They probably already attempted it and reached the same conclusions I did. That's probably why they might reboot Batman if they want to have a DC movie universe. I know that they wanted a Batman/Superman crossover with Christian Bale as Bats and Brandon Routh as Superman to tie in Batman Begins and Superman Returns together. But that got canned due to Superman being rebooted.
Let's keep in mind that we still don't know whether or not Warner Bros will do a shared movie universe. There hasn't been any official announcement yet. All we have so far is rumors that they want to do it because they saw how successful Avengers was. Before these rumors came out, Warner Bros officially came out and said that they wouldn't do a DC movie universe. Their original plan was to release a JL movie after they introduce all the JL members on screen that would be separate from the Snyder Superman, from the Nolan Batman, from the Batman reboot, from the upcoming Flash movie, from the Reynolds GL movie, etc. This means that their plan to reboot Batman had nothing to do with doing a JL movie because both the Nolan Batman and the Batman from the reboot wouldn't have been the Batman we would have seen in JL. So even if the new rumors that they now want a DC movie universe is false, we still won't see the Nolan Batman in a JL movie. And even if they decide not to reboot Batman after TDKR, we still won't see the Nolan Batman in the JL movie (once again, assuming that the rumors about them doing a shared movieverse are false).
lol They're even slower than Bale's Batman.
By "real", they don't mean more grounded. They mean more real in terms of how the characters act and in tone. They want to make it more believable that the characters and tone are real. Superman Earth One is a good example. They made it more "real" by giving Clark a reason to why he chose that specific costume, to why he got a job at the Daily Planet, and all of that other stuff. But they didn't necessarily make it more grounded or took out elements of fiction from it. They still kept him hiding his identity with the glasses and all of that. Another example if the Ultimate Marvel universe. It's definitely more "real" but I wouldn't say it's any less grounded than the regular Marvel universe.
"But we can't make a Wonder Woman movie until we find so way to reinvent her to be more 'edgy'! We gotta try every concept that isn't 'do the core character well' first! The 'CEO vigilante with personal problems' didn't work, so maybe a grim avenger type..."
Oh please. Batman though heroic is supposed to be a little disturbed. Bale portrayed that far far better than Kilmer did. Not to mention body type Bale was much more built up and believable as the guy who can kick anyone's ass.
And you talk about poeple online making fun of Bale, but I think it's more in the fun sense. When you make jokes about something popular.
I don't think people were watching the movie thinking "oh that's awful"
The success, the anticipation of the new movie, and the critics and fans appraisal says everything about which version of Batman the audience preffered. And you can't pretend that has nothing to do with Bale at all.
Well let's just agree to disagree. I personally think none of these things would be an issue to audiences. We already assume he's a damn fast, agile and lethal combatant from his training in BB.
So I don't think people would suddenly assume he's had an upgrade. More likely they will think his abilities are just being portrayed better now.
What I do think would be an issue to audiences is rebooting their favorite big screen take on Batman to date.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Jun 23rd, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Bale acting disturbed, sure, but aside from crucial moments in the comics when the anger is justified does not give Bale/Nolan the excuse to totally over-exaggerate the anger scale. Batman has to be cool, calm and in control no matter what the situation otherwise he is liable to make more mistakes and Bale/Nolan didn't keep that in check, hence the overdone voice and almost embarrassing mouth movements when growling. He's more Jean-Paul Valley than Bruce Wayne (angry all the time, only cares about himself, hardly saves anyone, wraps himself in obvious, bulky armour, doesn't have/need Robin).
Bale's or even Kilmer's physique matters not one jot when they are encased in rubber and physique isn't everything when fighting. You say he had the demeanour but did he really back it up? Bale has 3 films to Kilmer's 1 so there can't be a fair feats comparison.
No, people make fun of things because they find it silly, you wouldn't want to denigrate something you liked. So the people making fun of B&R secretly like it? Wow.
Laughable! Only one man gets referenced ad nauseam as the real star and success behind TDK (which most Nolan Bat-fans refer to) and it ain't Bale. Whether it is 'everyone's' favourite take or not is purely opinion, but it ain't successful because of Bale. Every Nolan Bat-fan says you can't reboot because of Nolan's take or you can't re-cast the Joker ever again because of Ledger's take or Batman because of Bale's - it's defensive BS.
I understand you not liking Batman being portrayed more angrily disturbed but you cannot say that that portrayal is wrong, especially since he has been portrayed like that in modern comics many times. The most well known example if Frank Miller's Batman. And keep in mind that BB and TDK were heavily influenced by stories in Batman's early years as a crimefighter, Year One and Long Halloween being the main influences. And guess who wrote Year One...Frank Miller. So it's not like the anger you saw was something that Nolan came up with to deviate from the comics. It's all right there in the main comic BB was based on and TDK was partly based on (Year One). It's taken straight out of there (actually, he's a bit angrier in Year One than in BB and TDK). Not to mention that other writers portray him as that too. Should I take the example in Batman: Hush where he was planning to bash the Joker's head to the ground until his brain would get splashed to piece after knocking Catwoman unconscious for trying to stop him? You can say that you don't like him being portrayed as a bit angrier but you can't say it's inaccurate.
He's not angry all the time. He may sound angry due to his voice but that's just his way of hiding his real voice (though I agree it sounds silly). But that doesn't mean he's angry. There is nothing in both movies that suggests he is always angry.
