# Why Do Batman Fans Hate Christopher Nolan?



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 6, 2014)

I have a confession to make: I love CN's Batman trilogy. It's got continuity, memorable villains, and Hans Zimmer. The only other Batman flick that sticks out in my mind is Batman Returns...and I think CN's trilogy still wins out as my preference.


But I'm told that CN left several plot holes. And he apparently has a conservative take on Batman's capabilities, which kind of boggles my mind -- if Christian Bale plays a powered-down Batman, what does a powered-_up_ Batman look like?!


Obviously I've never read a Batman comic. 


So I'm curious: What are these plot holes, and why all the apparent hate?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 6, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I have a confession to make: I love CN's Batman trilogy. It's got continuity, memorable villains, and Hans Zimmer. The only other Batman flick that sticks out in my mind is Batman Returns...and I think CN's trilogy still wins out as my preference.
> 
> But I'm told that CN left several plot holes. And he apparently has a conservative take on Batman's capabilities, which kind of boggles my mind -- if Christian Bale plays a powered-down Batman, what does a powered-_up_ Batman look like?!
> 
> ...




You *liked* Barman Returns?!? Ugh. I'll take Nolan's Batman movies over Burton's any day, even with that stupid Barman voice they came up with.


----------



## horacethegrey (Apr 6, 2014)

I don't hate Christopher Nolan.

Then again, I'm not much of a Batman fan nowadays. But I give the man credit for giving us the best cinematic interpretation of the Dark Knight in like forever. Unlike Burton's offbeat and weird direction or Joel Schumacher's campyness, Nolan gave us a take grounded in the real world mired in darkness. He and Christian Bale also made Bruce Wayne a compelling character, unlike Burton or Schumacher. Not to say he skimped on the villains, because they're among the best comic book villains to appear on film (particularly Heath Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane).

That said, I do find him highly overrated as well. His dialogue can get incredibly pretentious and his action scenes can be somewhat lacking (not the vehicle stuff though, love the scenes with the Tumbler).

Batman fans should be happy at Christopher Nolan for keeping the Dark Knight alive in the public eye.


----------



## frogimus (Apr 6, 2014)

They have worn the paint off Batman, Spiderman, and Superman.  Anytime I see a movie teased for any of these IPs it just shows that Hollywood has very little imagination.

Redbox only, if I'm even tempted to see it.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 6, 2014)

Since I seem to be the one that provoked the question, and since I'm bowing out of the thread that seems likely to challenge 'Do Alignments Improve...' for most wasted verbiage, I might as well answer you.

I actually don't hate Christopher Nolan per se, but I do find it to be largely a triumph of style over substance.  I also think that a lot of the praise heaped on the movies stem more from what it isn't rather than what it is - it isn't a campy take on the material in style of the old Batman TV serials or the Tim Burton movies.  I think that change and shift to seriousness garnered Nolan a lot of credit from fans that were seriously tired of their favorite superhero being treated like a joke character.

But in terms of actually find them good, no, I don't find them good.  I find them highly overrated.  I found the situations and plots to be highly contrived and often illogical.  I thought the movies were poorly paced with just too much material crammed into the movie, too many villains, too little focus and character development, and way too much 'darker and edgier' for its own sake.   In many ways, none of the movies significantly improve over the Tim Burton crap and make almost all the same mistakes.  Batman Begins gives us both Ra's Al Ghul and The Scarecrow - both of which could fill up a movie on their own - on top of trying to do protagonist origins exposition.  The movie doesn't even really get started until 53 minutes into it, and then it has to resolve an overly complex plot involving two villains each of which also has to be introduced.  Why?!?!?  Who thought that was a good idea?  The Dark Knight gives us both the Joker and Two Face, each of which could carry a movie.  Why does a batman movie need 2-3 villains in every movie anyway?  No other superhero movie seems to need to be so unfocused. 

And I found Heath Ledger to be absolutely terrible as the Joker, although it part because the part was written so badly.  The joker is supposed to be actually charming, entertaining and funny - which is supposed to act in contrast to his complete brutality and disregard for life.  He got maybe one joke in the entire movie.  Mark Hamil is the only actor who has ever 'got' the joker and been given appropriate script to read for the character.   Ironically, I think I would have liked the Tim Burton casting better if they'd reversed some of it: Jim Carrey playing the irrepressible wildly over the top Joker, and Jack Nicholson as the prim, proper and yet explosively psychotic Riddler.  You need a comedian in one and a dramatic actor in the other, and they just got it wrong.

