Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok I just have to ask this because I remember as a person who actually likes the Burton Batman films that many people claimed that a lot of the reason they didn't like them was because they were so inaccurate from the comics. Examples being Batman doesn't kill anyone and the Joker killed Batman's parents in Batman 1989 and that was such blasphemy and the Penguin is not a sewer dwelling freak and Catwoman was never a secretary and on and on and on.

But I also see many inaccuracies in Nolan's Batman universe and yet they are completely glossed over. I mean the Joker essentially created Two Face in this movie, we all know that's inaccurate, Rachel Dawes totally usurped the role of Gilda and any other Batman girlfriend in this movie, also inaccurate, Ras Al Ghul was not very much like the comic book character IMO, and the Scarecrow is extra watered down in these movies...

So I am asking, are the inaccuracies okay if the movies caliber overall is high? Because that is what I am sensing. That it doesn't matter what liberties Nolan takes really because let's face it, even with the inaccuracies he made The Dark Knight work and it is a masterpiece. But I just remember so many people saying that was their main complaint with some of the older movies...so why is it okay now?

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Ok I just have to ask this because I remember as a person who actually likes the Burton Batman films that many people claimed that a lot of the reason they didn't like them was because they were so inaccurate from the comics. Examples being Batman doesn't kill anyone and the Joker killed Batman's parents in Batman 1989 and that was such blasphemy and the Penguin is not a sewer dwelling freak and Catwoman was never a secretary and on and on and on.

But I also see many inaccuracies in Nolan's Batman universe and yet they are completely glossed over. I mean the Joker essentially created Two Face in this movie, we all know that's inaccurate, Rachel Dawes totally usurped the role of Gilda and any other Batman girlfriend in this movie, also inaccurate, Ras Al Ghul was not very much like the comic book character IMO, and the Scarecrow is extra watered down in these movies...

So I am asking, are the inaccuracies okay if the movies caliber overall is high? Because that is what I am sensing. That it doesn't matter what liberties Nolan takes really because let's face it, even with the inaccuracies he made The Dark Knight work and it is a masterpiece. But I just remember so many people saying that was their main complaint with some of the older movies...so why is it okay now?

Batman Begins and TDK did so much justice to the character and story, dug deep and pulled the film franchise of batman out of the shit hole that has been before them, it made what Burton and Shumacher did look like shit. It also depends on who you talk to, because some people dont care about the inaccuracies of the older films and there are a decent amount of people in this forum that absolutely adore the older batman films, ofcourse while some despise them. It really depends on who you talk to, cuz some people might and probably do have their gripes with BB and TDK

Basically BB and TDK made things work taking inspiration of Year One. It didn't violate the fundamentals, like how Batman killed bad guys in the older films. Overall BB and TDK are just intense, epic and overwhelmingly great masterpieces

But the thing is some of the things people considered as kills for Batman I've seen mimicked in these films with no complaint.

For example: I have seen people complain about the Batmobile driving into the Joker's factory and blowing it up with the henchmen in there shooting at it. Even though I do not think it was Batman's direct attempt to murder the henchmen I think his main objective was to eliminate the factory because the chemicals were killing the people of Gotham. The only time I remember him deliberately killing people was in Batman Returns when he set that clown on fire and strapped that bomb to the guy. Those were I agree problematic.

The scene in the beginning of the Dark Knight was reminiscent of that to me when Batman had the Tumbler on intimidate and he blew up those cars. There is no way he knew that blowing up those cars wouldn't possibly cause some of the people there to be killed. It certainly wasn't the most careful and thoughtful thing to do. And let's not even mention how he had no idea that the Joker could survive that semi truck stunt he pulled. To me those were careless.

I do agree though even as a fan of the Burton films that what Nolan has done has made those other films seem like complete crap to an extent...I think the Dark Knight is so good though it made Batman Begins seem crummy as well though.

comic books themselves change all the god damned time. Personally, as long as the main characters are true to the source material. I care little about everything else.

Sin City is like a moving comic book. Iron Man had only one problem: Jarvis.

yeah, a butler would have totally been better. It wouldnt have been at all like batman

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
But the thing is some of the things people considered as kills for Batman I've seen mimicked in these films with no complaint.

For example: I have seen people complain about the Batmobile driving into the Joker's factory and blowing it up with the henchmen in there shooting at it. Even though I do not think it was Batman's direct attempt to murder the henchmen I think his main objective was to eliminate the factory because the chemicals were killing the people of Gotham. The only time I remember him deliberately killing people was in Batman Returns when he set that clown on fire and strapped that bomb to the guy. Those were I agree problematic.

The scene in the beginning of the Dark Knight was reminiscent of that to me when Batman had the Tumbler on intimidate and he blew up those cars. There is no way he knew that blowing up those cars wouldn't possibly cause some of the people there to be killed. It certainly wasn't the most careful and thoughtful thing to do. And let's not even mention how he had no idea that the Joker could survive that semi truck stunt he pulled. To me those were careless.

I do agree though even as a fan of the Burton films that what Nolan has done has made those other films seem like complete crap to an extent...I think the Dark Knight is so good though it made Batman Begins seem crummy as well though.

