be and is to some extent in these films. Granted, the way he gets information is by scaring people with his huge imposing suit and gravelly voice, but is Batman actually supposed to go into a phonebooth like Clark Kent and change into his costume? How does he store the cowl anyway?

It's just nonsensical to me that he has to wear a dumb-looking spandex suit because 'that's what Batman does.' How exactly is the story in the Nolan films impeded specifically by Batman's nontraditional suit?

[Siegfried]

How exactly is the story in the Nolan films impeded specifically by Batman's nontraditional suit?

I've already said. In the comic he is often undercover with the suit under his clothes or in a small bag. You can't do that with a rubber suit.

It sure as hell isn't comic-book Spider-Man to spin his owns webs, but it doesn't hurt the story.

I'm no Spiderman expert, but I thought he was able is some versions?

[def]

This is just not true. Sorry, but your wrong. I challenge you to say this statement to any business owner and see what their response is.

<snip>

You justify the quality of The Dark Knight based on its income. Being profitable doesn't make it good. It is no sign of quality. It's a sign of profitability.

Movies are a business for sure, but good movies are generally made in spite of the business, not in conjunction with it. Case in point: Here is Disney's chief technical officer speaking about his company's films this year.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/disney-executive-says-that-story-doesnt-matter-whe,60512/

In the course of his “Econ 101” presentation on how the movie business can combat ticket prices, Hendrickson argued that the studios need to focus almost exclusively on the sort of “tentpole” films that can attract as broad an audience as possible—the sort of film, in other words, that succeeds almost exclusively thanks to brand recognition or CGI gimmickry. “People say 'It's all about the story,'” Hendrickson said. “When you're making tentpole films, megablocks.” Finally, someone says what we’re all thinking about these crass tentpole films, except that it’s the person making them.

Hendrickson then provided a chart of the top 12 highest-grossing films of all time, singling out his studio’s own Alice In Wonderland: “The story isn't very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves,” he said, adding, “And Johnny Depp didn't hurt."

You had a really long explanation why Transformers 2 was good (it involved money), and I'm not buying it.

I'll reiterate, I think TDK is a so so film. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. But the argument that a lot of people watched it has no meaning. The public often has atrocious taste.

My notion of a successful film, Batman or otherwise, is one that is good, not one that turns a profit.

I've already said. In the comic he is often undercover with the suit under his clothes or in a small bag. You can't do that with a rubber suit.

Now it seems that he is wearing armor in the comic More realistic it seems. I can understand DC making changes for the sake of new readers wanting to see something related to the movies. It looks kind of dopey though. Actually, the whole Justice League looks like clown shoes now. But it'll relate better to the next Batman and Superman movies.

I'm no Spiderman expert, but I thought he was able is some versions?

I think he did in the Ultimate universe, but it was again, an attempt to bring the comics more in line with the movies. X-Men were decked out in black leather for a few years too. Movie watchers count for more than the base of comic readers. Somewhat understandably, since they are businesses first and foremost.

[Clone OPatra]

I've already said. In the comic he is often undercover with the suit under his clothes or in a small bag. You can't do that with a rubber suit.

I understand that. What I was trying to ask is what exactly you dislike about the plots in the Nolan films that makes you go 'gee, if Batman had an undercover suit, this would be so much better.' Or is it that you just don't like the plots at all, and think that if they had done Batman in a lighter suit they could've come up with better plots altogether?

Because to me, there's nothing wrong that is caused by Batman's suit.

[Siegfried]

Now it seems that he is wearing armor in the comic More realistic it seems. I can understand DC making changes for the sake of new readers wanting to see something related to the movies.

Yeah he's done that a few times. I haven't bought comics much recently, but I hope it's light looking. For example the armoured look in the Rocksteady Batman games is OK. On the subject of copying movies, this one came out when Keaton was Batman.

I've got this one, and the cover always brings a smile to my face.

I understand that. What I was trying to ask is what exactly you dislike about the plots in the Nolan films that makes you go 'gee, if Batman had an undercover suit, this would be so much better.' Or is it that you just don't like the plots at all, and think that if they had done Batman in a lighter suit they could've come up with better plots altogether?

More the latter. Batman Begins is an OK movie, and as I've said before holistically the second best. But if you want an example of how things could have been improved (without ditching the script) in TDK, Batman could have disguised himself as a goon in the final Joker fight... but I'm no expert on the movie. I've only seen it once. To me it's just an average brainless action and effects movie, and I rarely watch those a second time. The only highlight is the Joker performance, but since I don't like the script it's wasted.