But, there are a couple of good scenes in each movie that save it from being utter crap.  In particular, The Dark Knight is almost redeemed in a single scene when the prisoner says, "I'm going to do what you should have done from the start..."  That's a really well written scene in the midst of an otherwise tedious movie.  

But I was overall so disappointed by second movie I didn't even bother to watch the third.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 6, 2014)

WoW..thats the frist person I've come arvoss that didn't like the TDK trio....many of the praises i have heard are due to the fact that Nolan wove in a number of different comic story lines to make each movie :



Begins - Batman: Year One (Bruce's origin mirrors that particular version, Commissioner Loeb, Carmine Falcone, Detective Flass), The Long Halloween (the idea of Batman, the police, and the DA's office presenting a united front; Scarecrow's appearance; Carmine Falcone's downfall), andContagion (Ra's Al Ghul tries to spread a plague across Gotham). The Man Who Falls was also cited as an influence.
Dark Knight - The Killing Joke (Joker tries to make someone go crazy, Joker's multiple origins), The Long Halloween (Dent gets disfigured and goes on a rampage, supervillains begin to take over the mob's place), Dark Victory (Commissioner Loeb dies), Batman: Year One (Gordon's family put at risk in the end), and Joker's original story from Batman #1/The Man Who Laughs (Joker arrives in Gotham and starts killing people). According to Steve Englehart, Nolan also cannibalised elements of Dark Detective and its unpublished sequel
	

Rises - Vengeance of Bane (Bane's origin is used for Talia, King Snake is substituted for Ra's) Knightfall (Bane shows up and breaks Batman's back),The Dark Knight Returns (an older Batman comes back to fight crime, Gotham is under a nuclear threat, Batman fakes his death), Son of the Demon(Batman gets involved with Talia Al Ghul), No Man's Land (Gotham gets blocked off from the rest of the US and declared a disaster area), Legacy (Bane and Talia working together), The Cult (An underground group of criminals take over Gotham, Gordon is put in the hospital as a result of trying to confront them), again, Batman: Year One (Catwoman's origins). There might also be a subtle inclusion of Batman Beyond (A younger man prepped to take Batman's mantle after he resigns towards the end).


----------



## Morrus (Apr 6, 2014)

They don't hate them.  The Nolan Batman movies are extremely popular.  Two of them made over a billion dollars.  I enjoy all three immensely.  They're as good, if not better in some ways, than the Marvel offerings.

At a guess, I'd say if you cast your net a little wider, you'd run across a more representative sample.  Heck, in a thread over in General, I discovered that I was the only person in the world with a smartphone - which is probably news to Apple!  Just goes to show that you have to be careful how you gather your data.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 6, 2014)

Go to Youtube. Look up "Everything Wrong With" and find the entries for the movies.

Problems: Casting
Bale cannot project emotion. He's worse than Kurt Russel (who can do emotion, but usually chooses not to). I haven't seen Bale express anything like a real emotion since Reign of Fire. He seem to specifically pick characters that are emotionally repressed.
Michael Caine is a great actor, but Alfred is NOT supposed to be that snarky.
Then made a big deal about the Japanese actors to play Raz al Ghul, but it was obvious from the very beginning that he was not going to be the villain, because he wasn't threatening.

Villains:
Raz al Ghul is supposed to be pronounced "Raish".
His plot and motivations are only thinly glossed over. The actual plan is idiotic and flawed.
ScareCrow is more of a comedy side-kick than a serious threat.
Joker is an insanely clever gangster (still all about the money), not an agent of chaos.
Bane is just about nothing like as depicted.
Catwoman is just about nothing like as depicted (even though she was the best part of the 3rd movie)

While there was a lot of potential, the first movie was unsatisfying, the second one was only successful due to Heath Ledger, and completely hinged on him, and the third one was just dumb.

Tim Burton's first Batman movie brought us the Bruce Timm cartoon, which brought us Superman: The Animated Series, which brought us Batman: Beyond, which brought us Justice League, which brought us JLU. Nolan's version brought us... Brave and the Bold? maybe? No, not even that.

I am far more impressed with the overall quality of Burton's version and vision that Nolan's. Aside from the CGI, Burton's was superior in every respect.

Like Lost, or Twin Peaks, Nolan's version is very much flavor of the moment, winning temporary acclaim, but a decade later I doubt it will be more than a footnote in most people's minds.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 6, 2014)

Yeah, while there's the occasional Nolan-Batman-hater, I think that the Nolan movies are overwhelmingly loved by Batfans. DKR perhaps more controversial than the other two.

