Do The Inaccuracies From The Comics Really Bother You?

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!

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.

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?

I know I'm doing a horrible thing by ressurecting this thread but I feel like I have to say this since it's kinda been bothering me.

I've recently rewatched all the Batman movies (all 13 of them; the 7 live-action ones & the 6 animated ones) so my opinion of them is fresh at the moment. You can't expect a movie to be 100% faithful to the comics. That goes for every adaptation out there. Anyone that expects that from an adaptation is a fool. However, getting the basics of the characters should be fine. And I feel that Nolan got the basics of all the characters right with the exception for maybe Ra's Al Ghul (some people on this thread brought up Flass and Loeb too but they're very minor characters so it's not a big deal if they were altered; although Flass still had the corrupt personality despite looking different and Commissioner Loeb was more based on the African-American Commissioner from No Man's land (forgot his name) than the Loeb from Year One but whatever) whereas Burton couldn't get the basics of the characters at all except for maybe Alfred. And I feel that the changes you brought up were either minor changes or were changed to make the movie "flow" more or were either not changes at all. The Joker did create Two-Face in the movie but even though they changed Two-Face's origin, the idea was actually very well done and fit in with the story a lot more. I trust Chris Nolan knew was he was doing. Plus, Harvey/TF was still Harvey/TF of the comics despite the origin change. Where as the problems that most people have with the Burton films is that the characters don't ACT like how they act in the comics (example: Batman killing people). Rachel Dawes isn't a change at all. Unlike Spider-Man and Superman, Bruce Wayne doesn't have a consistent love interest. He can have any love interest and it would still be accurate to the character. Even writers in the comics brought their own original love interest for Bruce Wayne many times. So it's fine that Nolan created a love interest. I agree on Ra's Al Ghul. He still kinda had "heart" and personality of the comics Ra's Al Ghul but his backstory and motivations was altered a LOT so I guess hardcore fans of him have the right to be dissapointed by that. And finally, Scarecrow. I didn't find him watered down. I just think he didn't have enough scenes, which means not enough time to show his true potential. My little brother found him scary though LOL. I think Scarecrow was done alright. He could have been done better if he had more screen time but I still think it was a good representation of the character. However, I HATE the way they defeated him. A taser? Seriously? Ugh. I hated that. Worst part of the movie.

Batman killed in the comics right up to the mid to late 80s, and sporadically after that. It's not unheard of.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I know I'm doing a horrible thing by ressurecting this thread but I feel like I have to say this since it's kinda been bothering me.

I've recently rewatched all the Batman movies (all 13 of them; the 7 live-action ones & the 6 animated ones) so my opinion of them is fresh at the moment. You can't expect a movie to be 100% faithful to the comics. That goes for every adaptation out there. Anyone that expects that from an adaptation is a fool. However, getting the basics of the characters should be fine. And I feel that Nolan got the basics of all the characters right with the exception for maybe Ra's Al Ghul (some people on this thread brought up Flass and Loeb too but they're very minor characters so it's not a big deal if they were altered; although Flass still had the corrupt personality despite looking different and Commissioner Loeb was more based on the African-American Commissioner from No Man's land (forgot his name) than the Loeb from Year One but whatever) whereas Burton couldn't get the basics of the characters at all except for maybe Alfred. And I feel that the changes you brought up were either minor changes or were changed to make the movie "flow" more or were either not changes at all. The Joker did create Two-Face in the movie but even though they changed Two-Face's origin, the idea was actually very well done and fit in with the story a lot more. I trust Chris Nolan knew was he was doing. Plus, Harvey/TF was still Harvey/TF of the comics despite the origin change. Where as the problems that most people have with the Burton films is that the characters don't ACT like how they act in the comics (example: Batman killing people). Rachel Dawes isn't a change at all. Unlike Spider-Man and Superman, Bruce Wayne doesn't have a consistent love interest. He can have any love interest and it would still be accurate to the character. Even writers in the comics brought their own original love interest for Bruce Wayne many times. So it's fine that Nolan created a love interest. I agree on Ra's Al Ghul. He still kinda had "heart" and personality of the comics Ra's Al Ghul but his backstory and motivations was altered a LOT so I guess hardcore fans of him have the right to be dissapointed by that. And finally, Scarecrow. I didn't find him watered down. I just think he didn't have enough scenes, which means not enough time to show his true potential. My little brother found him scary though LOL. I think Scarecrow was done alright. He could have been done better if he had more screen time but I still think it was a good representation of the character. However, I HATE the way they defeated him. A taser? Seriously? Ugh. I hated that. Worst part of the movie.

You do realise with this quote you are essentially saying Nolan didn't change much, if anything and even if he did it's okay?? Confusing/hypocritical much??

Nolan made Lucius Fox an inventor of high-tech gadgets, in the comics he's a businessman.