There mustve been some sort of logically explaination behind TDK's Batman blowing up those cars, maybe he knew it just would injure the henchmen from minor to so and so. It was not careful nor considerate but that mustve been the least of his worries since he probably had a tough time cleaning the streets of arkham inmates previous. and btw, it was not the real batman with a shotgun!

If the Joker was strapped in, he had a 50/50% chance of survivng or dying with or without serious injury, maybe he made his own luck. If Joker was hurt, he wouldve shrugged it off with delight just like when Batman slammed his head off the table and he was hysterical about it.

Desperate times called for desperate measures, in TDK, it was all about Joker pushing things over the edge, chaos, and breaking people down, , he broke down Harvey Dent, and he almost did for batman pushin bats to the limit where yeah, he became reckless with that stunt with the batpod & the semi, throwing Joker out the window, what if his grapplegun didnt catch Joker right? Batman came that close to breaking his rule, and the Joker knew it and wanted nothing more than to see Batman break that limit

The comic has had 70 years to evolve.

No, the deviation doesn't bother me at all.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
comic books themselves change all the god damned time. Personally, as long as the main characters are true to the source material. I care little about everything else.

AgreedOriginally posted by Darth Martin
Sin City is like a moving comic book. Iron Man had only one problem: Jarvis.

Sin City has just a handful of comics/stories to be based around... same with 300... most comic book have different interpretations and origin stories, it's hard to keep things accurate.. read that: it's hard for fans to get past inaccuracies... As long as the story and movie are good, I don't mind changes... Jarvin is a perfect example.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Ok I just have to ask this because I remember as a person who actually likes the Burton Batman films that many people claimed that a lot of the reason they didn't like them was because they were so inaccurate from the comics. Examples being Batman doesn't kill anyone and the Joker killed Batman's parents in Batman 1989 and that was such blasphemy and the Penguin is not a sewer dwelling freak and Catwoman was never a secretary and on and on and on.

But I also see many inaccuracies in Nolan's Batman universe and yet they are completely glossed over. I mean the Joker essentially created Two Face in this movie, we all know that's inaccurate, Rachel Dawes totally usurped the role of Gilda and any other Batman girlfriend in this movie, also inaccurate, Ras Al Ghul was not very much like the comic book character IMO, and the Scarecrow is extra watered down in these movies...

So I am asking, are the inaccuracies okay if the movies caliber overall is high? Because that is what I am sensing. That it doesn't matter what liberties Nolan takes really because let's face it, even with the inaccuracies he made The Dark Knight work and it is a masterpiece. But I just remember so many people saying that was their main complaint with some of the older movies...so why is it okay now?


Nah, not in the least

OK I was just curious that seemed to be a major complaint

i think it's the overall "feel" for the movie that makes people accept Batman films as a success or failure. That and simply what's important to one person may not be to another.

I for one, love and still think Burton's Batman > Nolan's. It's the way his outfit looked and fit..his voice..his boogieman presence. The way the camera showed him like some dracula-ish figure gliding into an action scene, scaring the crap outta criminals. The way he didn't bat an eye when punching that clown in Batman Returns. BADASS. All that worked for me.


Here's a neat fanfid someone did combining Keaton's role and Bale's role. Danny Elfman's theme IS THE Batman theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deIueo9C0ss

Originally posted by SpyCspider
i think it's the overall "feel" for the movie that makes people accept Batman films as a success or failure. That and simply what's important to one person may not be to another.

I for one, love and still think Burton's Batman > Nolan's. It's the way his outfit looked and fit..his voice..his boogieman presence. The way the camera showed him like some dracula-ish figure gliding into an action scene, scaring the crap outta criminals. The way he didn't bat an eye when punching that clown in Batman Returns. BADASS. All that worked for me.


Here's a neat fanfid someone did combining Keaton's role and Bale's role. Danny Elfman's theme IS THE Batman theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deIueo9C0ss

the thing about the old batman films was that, yes, the danny elfman theme is commonly known and most likely prefered as the main batman theme, except i believe it was good and suited the gothic and fantasy world that burton created as Gotham, but was under utilized in the film for a Prince soundtrack that clashed with the movie. I probably cant argue that Hans Zimmer is better but he created a soundtrack that suited the dark gritty and real world that is found in BB and TDK

Im not a comic book reader, but this situation always made me think. Dont characters go through reinventions and new interpretations all the time? So I dont see the problem with the movies having their own unique takes just as certain writers give the characters their own take in the comics.

Originally posted by The j0keR
Im not a comic book reader, but this situation always made me think. Dont characters go through reinventions and new interpretations all the time? So I dont see the problem with the movies having their own unique takes just as certain writers give the characters their own take in the comics.

casual movie goers have no problems i believe. Mostly comic book readers and people that care enough about the values of the comics care about the changes.

when you have a movie like Sin City that is straight out of the pages and has a great overall quality, it makes people question why that has not been done before and why producers movie execs insist on making changes like instead of showing peter parkers intelligent mind through his invention of web shooters to a flimsy premise of organic webbing, to plot line unnecesary plot dramatics like having joker be the killer of waynes parents for dramatic effect along with sandman in sp3, to a bad choice of having batman killing villains and criminals becoming the very thing he resents and has sought out to put to justice, i think the real crime was wolverines height

I always wondered this...

