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.

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.

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.

well many Batman fans realise that unlike Burton,Nolan didnt take a shit on Batman and his character.He didnt turn him into a cowardly killer like Burton did and he actually cared about making the best casting choice possible for Bruce wayne by casting someone that actaully looked the part so Nolan gets off much easier.Your correct on some points but others your not though.

Yes Nolan got away with the machines guns but thats because his movies were much more faithful to the source material so they let it slide.

the second part? sigh.We've been through this before.The second point is comparing apples to oranges,theres no comparison.That was a cowardly act of batman murdering those Jokers goons in the factory and its pretty clear he murdered MOST of them.Totally unnessary and cowardly act that could have been avoided.the batman from the comics would have sent the batmobile in and unleashed sleeping gas.

Also Burtons Batman carelessly put the lives of innocent bystanders in danger when he was shooting the joker with the batplane.He could EASILY have killed any of those innocent bystanders.

oh and forget saying that Nolans Batman could have done the same thing in Begins because the news reported on tv there were no casualtys.also his girlfriends life was in danger,and only starting out like he was,he wasnt thinking straight.When your loved ones life is in danger like that,people tend to not think rationally.Now if he had been doing this forever and was a seasoned veteran, I wouldnt cut him any slack.

With Nolans Batman Begins,as i have said many times before,he was one of the very last ones out so HIS life was just as much in danger as everyone else's was in that monestary so if he got out unhurt,thats reaching saying some of the others did not get out.There was no evidence that anybody got killed so until any surfaces,that point is mute.

The fans didnt go insane over Burton changing harvey dent.With Keaton yes,any true fan would.But they didnt say anything about Dent.

Ras Al Ghul? Okay this one you are correct,they were silent on it.I myself wasnt crazy about the change but since the movie was so great,I got over it quickly.

Penguin? of course they are going to go insane. That was stupid as hell with no justification whatsoever.

Nolans Joker? Youre incorrect on that one dude.
Myself and Selina Kyle when she was here,actually agreed with each other.we both did not like the change of the joker and were up in arms about it.I still hate the change and wish that Nolan had stayed true to his look but the movie was so awesome that again,I could overlook that.I didnt like the change but I can overlook it..I always said the movie could have been even better.I would have enjoyed it even more so if Nolan had not made that unnessary change.Many Batman fans on other message boards like me and selina did not like that change at all either.

Nolan didnt take ANYWHERE near as many liberties as Burton did and did not take a shit on the fans either so the Nolan fans like myself can overlook the changes such as the joker and Ras al Goul for the most part because like i said,Nolan did not take a shit on the fans with a horrible casting choice for Batman or making him into a cowardly killer or make extremely boring movies,ect ect and the difference between Burton and Nolan is the positives for the nolan films far outweigh the negatives where with the burton films,the negatives far outweigh the positives so of course the fans arte going to cut Nolan some slack.

the other thing I just thought of how theres no comparison of the Burton and Nolan Batman films as far as liberites being taken,except the guns being on the motercycle in Nolans The dark knight which again,i dont approve of at all.That upset ME what Nolan did in The Dark Knight mounting the guns on his motorcycle like that.I always said that The Dark Knight wasnt the best possible movie that it COULD have been.That it could have been even better if Nolan had not made that stupid change along with The look of the Joker.

The three things that really pissed me of about the dark knight is the guns on the motorcycle,the look of the joker-I get slightly pissed still when I watch that movie since it was such a moronic and unnessary change with no justification for it,I guarantee,there are others out there that feel the same way like me and selina,and finally and this is right up there with the look of the joker,maybe even more so,that it appears that Nolan killed off Harvey Dent.If he is in fact REALLY dead,I am very angry with Nolan now because that is a mistake.

I just cant believe Nolan could be so stupid to kill off an important villain like that and I still dont believe he is dead,wont until I see the next film.I just cant possibly believe Nolan would do such a stupid thing killing off an important villain like Two face.I mean come on,thats a Burton and Schumacher thing.I just cant believe Nolan would stoop to the level of those stupid idiot morons who should never have been allowed to go near a Batman movie.

Like spiderman rocks said,the change Two faces origin actually worked well within the story of the dark knight so there really isnt much of a comparison in his origin and how they altered Bruce waynes origin in Burtons Batman.again thats comparing apples and oranges because with altering Bruce waynes origin in Burtons Batman,after he killed the joker,he might as well have hung up his cape and cowl right then and there because thats his motivation he has for fighting crime is in the comics,he cant get any justice done to the death of his parents because in the comics,he didnt know who his killed of his parents were for ages.

In Batman Begins,it works perfectly and makes sense that he continues to fight crime after his parents are gone because like he explained in the movie,he cant get justice done for his parents getting killed because someone else silenced the killer of his parents for him so since he cant get any justice done for his parents killer in the fact someone else did his job he wanted to do,he is still motivated to go out and fight crime.and even though he was going to kill his parents killer,he didnt,so he never killed anybody and later realised that killing was wrong and never did so so thats why Batman fans cut Nolan some slack especially how in Burtons Batman,he made it perfectly clear he was going to kille the joker saying-Im gonna kill you and forget about it that that was just an expression,he was tormented by his parents death and wanted to kill him.

That was so obvious to everybody.Burton made him into a cowardly killer that was a wuss in fights,Nolan did not and showed off what a great fighter he was so of course fans are going to cut Nolan some slack.again when the positives far outweigh the negatives like Nolans films do,people can overlook things like the look of the joker and the guns on the motorcycle,however when a director takes a shit on the batman fans like Burton did haveing the negatives far out weigh the positives and rape to death his character and not even try to make the best casting choice possible for the role and cast someone just cause your friends with that actor,well the outrage form batman fans towards Burton is justified.