Nolan melded Ducard (an assassin who was crucial to Bruce's training) with RAG (who has no Lazurus Pit, or daughter called Talia, at least not yet)

Nolan made Crane (good performance from Murphy regardless) into a doctor who's evidently in control at Arkham (in place of Jeremiah Arkham), from a character who was a geeky, awkward beanpole who read books all day and was frightened of birds (tell me again what Crane saw when he got the fear toxin in Begins? Demon or bird?)

Nolan (from what I've seen, I'm not professing to know much about TDK) changed Joker into a complete 'without frills' killer who had a penchant for knives (sounds suspiciously like Zsasz... you know, the character that was marginalised in Begins) from a happy, friendly and harmless clown - who could turn on you in an instant.

This is actually more hilarious when you consider Nolan has copied almost all the elements from Burtons interpretation, honestly go through them with a checklist. He still puts Batman in heavy rubber (which reduces and removes Batmans agility and fighting ability to something of a joke), has the love interest/villains be the focal point of the movie, has his Batman be reckless with killing and not saving people, reveals Batman's identity (to said girlfriends, who want him to settle down awwww...) and other characters etc.

Burton/Schumacher may have got these and a lot more wrong but they got the spirit and adventure of Batman comics right, and didn't hide when a creative or 'flamboyant' aspect of the comics came along. Nolan's ultimate and immediate solution is to 'water down' everything from the comics until it is only vaguely recognizable - just look at that thing they're passing off as Bane and that Catwoman/Trinity hybrid. If Burton/Schumacher get criticism (which amazingly started to flow around about the time of TDK), for drastically changing the characters and the universe then so should Nolan.

I respect your opinion though, I'm not meaning to sound ranty but there it is...

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
You do realise with this quote you are essentially saying Nolan didn't change much, if anything and even if he did it's okay?? Confusing/hypocritical much??

Nolan made Lucius Fox an inventor of high-tech gadgets, in the comics he's a businessman.

Nolan melded Ducard (an assassin who was crucial to Bruce's training) with RAG (who has no Lazurus Pit, or daughter called Talia, at least not yet)

Nolan made Crane (good performance from Murphy regardless) into a doctor who's evidently in control at Arkham (in place of Jeremiah Arkham), from a character who was a geeky, awkward beanpole who read books all day and was frightened of birds (tell me again what Crane saw when he got the fear toxin in Begins? Demon or bird?)

Nolan (from what I've seen, I'm not professing to know much about TDK) changed Joker into a complete 'without frills' killer who had a penchant for knives (sounds suspiciously like Zsasz... you know, the character that was marginalised in Begins) from a happy, friendly and harmless clown - who could turn on you in an instant.

This is actually more hilarious when you consider Nolan has copied almost all the elements from Burtons interpretation, honestly go through them with a checklist. He still puts Batman in heavy rubber (which reduces and removes Batmans agility and fighting ability to something of a joke), has the love interest/villains be the focal point of the movie, has his Batman be reckless with killing and not saving people, reveals Batman's identity (to said girlfriends, who want him to settle down awwww...) and other characters etc.

Burton/Schumacher may have got these and a lot more wrong but they got the spirit and adventure of Batman comics right, and didn't hide when a creative or 'flamboyant' aspect of the comics came along. Nolan's ultimate and immediate solution is to 'water down' everything from the comics until it is only vaguely recognizable - just look at that thing they're passing off as Bane and that Catwoman/Trinity hybrid. If Burton/Schumacher get criticism (which amazingly started to flow around about the time of TDK), for drastically changing the characters and the universe then so should Nolan.

I respect your opinion though, I'm not meaning to sound ranty but there it is...

Did you understand what I said in my post? I said that character is what matters. I'm fine with changes to the characters as long as they don't MAJORLY affect the character's personality or destroy the purpose or message of a character. Most of the changes aren't major to the character overall or are changes for the better.

Let's start off with Lucius Fox. Yeah, he makes high-tech gadgets aside from his job as a business man. Does this change his personality and character at all whatsover? He is like in the comics except that his role was expanded and was turned into one of the major characters with the whole high-tech thing. You're right about Ra's and Ducard. As I said, he was altered a lot. But that change works IMO due to multiple reasons:
1) It ties in plot points in the movie and builds up for a great plot twist towards the final act.
2) It pays a nice homage/tribute to one of the men that trained Bruce while he travelled the world (Ducard, of course).
3) It stays true to Ra's Al Ghul's character. Ra's is a liar to Batman in the comics. He constantly lies to him and tries to trick him. He lied to Batman in his first appearance if you go back and read those issues. So the change fits for Ras' character.
As a side note, the Lazarus Pits and Ra's immortality as hinted throughout Begins. Plus, Liam Nelson is apparently coming back in TDKR.