Why was it not ok with Burton but it's totally ok with Nolan?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I always wondered this...

Why was it not ok with Burton but it's totally ok with Nolan?

because. the quality of Nolan's BB and TDK is far superior than of previous bat films. like in another league. $158 Mill at the box office can only say so much about how much people loved BB and went to see TDK, there are no clear depictions of Batman clearly killing someone in BB or TDK otherwise we'd see a turning point for the character and a sense of regret from batman

in one hand with have hotdog grade meat and the other we have grade a restaurant quality steak. im going to choose to order the steak, nothin wrong with the good ol hotdog but, come on, the steak is way better, obviously some people like the hotdog growing up with it, now relate that to batman 89 and returns and todays BB and TDK.

Basically, The Dark Knight was so good that it's okay for it's fans to be hypocrites.

/thread

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
because. the quality of Nolan's BB and TDK is far superior than of previous bat films. like in another league. $158 Mill at the box office can only say so much about how much people loved BB and went to see TDK, there are no clear depictions of Batman clearly killing someone in BB or TDK otherwise we'd see a turning point for the character and a sense of regret from batman

in one hand with have hotdog grade meat and the other we have grade a restaurant quality steak. im going to choose to order the steak, nothin wrong with the good ol hotdog but, come on, the steak is way better, obviously some people like the hotdog growing up with it, now relate that to batman 89 and returns and todays BB and TDK.

I wouldn't call it a hotdog, more like a burger...

Thanks, now I want steak

But just because one is better than the other doesn't mean you can be a hypocrite... If you're gonna point out the flaws of one, you have to point out the flaws of all of them... You can't just pick and choose... That's why I don't point out flaws anymore... I just watch them... From both directors...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I wouldn't call it a hotdog, more like a burger...

Thanks, now I want steak

But just because one is better than the other doesn't mean you can be a hypocrite... If you're gonna point out the flaws of one, you have to point out the flaws of all of them... You can't just pick and choose... That's why I don't point out flaws anymore... I just watch them... From both directors...

haha

k can you bring up the problems with BB and TDK

Originally posted by Devil King
The comic has had 70 years to evolve.

No, the deviation doesn't bother me at all.

QFT

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
because. the quality of Nolan's BB and TDK is far superior than of previous bat films. like in another league. $158 Mill at the box office can only say so much about how much people loved BB and went to see TDK, there are no clear depictions of Batman clearly killing someone in BB or TDK otherwise we'd see a turning point for the character and a sense of regret from batman

in one hand with have hotdog grade meat and the other we have grade a restaurant quality steak. im going to choose to order the steak, nothin wrong with the good ol hotdog but, come on, the steak is way better, obviously some people like the hotdog growing up with it, now relate that to batman 89 and returns and todays BB and TDK.
Burton's Batman Films were of a much higher caliber than Schumachers but I still saw some Batman fans trying to tout Batman Forever as amazing because it had a bit more of Batman's origin in it. And that movie was horrible IMO on all fronts.

The thing is with me the reason I could enjoy Burton's films is though I read the comic books I have always realized Batman because of how the movie industry is can never fully transfer on the big screen exactly as he does in the comics. I was never that uptight about the Joker killing Batman's parents because I understood that they did that to wrap the movie up and would Joe Chill killing Batman's parents really change the storyline in that particular movie? No. So I dealt with it. Just like I dealt with Selina Kyle and the Penguin's differences in Batman Returns. As long as I could get into the particular story I was fine with the inaccuracies. But a lot of people ragged on them like Burton's films were blasphemy for daring to deviate from the source material.

However I see Nolan deviating from the source material quite a bit as well. But Nolan has much better scripts and his story telling and directing is quite masterful. But I don't even think the Batman on the screens is exactly like the Batman in the comics either. I still think the sense of madness and insanity that Batman seems to have in the comics is not here in the Nolanverse even though I really enjoyed The Dark Knight and think it is without a doubt the best Batman movie there is.

And I will say as a Two Face fan though I enjoyed his portrayal in the movie in context to the storyline some of the changes I think did take a bit away from the character as I recall him from the comics and I think it was especially dumb to have Sal Maroni in the movie and not have him more involved with his transformation even though I think the storyline worked better with the Joker.

Originally posted by Devil King
The comic has had 70 years to evolve.

No, the deviation doesn't bother me at all.


I do agree

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Burton's Batman Films were of a much higher caliber than Schumachers but I still saw some Batman fans trying to tout Batman Forever as amazing because it had a bit more of Batman's origin in it. And that movie was horrible IMO on all fronts.

The thing is with me the reason I could enjoy Burton's films is though I read the comic books I have always realized Batman because of how the movie industry is can never fully transfer on the big screen exactly as he does in the comics. I was never that uptight about the Joker killing Batman's parents because I understood that they did that to wrap the movie up and would Joe Chill killing Batman's parents really change the storyline in that particular movie? No. So I dealt with it. Just like I dealt with Selina Kyle and the Penguin's differences in Batman Returns. As long as I could get into the particular story I was fine with the inaccuracies. But a lot of people ragged on them like Burton's films were blasphemy for daring to deviate from the source material.

