Lowering the Bat-Bar

[SonOfVoorhees]

No more Ra al Ghul's please. Its like with Superman and Lex Luthor....his boring. Give me a different interesting enemy not just a smart human.

 

[irishda]

I very strongly disagree with him that Marvel has been making excellent movies.

 

[Trishbot]

I very strongly disagree with him that Marvel has been making excellent movies.

I very strongly disagree that they HAVEN'T. In fact, Marvel movies of late have truly captured the imagination of both kids and adults while delivering costumed thrills, solid performances, stellar action, and comic-accurate authenticity to a world of heroics few comic movies have been able to match in years. That's not to say Marvel doesn't have some stinkers (Fantastic Four, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Wolverine: Origins), but they've far outclassed DC heroes on the big screen that aren't named Batman (Catwoman, Superman Returns, Green Lantern, Jonah Hex...)

But, on topic...

I'll be honest; I'm an 80's girl. I grew up with the highly stylized, gothic, dark masterpiece that was Michael Keaton and Tim Burton's Batman, which I think nailed it. It had a superior aesthetic (neo-noir), a superior soundtrack (Danny Elman's theme is the definitive Batman theme), a superior Batman (Michael Keaton's Bat-voice was deep, dark, and yet intelligible), and I'd even say an equally good Joker (Jack Nicholson was classy, creepy, psychotic, and still fun.)

I'll concede the new movies have better action and even better plots, however. But to me, Batman was never story-driven; it was a subtle, imaginative, larger-than-life, and even otherworldly experience, like being transported to a world that couldn't possibly exist anywhere else but in film and comics. The new Batman world is just Chicago/New York.

I remember reading that Michael Keaton even asked that most of his spoken dialogue lines in the movie be removed, because, accurately, he said "Batman is a man of actions, not of words", and the movie was better for it. He had a few one liners, but if you watch those movies you notice Batman barely speaks. He's a presence. An urban legend. Some even think he's a monster or demon. When he shows up, it's all action and business, and it's far more effective than Bale's "It's not who I am that defines me, it's what I do" and "I'm the hero Gotham needs, but not what it deserves" Hollywood pep speeches.

To me, the image of Batman, bloodied and injured, slowly crawling up a winding, dusty belltower to an inevitable final throw-down with the Joker, slow, dramatic, and tension-filled, was a far better Batman moment than Batman's punch-kick-growl finale with the Joker in The Dark Knight. The old Batman was quiet, subdued, methodical, and it took the time to create a sense of mood and atmosphere. The new Batman is loud, blunt, heavy on the philosophy and chit-chat, and just seems to play to the same Jason Bourne-crowd that favors realism over imagination.

I told a friend once that nearly every gadget Batman has in the first two movies exists in the new movies too... except in the Nolan movies, they spend a great deal of time explaining where these gadgets came from, who made them, how it got them... In the first movie, Joker just barks out "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" and leaves it up to your imagination. And that's the big deal for me; the movies LEFT a lot to your imagination on purpose. The new movie feels compelled to over-analyze and explain every aspect of its universe, where Batman came from, how he became Batman, where it got his gear, who he knows, why he fights or makes certain decisions. The old movies made the mistake of over-explaining the villains; the new movies over-explain their protagonist.

But that's just my feelings as a fangirl.

Besides, Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill remain the best performers for their respective roles of Batman and Joker. The Animated Series nailed it, and by comparison both Burton and Nolan films fail to measure up.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I really think people have been overreacting about the Catwoman picture. It's one picture that we have no context for. It could be the Catwoman suit, or it could be some outfit she's wearing early on before she becomes Catwoman and has an "official" suit. Fans (including Bob here) need to chill out about this and wait to see a little more about the character before making broad assumptions.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I will put it this way... I ate ALOT of crow after Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. I will not be foolish enough to doubt Nolan again.

 

[Btoken]

At the end of the day, I will surely see it if for nothing else to see on the big screen how Nolan wraps it up. I freely admit twinges of worry due to Catwoman and Bane, but I chalk that up to flashbacks of other previous <shudder, twitch, vomit, rock back and forth> interpretations of the characters. I do also want to say that while goggle ears...don't cut it enough for me. Sorry. Give me some kind of visual hook or she might as well be in the MI:8billion movie ol Tom has coming out.

"The God of Thunder and The First Avenger exchanging a 'brofist' in the middle of an urban war zone".