They got the basics of Scarecrow's character and personality right. A geeky psycologist who has a creepy obsession with fear and enjoys seeing people in fear. Yeah, they TOTALLY got that wrong. Crane even worked at Arkham for a period in the comics. Yeah, his fear of birds is missing but I can live with that since it's not really one of the most appealing things about the character. Plus, we didn't get to know anything about him since he had so little screen time and wasn't the main focus of the film either. Doing a flashback or something showing him getting locked up in the church full of birds by his grandma would have been filler and wouldn't have served the character in the movie at all. My only complaint with him was that he wasn't as over-the-top as he is in the comics. Until the final act where he gets hit by his own fear gas and does get like that. By that point, I totally saw him as comic book Scarecrow.

He has a penchant for death, anarchy, and chaos in general. That's how his character has been portrayed in almost every version. "Happy, friendly and harmless clown"? The Joker has been portrayed as nothing but a complete far-beyond-the-normal-human-level insane psychopath that cannot be controlled or let loose since The Killing Joke. Read The Killing Joke, The Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum: Serious House On Serious Earth, Man Who Laughs, Long Halloween, and the first few issues with the Golden Age Joker. Heath's Joker is a lot like those Jokers.

"This is actually more hilarious when you consider Nolan has copied almost all the elements from Burtons interpretation, honestly go through them with a checklist." Let's hear them then 🙂 .

"He still puts Batman in heavy rubber (which reduces and removes Batmans agility and fighting ability to something of a joke)." He's not wearing rubber. He's wearing more armor. And this isn't a flaw caused by Nolan. It's a flaw that EVERYTHING that's Batman live-action related has. Can you think of one good Batman costume in live-action? The costume in B89 was the best one by far IMO but it still didn't leave a great impression on me. Until Warner Bros finds a way for a costume from the comics to be adapted onto screen, we will keep getting not-that-great Batman costumes because nothing else works for now. This will probably be the same case with the next reboot too. However, Nolan did correct many parts of the live-action costume. Bale is by far the only Batman besides West that has the ability to turn his head. So I see an improvement 😄 .

"has the love interest/villains be the focal point of the movie" That's completely false. Batman is the main focus and focal point in Batman Begins. Batman, Harvey, Gordon, and Joker all get about equal screen time in TDK. It's not the same thing as Batman being a supporting character like in the Burton films and his villains leading the story.

"has his Batman be reckless with killing and not saving people" I know you're probably talking about him "killing" Ra's Al Ghul. Aside from accidentaly pushing Two-Face down, (which is an accidental death so it doesn't really go against the character; NOT the same thing as him blowing up a factory full of people disregarding all of their lives like how he did in B89. THAT goes against the character) Batman did not kill anyone else in BB and TDK and that's INCLUDING Ra's Al Ghul. He left him on a train to die but I don't think he could have saved him anyways. Have we seen him carry a person while he was gliding or while using his grappling gun at any point in both movies? Never happened except for short distances. I doubt Batman could have saved him even if he wanted to.

"reveals Batman's identity (to said girlfriends, who want him to settle down awwww...) and other characters etc." Aside from Rachel, who else did he reveal his identity too? You're making it sound like he revealed his identity to SO many people. Lucius most likely figured out on his own as there were hints in Begins of him knowing of Bruce's double life since he was the one who made all that tech for him. In fact, even Rachel figured it out on her own. He simply told her "It's not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me." What he means by that his identity is not important and that his identity IS Batman and always was Batman and that the person "underneath" is all an act (like how he pretends to be a playboy in the comics). If that line is the same thing to you as saying "Rachel, I am Bruce Wayne" then I don't know what to say to you. And must I remind you how he unmasked himself in front of Catwoman (while Penguin still being there) in Returns while in B89, Alfred lead a person into the Batcave? Yeah. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference.

Sure Burton's movies have the "fun" aspect of the comics but Nolan's movies have the dark serious gritty aspect of the Batman comics. But my problem with Burton's films isn't the tone. It's the characters being different and the story being different that bother me in Burton's films. I recently rewatched them and even as MOVIES the story and characters weren't very impressive either. The characters in general lacked depth (except for maybe the Joker) and in Returns' case, made no sense story wise. Nolan doesn't water down fantasy elements (except for Ra's obviously) but simply underplays them or prefers to use sci-fi elements (examples: Bane and Scarecrow). BB and TDK aren't realistic. They're just MORE realistic than other comic book movies. But still not realistic. As for TDKR, don't just assume that he's going to water down or make drastic changes to those characters when the movie isn't even done filming yet and we barely have any pictures or full details about it. I agree Catwoman looks terrible but for all you know, that could just a prototype/first draft suit like Batman's first costume (the ski mask one) in Begins. Selina Kyle did start out as just a regular cat burglar before calling herself Catwoman in the comics. So I refuse to make any assumptions like that about the characters at least until we have a trailer (not a teaser; a trailer).

