Do The Inaccuracies From The Comics Really Bother You?

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.

Agreed

Originally 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