However I see Nolan deviating from the source material quite a bit as well. But Nolan has much better scripts and his story telling and directing is quite masterful. But I don't even think the Batman on the screens is exactly like the Batman in the comics either. I still think the sense of madness and insanity that Batman seems to have in the comics is not here in the Nolanverse even though I really enjoyed The Dark Knight and think it is without a doubt the best Batman movie there is.

And I will say as a Two Face fan though I enjoyed his portrayal in the movie in context to the storyline some of the changes I think did take a bit away from the character as I recall him from the comics and I think it was especially dumb to have Sal Maroni in the movie and not have him more involved with his transformation even though I think the storyline worked better with the Joker.

yeah everyone has different opinions and how they feel towards the films as well as how they react to what changes about certain things, etc.

BB was loosely based on Year One and TDK was inspired by TDK Returns. however if they changes are too fundamental like if you have batman killing, becoming the very thing he sought out to stop, then you have something to consider.

I actually liked TDK's changes, for ex/ portraying Two Face as a sort of vigilante, his heart is in the right place, he wants to rid the streets of crime and fill it with justice, except he's doing it the wrong way, killing and stuff. Makes Dent have that eye for an eye type of justice rather than like Batman who does not exact revenge. That is a change that i myself can deal with, its different from the duality two face gimmick but whatever. We all take it differently. That other person is also right, 70 years is a longtime and comics have definately evolved. Just like movies, from burton to schumacher, to nolan. evolving for the better

I wouldn't call the Burton to Schumacher evolution for the better, lol. But even though I like Burton I think Burton to Nolan is for the better

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
haha

k can you bring up the problems with BB and TDK

The flaws don't detract away from the films, but it's stuff that comic book purists would be all over...

Stuff like changing Ras Al Ghul's motivations and look, changing Two-Face's origin, changing the Batmobile, Bale's Batman voice sounding too forced, adding in Rachel Dawes (she wasn't in the comics), making Detective Flass a fatass (when in the comics he's this strong looking guy), making Commissioner Loeb an African American (when in the comics he's an wrinkly old white guy), Batman not saving Ras Al Ghul, I didn't know Dent was blond, etc. etc. etc.

Like how in Burton's series Penguin's motivations and look were changed, Joker's origin was changed, Penguin had a giant rubber ducky, Keaton's Bruce Wayne looked too forced, Alexander Knox was added in (he wasn't in the comics), making Commissioner Gordon a short, plump guy (when in the comics he's fairly average sized with glasses), Harvey Dent was African American (when in the comics he's a white guy), Batman didn't save Joker, I didn't know Vale was blond, etc. etc. etc.

Those are some of the similarities with the two series taking liberties... Some are smaller than others, but they're there, and comic book purists would be bitching about them...

Like I've said before, I have absolutely no problem with Nolan's series or Burton's series, I'm merely stating that if you think Nolan didn't take just as many liberties with the source material as Burton, you're kidding yourself...

But both are just as true to the Batman eras they were trying to project... Burton preferred the Golden Age Batman stories of 1939-1940 and Frank Miller's DKR, while Nolan prefers the Modern Age Batman stories from the 1970s onward and Jeph Loeb's Long Halloween...

Yup IA Batdude 100% I've been on this forum for forever and in the comic book circles for a while and I have heard those arguments and complaints about Burton's Batman quite a bit. I was always more easy going about all of it though I just want a good Batman movie I can enjoy and if the changes help the story being told on screen I'm fine...but I was always shocked by the hostility of some towards some of the changes which I felt were rather minor.

As someone who has read The Batman comics since I was 4 years old I have never had any sort of problem with how Tim Burton or how Joel Schumacher interpreted Batman in their movies. I had a problem with Schumacher casting of all people George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell. And Arnold Shwarzenegger, even though I love Arnold in certain roles, he was just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong for Mr. Freeze. Now as to Chris Nolan and the gang, he has put Batman out in the actual real world and guess what it works. Yeah something like microwave emitter and maybe the sonar device from The Dark Knight may never see the light of day in actuality, but I had no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with how Ledger looked as The Joker. The ONLY problem I have with Chris Nolan and the gang is that I have to wait two or three years until the next one, which is perfectly fine. Bring on whoever for the next one I can wait

I still hate the Joker's makeup but I see how it worked in Nolan's universe.

i think the real problem is Nolan fanboys vs Burton fanboys. We both try to point out flaws in the opposing film, who wins??

and i think Joker's make up was appropriate for the film. Im sure most of us wanted The Animated Series look and feel but it didnt go down that way. and yeah it worked. the character's mindset was clearly depicted in the way he looked.

That's the thing that's always annoyed me though because I like both. Before the Dark Knight I preferred Burton's Bat series, now I prefer Nolan's. But I still never got how one was horrible. I appreciated both for what they presented. I usually ended up defending Burton's though because people seem to hate em here.

Same here.

*glares at Mr.Parker*

Long lived Burton and his amazing Bat films.
Ledger did ok, but he was no Jack imo.