Ouch. My hand hurts from all that typing. Gotta relax now 😮‍💨 .

Originally posted by -Pr-
Batman killed in the comics right up to the mid to late 80s, and sporadically after that. It's not unheard of.

Batman hasn't killed in the main continuity comics since his first year of publication.

edit

spidermanrocks

I did understand your message and you make good points here but;

Changing Fox's role is a big deal because it turns him from a company businessman (largely in the background) who handles all the financial stuff for Bruce into a character that is actively involved in his role as Batman. This causes problems because every time Bruce needs an update to a suit, or a new gadget, or a new vehicle, or a cure for the fear toxin he goes to Lucius. This removes the idea that Bruce is able to do any of this himself and it downplays his effectiveness as a genius and a detective if he has to go cap in hand to Lucius every time theres a crisis.

In the case of Ra's fair enough but in terms of Ducard I really don't consider that a homage to the character when he is a character in his own right and his role in Bruce's training just being blithely handed over to a main villain.

Fair point about Scarecrow but the moment he was hit by his own fear toxin I expected some nod to his fear, or even just a little moment in the film where he comes across some birds and just avoids them - obviously afraid. Nothing drastic like a flashback, for what its worth I like Murphy's Scarecrow.

The Joker, well I must be too used to the norm when considering the Joker. And I never said he was a harmless clown, but in fact thats how he ACTS for the most part before going violent towards his victims. But I believe when you do that to a character who for the most part in his history has been what I said and turn him into a straight psycho with the only quirks being his appearance, then you can't possibly use other characters that are of a similar type to that mindset. Because if you put Nolan's Joker next to Zsasz, Killer Croc, Clayface (the human one), Cornelius Stirk, Black Mask and many others they all start to look quite similar in respects to their natures. Joker's 'jokey' personalilty in the comics serves to make him different to all of these, thats why it works.

I realise it's meant to be armour but its still an over-exaggeration of armour that doesn't need to be done. You've mentioned that the other films do that, and I can only agree but thats the point. Why continue to inhibit Batman in this way? Nolan could have broken the norm and changed all that, giving Batman a flexible costume (using pseudo science) which would allow Batmans' athletic and fighting abilty to come to the fore, instead, in the Nolanverse he's restricted to one fighting style and his cape makes his athletic ability redundant.

The love interest/villains do kill the Batman movies, but its a question of some more than others and both Nolan movies up to now have done the 'damsel in distress' routine and it is an annoying trend that is prevalent in many other superhero movies too. If you look at the villain angle I don't think you can call out the previous franchise for overcrowding or for the villains to leading the story when you consider that although Begins was an origin story it still had 3 main villains, TDK had 4 (and lots of second tier ones too) TDKR? Christ knows but it's like there's a new one joining every week.

I agree, the killing/or endangerment isn't as in your face as the Burton version but its still disappointing to see Batman not saving Ra's, smashing over police cars (good thing for Alfred's handy quote to tell us no-one had been killed...), having missiles/firearms on the Tumbler and Batpod and then moralising about not killing and hating guns - its mixed messages thats all.

He reveals his identity to Rachel (and it was clearly meant that way), Lucius knows who he is (he shouldn't even be a major character, never mind know who he is), RAG (and anyone connected to the LOS), Mr Reese and who knows who will even know or find out in the next one.

Catwoman may not be fully fleshed out yet but that doesn't explain the drastic change in Bane. Honestly it looks like he's wearing a pair of metallic Y-Fronts on his head - thats supposed to be less silly than a Luchador mask? And if they have to up his height using camera angles then that just tells me they've got the wrong actor (physically) in the first place. Also the voice/accent, sounds English to me, very dramatic English as well...

Lastly,why are you making out that I think these things didn't happen in the previous franchise? I clearly stated that Burton, Schumacher and Nolan made the same mistakes, that was my point.

I need an internet beer after that one... 🍺

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Batman hasn't killed in the main continuity comics since his first year of publication.

of course he has (as rare as it is). he's also attempted to kill several people, like kgbeast.

@Lord Shadow Z
First of all, Lucius is both a business man and a high tech gadget inventor. Second, him being majorly involved in Bruce being Batman hurts the Batman character, not Lucius Fox himself. Lucius is still Lucius of the comics. But you do bring up a very valid point about the Batman character in the Nolanverse. That's one of the flaws the character has in both films (Bruce not inventing all of that stuff himself). I didn't have a problem with it in Begins since he just started out as Batman and wasn't fully developed as Batman so I kinda bought it but TDK takes place a year after and he STILL gets most of his gadgets from Lucius. I'll admit I don't like that either. I prefer the Batman who makes all the gadgets himself. Good point.