That makes my cold, dead evil heart thaw just a degree.

 

[demalo]

Well if WB is looking for a League segue this needs to be their kicker. They're rebooting superman and may look at starting others. At this point they may be able to 'forget' the GL and just enter into the League, but this movie is their chance. The other thing too is the League isn't where Nolan's been going with this series.

Begins started with the comic book type Gothem, but TDK didn't really sustain it and stepped away from the imagery. To get back to the fantasy/sci-fi aspect that is the League, Nolan's going to need to incorporate some outside mythology. I totally agree with Movie Bob's reasoning behind the studio wanting this to be toned down but I'm beginning to wonder if it's because they want to move into the League continuity as well as to keep the movie hype down.

If any character out of the League is going to accomplish this segue - it's going to be Batman. Funny, the same thing happened with Iron Man - Human character with money and power acting as a vigilant to save the world and now working with aliens and super human beings... Anyone else get the feeling of déjà vu?

 

[Prismatic Baron]

They are good movies, but they just don't feel batman-y to me. He is trying to make it TOO dark and realistic.

Also, I'm still mad that the Joker did not make any jokes. Sure, he was a great villain, but he was a terrible Joker.

 

[The Harkinator]

It would make sense for them to not want the hype to peak too early, or reach too high. It will be a struggle to make The Dark Knight Rises be remembered as fondly as its predecessor, the whole business of being Heath Ledgers death and it being his last film made us think even more of the film. This may sound a bit depressing but the lower our expectations the more happy we will be if the film turns out to be really good.

On the subject of Tom Hardy as Bane, he can play a physical character but thats not all Bane is. Hes a genius, a master strategist who has a plan lasting (I think) three months that released most of Arkhams most dangerous inmates and exhausts Batman, then he figures out who Batman is, finds him and snaps his spine.

Thats the work of a strategic and deductive genius, a plan that exhausts Batman and leaves him weaker, figuring out Batmans identity is something only the Riddler (I think) managed to do besides Bane.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

No more Ra al Ghul's please. Its like with Superman and Lex Luthor....his boring. Give me a different interesting enemy not just a smart human.

How about a super smart and super strong human, jazzed out on venom? Thats what Bane is...

 

[Gunnyboy]

and Disney has much less riding on that film than WB has on Batman,

John Carter is about to cost around 300 million, has no buzz, no fanbase, a mediocre trailer, and that cost is even before P/A. So no, Disney is already bracing for failure which is why they want Lone Ranger to come down in budget

 

[ImSkeletor]

I like the nolan movies, but not THAT much. I liked Captain America, X-men: First Class, X2, Hellboy 1,2, Superman The Burton Batman and spiderman 2 more. I liked them about the same as Thor and the incredible Hulk

 

[The Bandit]

The third "Nolanverse" movie doesn't have anything so attention getting in it, and a lot of the changes to the characters we're seeing continue to demonstrate how far out of context Nolan has been getting with "Batman". As he hits his third movie it's becoming increasingly difficult to see any real connection between the characters in his movies, and the comics they are supposed to be from. Bane and Catwoman seem to largely just be action movie cliques, albiet probably well done ones, that are carrying the names of popular comic characters.

People can really have an opinion on anything, can't they?

You have not seen the movie. You have absolutely no idea as to what you're talking about.

 

[solidstatemind]

I don't understand why there has to be this mentality of "the best..."; I think of Batman (and most superhero stories, tbh) as being like modern folklore: each teller brings his or her own flourish to the tale. As such, there are merits to Tim Burton's vision as well as Christopher Nolan's. Honestly, I prefer Nolan's works, but that is mostly because it suits my mentality better-- most people who know me consider me a rather somber person. Heath Ledger is the definitive Joker to me, and Christian Bale's Batman fits my idea of what a multi-billionaire turned vigilante would be like better than Michael Keaton does.

Now, as far as Catwoman goes? Michelle Pfieffer, hands down. I'll fight you to the death on that one.

But Tim Burton's Batman was enjoyable... well, up until they started switching who was playing Batman every film. Then it got kind of silly. Heck, you could even make the argument that both directors owe a debt to Adam West and the Batman TV show.

What I'm trying to say is that the Burton vs. Nolan argument is somewhat of a useless debate: much like religion, PC v Mac, and politics, you're just going to get a lot of arm-waving and voice-raising, and not much will be decided, ever.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

But to me, Batman was never story-driven; it was a subtle, imaginative, larger-than-life, and even otherworldly experience, like being transported to a world that couldn't possibly exist anywhere else but in film and comics. The new Batman world is just Chicago/New York.