I think Batman 1989 is the best. Follow by the Dark Knight, than Batman Begains. Batman returns after that, Than you guys can rank the Schumacher "Films" were ever you like.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
That's the thing that's always annoyed me though because I like both. Before the Dark Knight I preferred Burton's Bat series, now I prefer Nolan's. But I still never got how one was horrible. I appreciated both for what they presented. I usually ended up defending Burton's though because people seem to hate em here.

its when people say that Burtons is better, the people that love Nolan's defend BB and TDK by pointing out flaws and deviation of source material in Burtons, especially how Batman ignorantly killed criminals and as amazing as Nicholson was, he simply played himself, and not the joker.

i prefer BB and TDK over Burtons, and Heath Ledger did great justice to the character, its just so much easier for Nolan's BB and TDK fans to point out and toss aside Burton's films because, in reality it appears that BB and TDK are far superior that people like myself, cannot bear watching the older batman films, and TDK from a financial success of TDK can back me up. It was like watching a high caliber oscar award winning movie and then going back and watching something like an uwe boll film, or burton film....planet of the apes?? and there is only one willy wonka btw

But thats why its easy to bash burton. Nolan lovers compromise their credibility and may appear hpyocritical when bring up issues like changes and deviation from source material but bring up very good points, things that are fundamental(ignorant burton batman killing criminals, becoming the very thing he sought out to prevent), and are willing to throw themselves at the hands of the deposition, but at the end of the day, What does a burton fanboy have to comeback with? both burtons and nolans films have their flaws and changes. so thats a stalemate, but who's film makes things work, who's is more successful and who's film did great justice to the characters and story, who's film inspired a nation, that it IS possible to do things right. Nolan's thats who. I dont need to be the one to bring up how satisfied and happy the batman community was when Batman Begins came out. It was long overdue and about time. I dont think a burton fanboys words even matter, it will fall on deaf ears, i would say they got nothing on nolan fanboys.

"the end of the day, What does a burton fanboy have to comeback with?"

Burton's was a more enjoyable movie.

Not trying to start another Burton vs Nolan argument here, but sometimes the pieces just fit together better for some people with his version. That's just an opinion. And his Batman did so well that it led to the creation of the animated series that we all so highly regard and love.

If anything, I think BB and TDK were mostly responses to Schumacher's disasters.

Originally posted by SpyCspider
"the end of the day, What does a burton fanboy have to comeback with?"

Burton's was a more enjoyable movie.

Not trying to start another Burton vs Nolan argument here, but sometimes the pieces just fit together better for some people with his version. That's just an opinion. And his Batman did so well that it led to the creation of the animated series that we all so highly regard and love.

If anything, I think BB and TDK were mostly responses to Schumacher's disasters.

yeah im just stating how the nolan vs burton thing goes down lol and why and all that stuff. Burton turned a campy batman into something to be reckon with, at the time. He was onto something. and The animated series was great.

if we take a look at the spiderman franchise, raimi amazed all of us back then, i could not wait for spiderman 1, i loved it, simply because there was nothing like it before, but looking at it today, i could definately say that it couldve been done way better and spiderman 3 was a disgrace, a progression a lower quality that of burton handing it down to schumacher. Its like Burton, im waiting for the next Nolan, to do what Nolan did but with Spiderman. (not in the sense of gritty dark spiderman, but raise the quality,etc) im waiting for spiderman to be reinvented

main point: at the time, the film appears to be great, but let time have a crack at it, and let it sink in.

agreed with u there, man. Loved Spider-man 1 when it came out, but now looking back...they sure did some crappy stuff to him. I want my wisecracking Spidey and HOT MJ!

Originally posted by SpyCspider
agreed with u there, man. Loved Spider-man 1 when it came out, but now looking back...they sure did some crappy stuff to him. I want my wisecracking Spidey and HOT MJ!

yeah the green goblin power ranger, fugmo mj, not enough wet shirt scenes for mj, organics, nitpicks here and there whatever, i think the real crime was how corny spidermans jokes were

but what we can take from this is if we compare burtons film like this, was it succesful because it was the first of its kind? we're talking about like, super nintendo vs wii. SNES and the original NES were very succesful back in the day, but Today, which would the majority prefer...some like tried test and true, while others prefer new, innovative, and revolutionary

The game has evolved, we as movie goers have evolved. and thats why some of us hail Nolan's as dark, brilliant and masterful while otherwise proclaim burton as classic, eerie, and spectacular, im going to take a huge guess that the people who prefer burtons batman grew up with it, meaning they are older, and since movies have evolved, have these older movie goers evolved, and when i bring that up, can you teach an old dog new tricks? is there such thing as a stubborn mule

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
its when people say that Burtons is better, the people that love Nolan's defend BB and TDK by pointing out flaws and deviation of source material in Burtons, especially how Batman ignorantly killed criminals and as amazing as Nicholson was, he simply played himself, and not the joker.

i prefer BB and TDK over Burtons, and Heath Ledger did great justice to the character, its just so much easier for Nolan's BB and TDK fans to point out and toss aside Burton's films because, in reality it appears that BB and TDK are far superior that people like myself, cannot bear watching the older batman films, and TDK from a financial success of TDK can back me up. It was like watching a high caliber oscar award winning movie and then going back and watching something like an uwe boll film, or burton film....planet of the apes?? and there is only one willy wonka btw

But thats why its easy to bash burton. Nolan lovers compromise their credibility and may appear hpyocritical when bring up issues like changes and deviation from source material but bring up very good points, things that are fundamental(ignorant burton batman killing criminals, becoming the very thing he sought out to prevent), and are willing to throw themselves at the hands of the deposition, but at the end of the day, What does a burton fanboy have to comeback with? both burtons and nolans films have their flaws and changes. so thats a stalemate, but who's film makes things work, who's is more successful and who's film did great justice to the characters and story, who's film inspired a nation, that it IS possible to do things right. Nolan's thats who. I dont need to be the one to bring up how satisfied and happy the batman community was when Batman Begins came out. It was long overdue and about time. I dont think a burton fanboys words even matter, it will fall on deaf ears, i would say they got nothing on nolan fanboys.