Character merges happen a lot in comic book adaptations. In both movies and tv shows. Ra's and Ducard weren't the first ones and won't be the last ones either. I respect your opinion if you don't like that but the merging worked better for the movie IMO since Bruce and Ra's already had an established relationship. And it built up to an interesting plot twist towards the final act. It's a change that made sense if you ask me (and before anyone brings this up, I don't have a problem with ALL the changes in Burton's films; even in those films there are still some liberties they took that I thought made sense).

A moment with Scarecrow coming across a set of birds and avoiding them would have been good in the movie, I admit that. It would have been a nice nod to his fear in the comics. But in your last post, you said "tell me again what Crane saw when he got the fear toxin in Begins? Demon or bird?" If he saw a giant human-like bird instead of a demon, the audience would have been like "WTF" if you know what I mean. So for that scene, I don't think showing a giant bird instead of a demon wouldn't have worked. On a side note, for a franchise that likes to pull elements from stuff like Long Halloween, I'm glad they didn't use Jeph Loeb's crappy version of Scarecrow that talks in nursery rhymes (Damn you, Jeph Loeb 😠 ).

The difference between those characters and the Joker is that unlike them, the Joker has a sense of humor. Both in the comics and in TDK. His sense of humor is usually shown through dark comedy. His character is supposed to be terrifying while being funny (through dark comedy) at the same time. TDK captured this perfectly. I'm sure you remember all or at least most of the scenes with dark comedy in the movie. Also, the Joker does have his "jokey" personality in the movie. I'll even quote you some of the stuff I remember him saying from the movie. Keep in mind that I don't remember the whole dialogue so these lines aren't 100% accurate (more like 80%):
"Batman will slowly get you. And then little Gambol here won't be able to give a penny to his grandma *smiling creepily while saying it*.
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen! We are tonight's entertainment! Does anyone know where I can find Dent? I just need to talk to him for a little bit. Just for a bit *tastes and tries out the food and drinks while doing all of that"
*Kicks the truck driver out of the truck and takes it* "Me! I wanna drive!"
*Pins Batman down and prepares to hear the boats blow up* "Stay here. You're going to miss the fireworks!"
That's all I remember from the top of my head. I remember there being a few more scenes. But anyways, there you go. Dark comedy and jokey quotes (jokey in a dark twisted way). As for him acting and looking like a harmless clown at first, that also depends on the writer even in the Post-Crisis stories. Some writers and artists (both together) depict him as looking both like a complete messed clownish-looking psychopath with a dark sense of humor added to him that at no point shows any signs of acting as a "harmless, innocent, happy clown" while some writers while others make him the same psychopath I just described but with occassional clown features or silly features to him both in visual look and character, like how you see him. Long Halloween for example. In one part, he is upset that all the attention in Gotham is on the Holiday killer and not on his crimes while in another part, he hijacks a plane and plans to kill everyone in Gotham Time Square on New Years because he believed the Holiday killer was in that crowd.

I just said it was armor instead of rubber. I never said I LIKED the armor costume. In fact, I actually don't like it. You're right that Batman can have a costume that's a lot more flexible. We'll hopefully see one some day. But Nolan's Bat costume is said to be a lot more flexible than any other costume so far (except West's) since he can turn his head and do a bit more stuff.

Good point about the damsel in distress being a problem in most superhero films. I had some problems with the Rachel Dawes character in Begins. She wasn't that great of a character. Not a bad one but not a good one either. She was written ok but was acted HORRIBLY. Katie Holmes can't portray a strong female character. Maggie did a much better job though IMO.

Overcrowded? Begins: Scarecrow get little screen time, Ra's only appeared in the final act, and Carmine Falcone is a mob boss (I live with the thought that every Batman movie needs at LEAST 1 mob boss) and was just there for the sake of having a mob boss and for representing how Gotham's crimes. TDK: Scarecrow makes a brief appearance, Joker gets plenty of screen time (Batman, Joker, Harvey, and Gordon all get equal screen time), Sal Maroni is a mob boss and...well like I said about Falcone in Begins, and Two-Face was probably the only one with little screen time. They do have a lot of villains but with Batman's world, it fits just fine. And it wasn't like, for example, Spider-Man 3.

I do agree it's dissapointing he didn't save him but as I said, I don't think he could have saved him even if he wanted to. No one was killed in the police car like you said. The Batmobile has missiles and firearms on it because it is based on Frank Miller's tank batmobile in The Dark Knight Returns, which had the same thing. It doesn't have mixed messages because he never killed anyone and didn't intend to kill anyone with the firearms on the batmobile. He uses the firearms for stuff like stopping the Joker's truck but believes killing is wrong and refuses to kill anyone nonetheless. So I don't see it as a mixed message.