This is an interesting psychological phenomenon. Worldbuilding is the ultimate aesthetic of escapism. It's basically what powers all of nerdom; it's the driving force behind all of the really big sci-fi/fantasy cultural phenomena like Star Wars, LOTR, comic books, etc. And it tends to appeal to a certain type of person as well, typically people who feel like outsiders in actual society. If you take your average prep, jock or any other normative psychological archetype you'll find that what they generally look for in entertainment is something close to their lives that they can relate to: something worldly, like sports, dramas or reality tv. I personally find these things tedious, but I'm an INTP on the Myers Briggs scale, so I hardly represent the 'normal' sect. If you wanted to get Nietzschean about it you could construe it through the lens of the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction, Sci-fi/fantasy being the former and mainstream entertainment the latter. You could also see it as a symptom of the underlying rejection of mainstream values on the part of 'nerds'. (I am by no means denigrating nerds by saying this. I don't particularly care for mainstream values myself.)

I remember reading that Michael Keaton even asked that most of his spoken dialogue lines in the movie be removed, because, accurately, he said "Batman is a man of actions, not of words", and the movie was better for it. He had a few one liners, but if you watch those movies you notice Batman barely speaks. He's a presence. An urban legend. Some even think he's a monster or demon. When he shows up, it's all action and business, and it's far more effective than Bale's "It's not who I am that defines me, it's what I do" and "I'm the hero Gotham needs, but not what it deserves" Hollywood pep speeches.

This is even more interesting, it strikes me as almost Jungian. Batman would represent the daimon, a primordial and subconscious destructive/creative force, and so to supervene a rational/philosophical agenda on him is to strip him of his meaning.

To me, the image of Batman, bloodied and injured, slowly crawling up a winding, dusty belltower to an inevitable final throw-down with the Joker, slow, dramatic, and tension-filled, was a far better Batman moment than Batman's punch-kick-growl finale with the Joker in The Dark Knight. The old Batman was quiet, subdued, methodical, and it took the time to create a sense of mood and atmosphere. The new Batman is loud, blunt, heavy on the philosophy and chit-chat, and just seems to play to the same Jason Bourne-crowd that favors realism over imagination.

Given what I said above, it seems that the original appeal of Batman is that he represents something deep and animalistic. However, modern western society represses such things, which is expressed by the common distinction between good and evil. Anything that is dark/powerful/subconscious/animalistic is seen as evil. This is also attached to the historically long-lived misconception that human beings are purely rational creatures. Thus to be good is to have your baser instincts sublimated to your reason. Since this is the mainstream perspective, this is what batman must conform to in order to appeal to a mainstream audience. In other words, batman can't be a symbol or an archetype, he has to be 'human', i.e. rational.

Interesting stuff.

 

[darthotaku]

I really hope catwoman actually does dress in a catsuit. if they need a reason they could make her an anime fangirl as well as a thief. I know at least one person that actually does walk arround with fake cat ears on, so the whole "catsuit makes no sense in real life" argument breaks down right there. But hey, if she looks hot and the writers aren't deliberately messing up then she will at least not be the worst catwoman ever.

 

[Prismatic Baron]

They are good movies, but they just don't feel batman-y to me. He is trying to make it TOO dark and realistic.

Also, I'm still mad that the Joker did not make any jokes. Sure, he was a great villain, but he was a terrible Joker.

Magic pencil wasn't a joke? I kind of thought that him switching Rachel and Dent would be his idea of a joke, sort of like a large scale "joy buzzer" or something.

Okay, one joke. But he is the Joker! Being a completely terrifying clown is his thing.

The thing with the two boats, his "Social experiment"? That wasn't very clown-like. Two face should have been in charge of that. Or, better yet, if someone pushed the button, it should have released confetti, and played circus music... Then, when everyone breathes a sigh of relief, BOTH boats explode. That seems way more Joker to me than what was in the movie.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Nolan's name is definitely a selling point, but you usually won't earn that kind of reputation or respect by dumb luck.

The trailer didn't really add much, just luck helped me guess it was Bane in it since i haven't really looked into this movie until now.

I've got high hopes so hopefully this will be one of the few cases of a trilogy being good over-all