Well, to be fair, in Burton's Batman, every time Batman killed, he had a reason to...

-The guys at Axis Chemicals: His main goal was to stop the flow of Joker's tainted products (something Golden Age Batman would have done)...

-The big guy in the cathedral: It was "kill or be killed" in that situation (again, something Golden Age Batman would have done)

That's really all the killing Batman did in his films, tbh... Joker would have gone to Arkham had he let go of the ladder in time (he would have been hanging upside down from the cathedral: The helicopter is what pulled the gargoyle from its place. Batman and Vicki would have fallen and grappled to safety down on the streets, and the cops would have gotten to the top of the cathedral via helicopter, catching Joker before Batman could kill him. Then eventually Batman would realize it's for the best, knowing he's getting what he deserves by being in Arkham) and Penguin could have easily ran in the opposite direction when the bats came, or not pressed the button at all (he would've continued to try and fight, but he'd lose, and be captured, and then taken to jail for his crimes: Batman had no reason to want to kill him)

Regarding the big strongman: How do we know it was a REAL bomb? They WERE clowns and circus performers... It could have been a trick bomb or something just to get Batman nervous (and the guy originally carrying it had to have been on a suicide mission, which I doubt). And since we never actually see him die, I can't put him on the list...

*Note: By "trick bomb", I mean something like a confetti bomb*

Yeah and really how is what happened at Axis chemicals that much different than what happened in the beginning of the Dark Knight when the Tumbler went into intimidate mode. No way Batman knew those explosions couldn't possibly have killed some of the henchmen when he blew up those cars. And like I said he had no way of knowing he wasn't gonna kill the Joker when he flipped that semi truck. I think Batman got very close to killing the Joker in this movie too I think the only reason he didn't is because he didn't want the Joker to win by causing him to break his one rule more so than his one rule actually mattered that much to him in this case.

And I agree the Burton movies can't hold up now that the Dark Knight has come out but still before that I still thought Burton's movies were way more entertaining than Batman Begins but I still didn't try to rip Begins to shreds because of that.

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
but who's film makes things work, who's is more successful and who's film did great justice to the characters and story, who's film inspired a nation, that it IS possible to do things right. Nolan's thats who. I dont need to be the one to bring up how satisfied and happy the batman community was when Batman Begins came out. It was long overdue and about time. I dont think a burton fanboys words even matter, it will fall on deaf ears, i would say they got nothing on nolan fanboys.

You seriously lost steam at this point.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
You seriously lost steam at this point.

lol it was late at nite when i wrote that ok! my main point was to explain about nolan fanboys, those questions would be raised, but nolan fanboys cant convince burton fanboys which movie they see is better and the other way around too.

but anyways, SelinaandBruce is also correct the burton movies can barely hold up today since TDK came out, a revision of the batman 89 score on rotten tomatoes gave it a 69% rotten. Saying, while it succeeds as entertainment, it does nothing for the legacy of Batman, and rings dissappointingly hollow.

i like BB and TDK more than bats89 and returns, so when i see something like that at rotten tomatoes, it strikes me as a reaffirmation and if i wanted to be a pure nolan fanboy, that is a decent thing to use in an argument. what is my point, nolan fanboys got a bit more with what they can throw at burtonboys since BB and TDK improved upon those films. again, i ask, Is it possible to argue that the NES is better than Wii? and can these two be compared? since they are not only from different ages in time, but very different in style and substance

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
And I will say as a Two Face fan though I enjoyed his portrayal in the movie in context to the storyline some of the changes I think did take a bit away from the character as I recall him from the comics and I think it was especially dumb to have Sal Maroni in the movie and not have him more involved with his transformation even though I think the storyline worked better with the Joker.


ok im jus gonna put this out there... cuz ive seen several peopl say things along the lines of wat selinaandbruce said above..

sal maroni did have a part in the scarring of dent and creation of two-face! he bought off/threatened detective ramirez and that fat cop into bringing rachel and harvey to where the joker had set up his big ole bombs..

it was a team effort!

Originally posted by atharpina
ok im jus gonna put this out there... cuz ive seen several peopl say things along the lines of wat selinaandbruce said above..

sal maroni did have a part in the scarring of dent and creation of two-face! he bought off/threatened detective ramirez and that fat cop into bringing rachel and harvey to where the joker had set up his big ole bombs..

it was a team effort!
I know that Sal had people working in the Gotham police department but the Joker orchestrated all of that. Sal still didn't do it. It's like saying it would be the same thing in Batman 1989 if Joe Chill helped the Jack Napier rob Batman's parents, but Jack Napier still shot him. It's clearly a deviation from the origin story. I'm not complaining really like I said the the movie was a stand alone ignoring the source material was wonderful and the storyline worked really well the way they did it, but as a Two Face fan I was sort of hoping he'd get the acid to the face or something similar to that even though this way was obviously more dramatic.