I guess Rachel can be interpreted in both ways. Some interpret it as him giving a hint and some don't. Some even interpret it in both ways or aren't sure. So I don't know what to say to that. I can't say you're right but I can't say you're wrong. I already covered Lucius in my last post. He didn't reveal his identity to Ra's or the LOS. They obviously figured it out on their own since they knew Bruce's fear of bats, trained him, and knew that he wanted to fight crime in Gotham. They TRAINED him and taught him all of his abilities. So it's obvious that they figured it out. He never told Reese anything. He deduced his identity on his own.

I don't have a problem with Bane's mask. What I do have a problem with is everything else (visually at least). He seems to be wearing some army suit with a bulletproof vest. I prefer the black undershirt look of the comics. There is a brief moment in the trailer where he appears to be wearing the same undershirt he wears in the comics (or something similar at least) but in every other picture I've seen, he wears an army suit with a bulletproof vest and a jacket at the same time. I don't have a problem with his height if they will use camera angles to make him appear taller. And what voice/accent? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there is a TDKR trailer or clip out yet where you can hear Bane's voice.

"Lastly,why are you making out that I think these things didn't happen in the previous franchise? I clearly stated that Burton, Schumacher and Nolan made the same mistakes, that was my point." Actually, in my last post I said that the only flaw Nolan's films and Burton's films have in common is the heavey rubber/armor suit.

Originally posted by -Pr-
of course he has (as rare as it is). he's also attempted to kill several people, like kgbeast.

He hasn't killed anyone since his first year of publication. The only exception I remember when he attempted to kill someone was when he tried to kill Darkseid but under that situation, it made sense. The whole purpose of that part of the comic was to show how far Batman would go without breaking his only rule and to show what it would take for Batman to break his rule.

KGBeast? Are you talking about when Batman locked up KGBeast in the underground room? Have you read Year Three? It's revealed in that book that Batman contacted the police to come come and get KGBeast after that.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
He hasn't killed anyone since his first year of publication. The only exception I remember when he attempted to kill someone was when he tried to kill Darkseid but under that situation, it made sense. The whole purpose of that part of the comic was to show how far Batman would go without breaking his only rule and to show what it would take for Batman to break his rule.

KGBeast? Are you talking about when Batman locked up KGBeast in the underground room? Have you read Year Three? It's revealed in that book that Batman contacted the police to come come and get KGBeast after that.

He has killed, both accidentally and on purpose. There's an actual list of the deaths he's caused either directly or indirectly.

I didn't know about the KGBeast thing, my bad.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks

Character merges happen a lot in comic book adaptations. In both movies and tv shows. Ra's and Ducard weren't the first ones and won't be the last ones either. I respect your opinion if you don't like that but the merging worked better for the movie IMO since Bruce and Ra's already had an established relationship. And it built up to an interesting plot twist towards the final act. It's a change that made sense if you ask me (and before anyone brings this up, I don't have a problem with ALL the changes in Burton's films; even in those films there are still some liberties they took that I thought made sense).

The difference between those characters and the Joker is that unlike them, the Joker has a sense of humor. Both in the comics and in TDK. His sense of humor is usually shown through dark comedy. His character is supposed to be terrifying while being funny (through dark comedy) at the same time. TDK captured this perfectly. I'm sure you remember all or at least most of the scenes with dark comedy in the movie. Also, the Joker does have his "jokey" personality in the movie. I'll even quote you some of the stuff I remember him saying from the movie. Keep in mind that I don't remember the whole dialogue so these lines aren't 100% accurate (more like 80%):
"Batman will slowly get you. And then little Gambol here won't be able to give a penny to his grandma *smiling creepily while saying it*.
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen! We are tonight's entertainment! Does anyone know where I can find Dent? I just need to talk to him for a little bit. Just for a bit *tastes and tries out the food and drinks while doing all of that"
*Kicks the truck driver out of the truck and takes it* "Me! I wanna drive!"
*Pins Batman down and prepares to hear the boats blow up* "Stay here. You're going to miss the fireworks!"
That's all I remember from the top of my head. I remember there being a few more scenes. But anyways, there you go. Dark comedy and jokey quotes (jokey in a dark twisted way). As for him acting and looking like a harmless clown at first, that also depends on the writer even in the Post-Crisis stories. Some writers and artists (both together) depict him as looking both like a complete messed clownish-looking psychopath with a dark sense of humor added to him that at no point shows any signs of acting as a "harmless, innocent, happy clown" while some writers while others make him the same psychopath I just described but with occassional clown features or silly features to him both in visual look and character, like how you see him. Long Halloween for example. In one part, he is upset that all the attention in Gotham is on the Holiday killer and not on his crimes while in another part, he hijacks a plane and plans to kill everyone in Gotham Time Square on New Years because he believed the Holiday killer was in that crowd.