Yeah. Because all the criminals he put away in Arkham after Ra's broke them out at the end of BB, him cleaning the night to the point that some criminals are forced to operate during the day, wanting to show Gotham that "their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupted", saving all of Gotham from a terrorist organization that was going to destroy the whole city, giving up his chance to be with Rachel because Gotham needed Batman, saving Gotham again but from a maniac dressed like a clown this time that almost blew up 2 full ships of people, and taking the blame for Harvey's crimes so that the people of Gotham never lose hope, all that doesn't count. I'll give you that he failed to save Ra's, Rachel, and Harvey but do you really expect him to save everyone? He can't even save everyone in the comics either (Jason as well as all the other people that are killed by the Joker and his rogues gallery each week when they break out of Arkham), just like every other flawed superhero out there (which is pretty much all of them).
Let's face it. There is almost a 0% chance for Robin to work in a dark and serious Batman movie. He is dressed in multiple colors, has a jokey attitude, and was originally created simply to lighten up the Batman comics because parents were complaining they were too violent. Would you want that in a dark gritty Batman movie? I'm not saying Robin's not a good character. He did eventually become a good character as decades passed and writers developed him. You can do interesting stuff with him in the comics and the cartoons but it is almost impossible to have him in the movies. Look what happened in the last franchise. He sucked in Batman & Robin. I personally thought he was fine in Forever but that's because they made the tone of Forever lighter than the tone that a movie with a darker and more serious Batman should have. Which proves my point about Robin. And then you also have to come up with a legitimate reason to why Batman would let a kid risk his life every night by jumping off rooftops, gliding from building to building, and attack criminals with weapons head-on. It will be extremely hard for people to buy that. Again, they'll buy it in comics and cartoons but you can't expect that to just buy that in live-action. It has nothing to do with Nolan's realism. As long as a Batman movie is dark and serious, regardless of how grounded or ungrounded it is, it will be almost impossible for people to buy Robin. But even if they did bought all that, what purpose would he serve in the Nolanverse? I don't see how his presence in any of the Nolan movies would change much. He would be more of a filler character. He would serve little to no purpose to the movies' plots whatsoever. The Nolan movies have worked better without him IMO.
Also, your claim that Bale's Batman doesn't NEED Robin completely abolishes the claim you made before - that Bale's Batman is angrier/more aggressive than he should be. The whole point of Robin (at least in modern comics) is that Batman needs someone with a more jokey and calm attitude to hold him back if he ever crosses that line and becomes the Punisher. If Bale's Batman doesn't need Robin, then that means he doesn't lack the self-control that he needs to not cross that line he doesn't cross. Which means that he can't be the angry aggresive Batman you seem to think he is. If he really is always angry as you claim he is, then he would need a Robin by his side. Otherwise, he doesn't need Robin. You can't have it both ways and say he's always angry and too aggresive but that he doesn't need Robin.
I don't think Wonder Woman would make half a billion just because she's Wonder Woman. Many people will disagree with me on this but I don't think Wonder Woman is anywhere as iconic and as loved as people claim she is. I don't think you can sell Wonder Woman as easy as we claim she can. You can probably have a far better chance at selling Green Lantern and Flash to the public and make them become really iconic characters than you have with Wonder Woman. I always felt to me that people want her to be as iconic as the likes of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man but she just isn't. I find that many people (both the general public and comic book fans) try really hard to like her as if she was one of the big shot superheroes but it never works out. I'm too lazy to explain in detail why I think so since I just responded to Lord Shadow Z. Luckily, I found a video on YT long ago that perfectly sums up why I have this opinion.
Non-Animated DC is convinced you need to change her in some drastic way to get people to follow her, so comics puts her through two reboots and an elseworld in 2 years, and the TV and movie divisions toss around comic ideas.
Animated DC has already done everything they need to do and it worked!
She won't get by on icon status alone, but she's got major name recognition so all you need to do to make a ton of money is pair that name recognition with something good. You might not get Iron Man movie levels but Captain America and Thor movie levels should be no problem at all.
I never said a Wonder Woman movie won't work. I said that you can't expect it to make half a billion simply because it's Wonder Woman. That's what some people here seem to believe. They seem to believe that just because she is Wonder Woman, people will go see her movie like they do with Batman and Superman. You can make a good Wonder Woman movie that will do well but it will require a lot of work like Iron Man did. And before that, we need at least a basic version of Wonder Woman in the comics. Every writer does something completely different with her and yet we expect Warner Bros to be able to be consistent and do her justice. Although I still Flash has the best chance to reach Iron Man movie levels and followed by Green Lantern (if they do him justice in the sequel/reboot/whatever they're doing next).
There is no damn reason why Wonder Woman should be this extremely difficult project to translate into live action. Seriously, just look at the animated solo DVD she did or George Perez' run or even Gail Simone's.
did anyone check christopher nolans IMDB page? he is listed as one of the writers for the batman reboot. hes probably only the producer, since he is going to oversee all dc movies.
Yes but when we see the body under the suit it makes a difference. You have to believe Batman is this guy who can kick anyone's butt.
I've felt that way since Batman Begins.
What I didn't mean that's how it always works. Yes a lot of fun making is because of how silly something is. But a lot of the time they just like making fun of something that's popular. Look at how often people make fun of the "My precious" line from LOTR. Or how often Star Wars fans make fun of Star wars.
Well it's impact and success and the anticipation each movie has created is fact and not opinion. What's opinion is Bale's impact on this most successful take on Batman.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 23rd, 2012 04:20 PM
