Nolan's Superhero Films

It's hard to give Batman the kind of personality when the film isn't centered around him. As I said before, making it a sole Batman film just makes it less interesting for some.

We just gonna act like Nicholson didn't "steal the show" from Keaton? There have been numerous studies done and that's just what is going to happen when you have a Batman film with a good Joker. Joker, the more interesting character, will ineveitably steal the show. I don't think Neeson or Murphy upstaged Bale in Begins. Hardy's Bane on the other hand.......

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The look of dispassionate disapproval he gave when ordered to behead a man still haunts me to this day.

Would you rather a gasp of horror?

Batman isn't exactly one for big emotional displays bro.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But as a rendition of the Joker character? They're equals. Neither version is superior to the other. Same goes for Mark Hammil's. Each variation is perfect for the atmosphere and tone that they're in. Ledger's would be horribly out of place in Jack's film, and vice versa.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Would you rather a gasp of horror?

Batman isn't exactly one for big emotional displays bro.

Over the course of a trilogy, the central character and movie namesake should be undergoing some sort of emotional and behavioural evolution--especially in a series that's supposed to be so dramatic and explosive. Harvey underwent his character arc in a single movie, and it was a much steeper, more active arc than Batman's was in the entire trilogy. Hence, "he's boring".

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Mark Hammil IS the Joker. Just like Conroy IS Batman. Hard to imagine them not fitting in any situation where the character arises. When you read the books I'm willing to bet they're voices are speaking for the characters in your head. So, in essence, they are superior.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
It's hard to give Batman the kind of personality when the film isn't centered around him. As I said before, making it a sole Batman film just makes it less interesting for some.

We just gonna act like Nicholson didn't "steal the show" from Keaton? There have been numerous studies done and that's just what is going to happen when you have a Batman film with a good Joker. Joker, the more interesting character, will ineveitably steal the show. I don't think Neeson or Murphy upstaged Bale in Begins. Hardy's Bane on the other hand.......

Who said Nicholson didn't steal the show? Nicholson is an acting legend, a veritable cinematic juggernaut, vastly superior to the likes of Bale or Ledger. Of course he stole the show from Keaton. But Keaton had the chops to at least make it a fight. Bale, on the other hand, was utterly steamrolled.

And I don't buy the argument that the Joker is inherently more interesting than Batman anymore than I think extroverts are more interesting than introverts. If done correctly, this could have been a clash of two equally fascinating actors and characters: Ian McKellen vs. Patrick Stewart, anyone?

As for upstaging Bale, Eric Roberts upstaged Bale.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Ian McKellen vs. Patrick Stewart, anyone?

It's a telling indictment of your sense of romance, Canadian, that the term "vs." compels you to think of amorous relationships.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
It's a telling indictment of your sense of romance, Canadian, that the term "vs." compels you to think of amorous relationships.

Hi-larious!

Is Stewart the gay or bald one?

...and the ignorance continues....

THIS Batman fan had no problem with how Nolan created his interpretation of one of the best comic book characters of all time..

there wasn't anything wrong with what he did or how he said it..

got a problem with them simply put do not go see them.. as for his involvemnt with Man of Steel, he "godfathered" Snyder , so now he(Snyder) can take control of what should a great series..

Nolan could very well be involved in future comic book films and no one on here can do anything about it..

peoples incessant ignorance over his Batman trilogy is just dumb

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
...and the ignorance continues....

THIS Batman fan had no problem with how Nolan created his interpretation of one of the best comic book characters of all time..

there wasn't anything wrong with what he did or how he said it..

got a problem with them simply put do not go see them.. as for his involvemnt with Man of Steel, he "godfathered" Snyder , so now he(Snyder) can take control of what should a great series..

Nolan could very well be involved in future comic book films and no one on here can do anything about it..

peoples incessant ignorance over his Batman trilogy is just dumb

You're kind of an ass, aren't you?

...And the wanking continues...

Bruce
...and the ignorance continues....

THIS Batman fan had no problem with how Nolan created his interpretation of one of the best comic book characters of all time..

Cool story bro.

Unfortunately for THAT Batman fan, who apparently labors under a particularly debilitating case of malignant narcissism, THIS Batman fan doesn't share THAT Batman fan's opinions.

More importantly, THIS Batman fan doesn't have to. Welcome to the internet, place of free exchange of opinions and ideas, no matter how contradictory.

Better grab a Kleenex for your tears and lube for your bum, because odds are that you'll see me criticize Nolan and his Batman films some more.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you mean the comics or books based off the animated series/video-games, then yes. Conroy and Hammil.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Who said Nicholson didn't steal the show? Nicholson is an acting legend, a veritable cinematic juggernaut, vastly superior to the likes of Bale or Ledger. Of course he stole the show from Keaton. But Keaton had the chops to at least make it a fight. Bale, on the other hand, was utterly steamrolled.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And I don't buy the argument that the Joker is inherently more interesting than Batman anymore than I think extroverts are more interesting than introverts. If done correctly, this could have been a clash of two equally fascinating actors and characters.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
As for upstaging Bale, Eric Roberts upstaged Bale.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
You hammered Bale for Ledger stealing the show on him. But failed to mention Nicholson having the same effect on Keaton. Also, I wouldn't consider Nicholson "vastly superior" to Bale.

Tempest, you consider yourself a Batman fan? 😆

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But Nicholson "stole the show" from Keaton, who tried to prevent the robbery. Ledger "vaporized the show", with Bale in it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
You hammered Bale for Ledger stealing the show on him. But failed to mention Nicholson having the same effect on Keaton.

And I explained to you why.

Bale didn't offer anything remotely charismatic about Batman/Wayne; he pretty much surrendered the audience's allegiance to Ledger without a fight.

Keaton, on the other hand, made Batman/Wayne intriguing and likeable.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Also, I wouldn't consider Nicholson "vastly superior" to Bale.

I would.

Bale might get there in time, but Nicholson is a Hollywood heavyweight.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
The rest is just your opinion and I'm not going to really get into at the moment.

It's all my opinion, guy. Just like your post is all your opinion. "Objective" artistic critique is a myth. We like what we like and some of us are intelligent enough to explain why, but there isn't a science to it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Humorous that you mention "chops" with Keaton as opposed to Bale.

It was intentional. Just like you think Ledger pulled off a better Joker than Nicholson, despite the latter being a legendary actor and the former being just dead Heath Ledger, I think Keaton's acting was better as Batman than the otherwise more reputable Bale.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Now, this, I will agree on. If done right, Batman should be much more interesting than portrayed in any previous live-action adaptation.

If they can take it up to Keaton's level, I'll be satisfied.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
How do you even compare this. One is the title character and the other is a minor one with not even 10 minutes of screen time(including ONE scene with Bale).

Roberts entertained me more.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
It was intentional. Just like you think Ledger pulled off a better Joker than Nicholson, despite the latter being a legendary actor and the former being just dead Heath Ledger, I think Keaton's acting was better as Batman than the otherwise more reputable Bale.

Nicholson being a 'legendary actor' doesn't automatically put his performance above Ledger.

Also calling him 'just dead Heath Ledger' is actually pretty disrespectful.

Personally though Keaton lacked the physical presence to be a believable Batman to me. He looks like a nerd, not mothaf*cking Batman.

Exactly. Are we just going to forget the physical aspect of this? Is that not part of the performance?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Exactly. Are we just going to forget the physical aspect of this? Is that not part of the performance?