I just said it was armor instead of rubber. I never said I LIKED the armor costume. In fact, I actually don't like it. You're right that Batman can have a costume that's a lot more flexible. We'll hopefully see one some day. But Nolan's Bat costume is said to be a lot more flexible than any other costume so far (except West's) since he can turn his head and do a bit more stuff.

I do agree it's dissapointing he didn't save him but as I said, I don't think he could have saved him even if he wanted to. No one was killed in the police car like you said. The Batmobile has missiles and firearms on it because it is based on Frank Miller's tank batmobile in The Dark Knight Returns, which had the same thing. It doesn't have mixed messages because he never killed anyone and didn't intend to kill anyone with the firearms on the batmobile. He uses the firearms for stuff like stopping the Joker's truck but believes killing is wrong and refuses to kill anyone nonetheless. So I don't see it as a mixed message.

I guess Rachel can be interpreted in both ways. Some interpret it as him giving a hint and some don't. Some even interpret it in both ways or aren't sure. So I don't know what to say to that. I can't say you're right but I can't say you're wrong. I already covered Lucius in my last post. He didn't reveal his identity to Ra's or the LOS. They obviously figured it out on their own since they knew Bruce's fear of bats, trained him, and knew that he wanted to fight crime in Gotham. They TRAINED him and taught him all of his abilities. So it's obvious that they figured it out. He never told Reese anything. He deduced his identity on his own.

I don't have a problem with Bane's mask. What I do have a problem with is everything else (visually at least). He seems to be wearing some army suit with a bulletproof vest. I prefer the black undershirt look of the comics. There is a brief moment in the trailer where he appears to be wearing the same undershirt he wears in the comics (or something similar at least) but in every other picture I've seen, he wears an army suit with a bulletproof vest and a jacket at the same time. I don't have a problem with his height if they will use camera angles to make him appear taller. And what voice/accent? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there is a TDKR trailer or clip out yet where you can hear Bane's voice.

Actually, in my last post I said that the only flaw Nolan's films and Burton's films have in common is the heavey rubber/armor suit.

If I haven't quoted a part of your post then it generally means I've agreed (grudgingly... 😄 )

I still think character merges are unnecesary, for example they could still have had Neeson being a subordinate to the 'fake Ras' along with another actor playing Ducard as the trainer of Bruce. Then the deception angle could still have worked and Ducard would have been a separate character. That is easy to say in hindsight I know.

Firstly, I hope I haven't given you the impression that I've seen TDK (apologize if I have), but I still know a lot about the film and how the Joker is presented both visually and performance-wise. But the dialogue you've posted is still, to me, too brutal sounding and more of what I'd expect from another character in Batman's universe. I 've said this before on the forum and again it strikes me how Nolans Joker looks like something more like Burton would have done (grungy, dark, like his Penguin).

Well the TDK suit has been said to be heavier than the BB suit so I don't see how that equates to better flexibilty. Apparently he can turn his head but thats a small change for the unnecessary sectioning on the chest and legs and other visual problems. Its just that for the Schumacher suits to get so much criticism for the nipples and muscles on it and the TDK to escape such scrutiny is confusing to me. I mean, Forever is largely hated because of that and it's hypocritical.

Again, I'll admit the killing and guns thing is largely based on interpretation but if Nolan wanted to make a veritable difference between the franchises then he should have made that difference and shown a Batman who doesn't kill and isn't overly reckless. The scene in Begins where he throws the gun away makes the TDK image of him firing guns/missiles seem like a different character. Thats where the mixed messages come from for me. Burton/Schumacher's Batman didn't moralise about how killing is wrong and then do it, or try to do it; so theres no mixed message.

Whether it's people finding out or Batman telling them outright is still something thst irks me a lot. The universe should be constructed on the principle that no-one can find out, no matter the reasons or holes in logic.

I don't like the mask, or the overall look - it just doesn't scream Bane to me. And, I've seen the teaser and at the end he does look big and menacing but so did Keaton in some scenes and in other scenes his height is fairly noticeable, especially in the belfry. You are still going to get scenes where he will look small and if , like I said if they have to resort to camera tricks then that says it all about his physicality. I would have preferred Javier Bardem for Bane - that man has presence, size AND would fit the accent/voice. The Hardy/Bane voice?, it's all over Youtube now. Might have post-production work to do on it but the cadence of the voice is still clearly english sounding.

I think the hypocrisy of Nolan film fans/Burton film bashers is evident in every argument I've had with them. Let's go over some of the highlights...

Burton's Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile to shoot away obstacles (like the garage door at Axis) and Burton gets thrown under the proverbial bus by fans.

Nolan's Batman has machine guns on his Batpod to shoot away obstacles (like the trash cans and debris in the chase scene) and not a single peep out of anyone.

Burton's Batman endangers/kills a factory compound full of criminals who used the site to commit heinous crimes (like creating poison to spread through the city which = murder) while it can be inferred that not every thug at the factory was by the Batmobile when it dropped the bomb, thus some actually probably escaped. Yet Burton gets thrown under the proverbial bus.