And if he did die then his use in the movie is highly disappointing as he was nothing more than a mere pawn and never allowed to be a true villain.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
And if he did die then his use in the movie is highly disappointing as he was nothing more than a mere pawn and never allowed to be a true villain.

But the Harvey in this series didn't wasn't a villain... He was Gotham's White Knight... He was only doing what he thought was fair...

He died the hero, which means he doesn't see himself become the villain...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
But the Harvey in this series didn't wasn't a villain... He was Gotham's White Knight... He was only doing what he thought was fair...

He died the hero, which means he doesn't see himself become the villain...
Then that isn't Two Face, because Two Face is a Batman villain. And one of the reasons he was one of my favorite villains particularly in the animated series was because Batman was so desperate to save him somehow even though he couldn't and he constantly felt guilt and anguish even when he had to stop Two Face. Like I said I get and am fine with what happened in the context of the movie, with no source material considered (just like I am fine with the Joker killing Batman's parents in 1989 if I just go by the movie alone) but as a Two Face fan I feel like he got shafted in this series to go out like that, as I am sure some Scarecrow and Ras fans might not be thrilled with what happened to that character.

Now the Joker, he got the perfect treatment in my opinion in the context of the movie and outside of it bad make up aside.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
But the Harvey in this series didn't wasn't a villain... He was Gotham's White Knight... He was only doing what he thought was fair...

He died the hero, which means he doesn't see himself become the villain...

clearly he lived long enough to become the villain, and if he's in the next one, maybe bats or bruce can talk to him, and two faced dent will see how he became the villain.

Harvey Dent was gothams white knight, but two face is another story.

I really hope something has changed and Two Face is alive. Him dying is completely stupid.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Then that isn't Two Face, because Two Face is a Batman villain. And one of the reasons he was one of my favorite villains particularly in the animated series was because Batman was so desperate to save him somehow even though he couldn't and he constantly felt guilt and anguish even when he had to stop Two Face. Like I said I get and am fine with what happened in the context of the movie, with no source material considered (just like I am fine with the Joker killing Batman's parents in 1989 if I just go by the movie alone) but as a Two Face fan I feel like he got shafted in this series to go out like that, as I am sure some Scarecrow and Ras fans might not be thrilled with what happened to that character.

Now the Joker, he got the perfect treatment in my opinion in the context of the movie and outside of it bad make up aside.

True...

I really don't have anything to come back with... It's all what Nolan wanted...

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
clearly he lived long enough to become the villain, and if he's in the next one, maybe bats or bruce can talk to him, and two faced dent will see how he became the villain.

Harvey Dent was gothams white knight, but two face is another story.

Hate to double post, but in the movie, Harvey didn't see himself become a villain because he didn't think he was being a villain... He was completely wrapped up in what he thought was fair...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Hate to double post, but in the movie, Harvey didn't see himself become a villain because he didn't think he was being a villain... He was completely wrapped up in what he thought was fair...
To me Harvey Dent died in that fire. Two Face was the one who was obsessed with fairness. There really was no Harvey Dent left at that point because there's no way I believe the guy in the beginning of the movie would point a gun at a child and realistically consider killing him. All the other times he threatened someone before the accident he knew he was bluffing and that he'd never hurt them he was only trying to intimidate them but he felt it was okay because he already knew harming the person was not possible. Two Face didn't know if he was going to hurt someone or not but he was perfectly okay with either outcome. That's not Harvey, IMO.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
To me Harvey Dent died in that fire. Two Face was the one who was obsessed with fairness. There really was no Harvey Dent left at that point because there's no way I believe the guy in the beginning of the movie would point a gun at a child and realistically consider killing him. All the other times he threatened someone before the accident he knew he was bluffing and that he'd never hurt them he was only trying to intimidate them but he felt it was okay because he already knew harming the person was not possible. Two Face didn't know if he was going to hurt someone or not but he was perfectly okay with either outcome. That's not Harvey, IMO.

True, but Two-Face didn't think he was a villain, he didn't revel in being evil, like, say, the Joker did...

He was only doing what he thought was fair...

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
To me Harvey Dent died in that fire. Two Face was the one who was obsessed with fairness. There really was no Harvey Dent left at that point because there's no way I believe the guy in the beginning of the movie would point a gun at a child and realistically consider killing him. All the other times he threatened someone before the accident he knew he was bluffing and that he'd never hurt them he was only trying to intimidate them but he felt it was okay because he already knew harming the person was not possible. Two Face didn't know if he was going to hurt someone or not but he was perfectly okay with either outcome. That's not Harvey, IMO.

EXACTLY!!

and IF he is in the next one, im sure Batman or Bruce will make him see how he has become the villain since Two Face Dent does not realize he is doing anything wrong so far

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
clearly he lived long enough to become the villain, and if he's in the next one, maybe bats or bruce can talk to him, and two faced dent will see how he became the villain.

Harvey Dent was gothams white knight, but two face is another story.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
True, but Two-Face didn't think he was a villain, he didn't revel in being evil, like, say, the Joker did...