So I went on vacation and after I came back, I completely forgot to reply here (I don't spend a lot of time on these forums; I go to other sites). Today, I remebered this thread and decided to go and check to see if anyone replied to my posts. And what do I see?

"Do The Inaccuracies From The Comics Really Bother You? -Last Post by Mr. Parker at 1:07 PM" And that was enough for me to know in which direction this thread is going LOL. Does anyone else find Mr Parker's comments funny? It's funny seeing him get pissed off. I don't know why but I find it hilarious whenever I see him b*tch about movies in general (whether I agree with him or not) XD. Anyways, it will take some time to reply to all of these people so... *checks number of comments*

....here we go.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
So I went on vacation and after I came back, I completely forgot to reply here (I don't spend a lot of time on these forums; I go to other sites). Today, I remebered this thread and decided to go and check to see if anyone replied to my posts. And what do I see?

"Do The Inaccuracies From The Comics Really Bother You? -Last Post by Mr. Parker at 1:07 PM" And that was enough for me to know in which direction this thread is going LOL. Does anyone else find Mr Parker's comments funny? It's funny seeing him get pissed off. I don't know why but I find it hilarious whenever I see him b*tch about movies in general (whether I agree with him or not) XD. Anyways, it will take some time to reply to all of these people so... *checks number of comments*

....here we go.

*****? thats not bitching just pointing out the facts how Burton took a shit on the batman fans. at least i have a lot better things to do than go around resurrecting old dead buried threads in the batman section especially when the thread starter who made the thread is long gone.. oh and apperanty your brother thinks i make quality good posts when I point out how bad Burton disgraced the batman comics and his character,him saying that I would own Burton batman fans in discussions that you invited me to come to one time at another site where you and him post at or have you already forgotten that? I can bring back that post where he said that if you have already forgetten when he said that.

oh one more thing,yeah the direction of this thread thanks to you,has gone to hell thanks to your unnessary and uncalled for personal attack.your obviously just sore and mad since I made that comment about resurrecting an old dead buried thread so you had to throw in a low cheapshot.thats obvious since you have never done that with me before.unless batdude comes back and wants to continue a friendly discussion i was trying to have with him.its time to leave this thread for good now especially since it was an old dead buried thread in the first place.

Originally posted by Mr Parker

Nolan didnt take ANYWHERE near as many liberties as Burton did and did not take a shit on the fans either so the Nolan fans like myself can overlook the changes such as the joker and Ras al Goul for the most part because like i said,Nolan did not take a shit on the fans with a horrible casting choice for Batman or making him into a cowardly killer or make extremely boring movies,ect ect and the difference between Burton and Nolan is the positives for the nolan films far outweigh the negatives where with the burton films,the negatives far outweigh the positives so of course the fans arte going to cut Nolan some slack.

Dunno about that you just seem like a massive hypocrite. I'm a Batman fan hell I might prefer Burton but thats for sentimental reasons. Nolans Gotham can't hold a candle to Burtons Gotham, thats one department were Burton is the winner. It's not just the design of the city but some scene had such a powerful atmosphere.

Despite any hypocrisy from others in this thread, I agree that the positives far outweigh the negatives when it comes to the Nolan films, and the oddities of those movies aren't as extreme to me as a black guy playing Harvey Dent, Joker being the one to kill Bruce's parents instead of Joe Chill, etc. Not to say that the Burton movies were utter fail though.

Originally posted by Deadline
Dunno about that you just seem like a massive hypocrite. I'm a Batman fan hell I might prefer Burton but thats for sentimental reasons. Nolans Gotham can't hold a candle to Burtons Gotham, thats one department were Burton is the winner. It's not just the design of the city but some scene had such a powerful atmosphere.

Burton had the right idea for the look of gothem and was headed in the right direction with it making it darkly like he did,but he went overboard with it and made it TOO dark to the point you could not see what was going on most the time in the night scenes where Nolan he did it just right.dark but not where you couldnt tell what was going on.Thats one of the reasons i actually prefer Batman Forever to the Burton films is i like to actually be able to see what I am looking at.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Despite any hypocrisy from others in this thread, I agree that the positives far outweigh the negatives when it comes to the Nolan films, and the oddities of those movies aren't as extreme to me as a black guy playing Harvey Dent, Joker being the one to kill Bruce's parents instead of Joe Chill, etc. Not to say that the Burton movies were utter fail though.

thats fair enough.for me that was one of the few things I had no problem with in the Burton films is a black guy playing Harvery Dent.But thats probably because Im a huge fan of Lando though and it was good to see him in another movie-Billy that is. what I got a kick out of when I saw Batman Begins at the theaters is when Joe Chill killed his parents i heard people whispering in the audience-I thought The Joker killed his parents. Once these people who never read the comics like those people obviously hadnt,they are going to discover how Burton totally betrayed the source material and should never have been allowed near a batman franchise. That Nolans films were more accurate and closer to it.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Burton had the right idea for the look of gothem and was headed in the right direction with it making it darkly like he did,but he went overboard with it and made it TOO dark to the point you could not see what was going on most the time in the night scenes where Nolan he did it just right.dark but not where you couldnt tell what was going on.Thats one of the reasons i actually prefer Batman Forever to the Burton films is i like to actually be able to see what I am looking at.

Have no idea what you're talking about don't remember struggling to see anything.