Nolan's Batman endangers/kills a monastery compound full of criminals who used the site to commit heinous crimes (like kidnapping petty thieves/crooks and executing them which = murder) while we see some ninjas escape through the windows we can infer that not every ninja escaped, thus some actually probably were killed in the fire. Yet Nolan gets off scott free.

Burton changes Harvey Dent: The fans go insane.

Nolan changes Ras Al Ghul: The fans are silent.

Burton changes Penguin: The fans go insane.

Nolan changes Joker: The fans are silent.

See what I'm getting at?

Nolan's taken just as many liberties with the material as Burton did. That's not to say Nolan hasn't made wonderful Batman films, but the fact that the liberties Burton took are highlighted and outcast while Nolan's are ignored shows intense bias, imo.

Couldn't agree more. The Burton bashers aren't really any different or better than the Nolan bashers when it comes down to it though, hypocrisy or not (granted, the latter aren't nearly as common on this forum).

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I think the hypocrisy of Nolan film fans/Burton film bashers is evident in every argument I've had with them. Let's go over some of the highlights...

Burton's Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile to shoot away obstacles (like the garage door at Axis) and Burton gets thrown under the proverbial bus by fans.

Nolan's Batman has machine guns on his Batpod to shoot away obstacles (like the trash cans and debris in the chase scene) and not a single peep out of anyone.

Burton's Batman endangers/kills a factory compound full of criminals who used the site to commit heinous crimes (like creating poison to spread through the city which = murder) while it can be inferred that not every thug at the factory was by the Batmobile when it dropped the bomb, thus some actually probably escaped. Yet Burton gets thrown under the proverbial bus.

Nolan's Batman endangers/kills a monastery compound full of criminals who used the site to commit heinous crimes (like kidnapping petty thieves/crooks and executing them which = murder) while we see some ninjas escape through the windows we can infer that not every ninja escaped, thus some actually probably were killed in the fire. Yet Nolan gets off scott free.

Burton changes Harvey Dent: The fans go insane.

Nolan changes Ras Al Ghul: The fans are silent.

Burton changes Penguin: The fans go insane.

Nolan changes Joker: The fans are silent.

See what I'm getting at?

Nolan's taken just as many liberties with the material as Burton did. That's not to say Nolan hasn't made wonderful Batman films, but the fact that the liberties Burton took are highlighted and outcast while Nolan's are ignored shows intense bias, imo.

I may profile that. Kudos to you, good sir.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I know I'm doing a horrible thing by ressurecting this thread but I feel like I have to say this since it's kinda been bothering me.

I've recently rewatched all the Batman movies (all 13 of them; the 7 live-action ones & the 6 animated ones) so my opinion of them is fresh at the moment. You can't expect a movie to be 100% faithful to the comics. That goes for every adaptation out there. Anyone that expects that from an adaptation is a fool. However, getting the basics of the characters should be fine. And I feel that Nolan got the basics of all the characters right with the exception for maybe Ra's Al Ghul (some people on this thread brought up Flass and Loeb too but they're very minor characters so it's not a big deal if they were altered; although Flass still had the corrupt personality despite looking different and Commissioner Loeb was more based on the African-American Commissioner from No Man's land (forgot his name) than the Loeb from Year One but whatever) whereas Burton couldn't get the basics of the characters at all except for maybe Alfred. And I feel that the changes you brought up were either minor changes or were changed to make the movie "flow" more or were either not changes at all. The Joker did create Two-Face in the movie but even though they changed Two-Face's origin, the idea was actually very well done and fit in with the story a lot more. I trust Chris Nolan knew was he was doing. Plus, Harvey/TF was still Harvey/TF of the comics despite the origin change. Where as the problems that most people have with the Burton films is that the characters don't ACT like how they act in the comics (example: Batman killing people). Rachel Dawes isn't a change at all. Unlike Spider-Man and Superman, Bruce Wayne doesn't have a consistent love interest. He can have any love interest and it would still be accurate to the character. Even writers in the comics brought their own original love interest for Bruce Wayne many times. So it's fine that Nolan created a love interest. I agree on Ra's Al Ghul. He still kinda had "heart" and personality of the comics Ra's Al Ghul but his backstory and motivations was altered a LOT so I guess hardcore fans of him have the right to be dissapointed by that. And finally, Scarecrow. I didn't find him watered down. I just think he didn't have enough scenes, which means not enough time to show his true potential. My little brother found him scary though LOL. I think Scarecrow was done alright. He could have been done better if he had more screen time but I still think it was a good representation of the character. However, I HATE the way they defeated him. A taser? Seriously? Ugh. I hated that. Worst part of the movie.

you sure like resurrecting these old dead threads. 🙄