He was only doing what he thought was fair...
Two face did enjoy being evil though. When he shot the people and killed them he seemed to enjoy it. Anytime he had to let someone go he still did something to them ex: What happened to Ramirez.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Two face did enjoy being evil though. When he shot the people and killed them he seemed to enjoy it. Anytime he had to let someone go he still did something to them ex: What happened to Ramirez.

i wouldnt say enjoy, i would use the words, satisfied or gratified.

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
i wouldnt say enjoy, i would use the words, satisfied or gratified.
I dunno about you but I enjoy being satisfied

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I dunno about you but I enjoy being satisfied

What I'm just saying, lol

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
i wouldnt say enjoy, i would use the words, satisfied or gratified.

Exactly... He thought they were getting what they deserved, so he got a sort of closure from it... Like, "I don't have to feel bad for them because they jipped me and Rachel"... That doesn't mean he loved being evil... He didn't revel in holding the kid hostage, like Joker would have... He was merely doing what he thought he should do, what he thought was fair... And when he killed, he didn't do it because he got a kick out of it, or because he loved doing it, he killed because the coin told him to, and because he gave them a fair chance, like Rachel got, but it ended up not being in their favor...

Two-Face was pretty messed up in the head by the end of the movie, but I wouldn't really call him a "villain", he's just doing what he thinks is fair... Like a child, really... He's sorta like Catwoman from Returns...

God, I love discussing this movie!

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Exactly... He thought they were getting what they deserved, so he got a sort of closure from it... Like, "I don't have to feel bad for them because they jipped me and Rachel"... That doesn't mean he loved being evil... He didn't revel in holding the kid hostage, like Joker would have... He was merely doing what he thought he should do, what he thought was fair... And when he killed, he didn't do it because he got a kick out of it, or because he loved doing it, he killed because the coin told him to, and because he gave them a fair chance, like Rachel got, but it ended up not being in their favor...

Two-Face was pretty messed up in the head by the end of the movie, but I wouldn't really call him a "villain", he's just doing what he thinks is fair... Like a child, really... He's sorta like Catwoman from Returns...

God, I love discussing this movie!
IMO he did enjoy it to a certain extent. He loved taunting each person that he stalked. He didn't go in with a stoic face and just flip his coin, follow the outcome and then move on. He made quips and he made a game out of choosing which one of Gordon's family members he was going to punish. And when Gordon told him to punish him instead and he said "O I'm about to," and he tortured Gordon by making him tell his son he was going to be all right. He didn't grab the kid and just flip the coin, he tried to make the experience as awful as possible.

He enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on others and he enjoyed the prospect of potentially killing them IMO. Sure he completely believed in the outcome of his coin and he would follow it, but in my opinion Two Face was enjoying when he got to extract his version of justice. It was certainly not to the same level as the Joker who did everything for the fun of it and had no rules but I definitely think he enjoyed punishing those people because he hated them and he felt all of it could have been avoided if Gordon had just listened to him about the corruption in the first place.

And he should have been a villain. That's what's annoying. He deserved more in my opinion than what he got. I wouldn't call him like Catwoman exactly, though but I can definitely see the comparisons.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
IMO he did enjoy it to a certain extent. He loved taunting each person that he stalked. He didn't go in with a stoic face and just flip his coin, follow the outcome and then move on. He made quips and he made a game out of choosing which one of Gordon's family members he was going to punish. And when Gordon told him to punish him instead and he said "O I'm about to," and he tortured Gordon by making him tell his son he was going to be all right. He didn't grab the kid and just flip the coin, he tried to make the experience as awful as possible.

He enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on others and he enjoyed the prospect of potentially killing them IMO. Sure he completely believed in the outcome of his coin and he would follow it, but in my opinion Two Face was enjoying when he got to extract his version of justice. It was certainly not to the same level as the Joker who did everything for the fun of it and had no rules but I definitely think he enjoyed punishing those people because he hated them and he felt all of it could have been avoided if Gordon had just listened to him about the corruption in the first place.

And he should have been a villain. That's what's annoying. He deserved more in my opinion than what he got. I wouldn't call him like Catwoman exactly, though but I can definitely see the comparisons.

True, he did taunt the people, but it wasn't out of enjoyment, imo, it was out of closure... He needed to know that they would be getting their just desserts, and that he was right and they were wrong, that they were feeling what he felt, what Rachel felt, you know, that type of deal... But he didn't gain anything from it...

He didn't go in emotionless, but he didn't have this sense of "this is gonna be good" with a Tommy Lee Jones grin, either... When he said that to Gordon, I always thought that he said it because he felt Gordon was gonna get what he felt he deserved... Not that he was having fun with it... Like I said earlier, imo, his feeling during the murders wasn't enjoyment, but closure...

I feel like when he killed that cop at the bar and Maroni especially he definitely had a sense of this is gonna be good. He was loving every moment of extracting fear from them, that was my perception of the performance. And I also think he liked getting under Gordon's skin. Otherwise he would have just done the deed and not played around so much. He could have killed Gordon's whole family before Batman got there if he wasn't so busy savoring the pain he was causing Gordon.

just sure Two Face wanted Gordon to know what it felt like to know that it might not be ok, even though you have to tell the people you love that it will be.