For one, it's the cinematic version of Batman that's truest to the (modern) comics. The movies are pretty much cobbled together from some of Batman's most popular storylines.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 6, 2014)

I was (unlike with the rest of this comic book stuff) actually a fan of the Batman, particularly The Dark Knight Returns. Nolan did an excellent job of creating tone and I find his version an entirely worthwhoile reinvention of a myth that gets redone periodically. The movies are not without flaw, and the third one was really a disappointment, but I'd hardly say that Batfan equals Nolan hater.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 6, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> And I found Heath Ledger to be absolutely terrible as the Joker, although it part because the part was written so badly.  The joker is supposed to be actually charming, entertaining and funny - which is supposed to act in contrast to his complete brutality and disregard for life.  He got maybe one joke in the entire movie.  Mark Hamil is the only actor who has ever 'got' the joker and been given appropriate script to read for the character.




Like with most Batman debates, this depends a lot on which version or era you look at. Early Joker isn't so charming or funny. He's *menacing* and disturbing. And I appreciated that aspect of the Heath Ledger Joker.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 6, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Like with most Batman debates, this depends a lot on which version or era you look at. Early Joker isn't so charming or funny. He's *menacing* and disturbing. And I appreciated that aspect of the Heath Ledger Joker.




I'm not sure which era you mean as 'early'.  The Joker in his first appearance in Batman #1 is a wise cracking smooth criminal with a morbid sense of humor - and also a murderous psychopath.   In fact, if you read Batman #1 you'll be less struck by how the character of the Joker has morphed than you will of the Batman.  The early blue suited Batman trades puns back and forth with the Joker as often as he trades punches.   Batman has yet to evolve his straight man persona, Joker has yet to evolve the notion that this is some sort of contest between him and Batman, and Batman despite campy puns has yet to evolve the notion that he can't take life.

I don't believe you've captured the Joker until he is both funny and disturbing.  His ability to be both charming and menancing, and ultimately, his ability to mock us for consuming violent entertainment with Joker almost the incarnation of violent entertainment, is what's so intriguing about him as a villain.  The Joker plays on the borders of being an anti-villain, then disgusts us that we'd ever rooted for him.

The only scene in the movie where they get the Joker right is the scene with the pencil, at its only about 6 seconds long.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 6, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> I'm not sure which era you mean as 'early'.  The Joker in his first appearance in Batman #1 is a wise cracking smooth criminal with a morbid sense of humor - and also a murderous psychopath.   In fact, if you read Batman #1 you'll be less struck by how the character of the Joker has morphed than you will of the Batman.  The early blue suited Batman trades puns back and forth with the Joker as often as he trades punches.   Batman has yet to evolve his straight man persona, Joker has yet to evolve the notion that this is some sort of contest between him and Batman, and Batman despite campy puns has yet to evolve the notion that he can't take life.
> 
> I don't believe you've captured the Joker until he is both funny and disturbing.  His ability to be both charming and menancing, and ultimately, his ability to mock us for consuming violent entertainment with Joker almost the incarnation of violent entertainment, is what's so intriguing about him as a villain.  The Joker plays on the borders of being an anti-villain, then disgusts us that we'd ever rooted for him.
> 
> The only scene in the movie where they get the Joker right is the scene with the pencil, at its only about 6 seconds long.




Well the "early" Batman also used a gun.....


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Apr 6, 2014)

I don't have ever read a Batman comic, so my point of view naturally differs from other one's as I only have a vague idea of the characters to refer to.

Heath Ledger's Joker is an extremely strong character IMHO. You rarely see a villain as nihilistic and outright evil, and as chaotic as him. His motives are hard to fathom, it's next to impossible to foresee his next move. The makeup alone tells you that he is approaching hi sunset, just making the character all the more interesting. What is his history, what has made him like this? He was a successfull criminal, but how so?

Christian Bale's Batman isn't as strong a character, though the portrayal of a man living two lives where the border between them is threatened was rather convincing.

After Batman Begins, though, I still saw Batman with Michael Caine's Alfred and Morgan Freeman's Fox as a merry band of cool, anarchistic fighters for good, which didn't do the atmosphere of the film justice.


----------



## Richards (Apr 6, 2014)

My problem with the Christopher Nolan "Batman" trilogy is that Batman doesn't appear in them.

Oh, sure, there's a guy named Bruce Wayne who dresses up like a bat to fight crime, but that's pretty much where the parallels end.  The guy in these films is a wuss.  He hides in his mansion for 8 years because he's upset about what happened to his buddy Two-Face.  That's worth repeating: while crime runs rampant through Gotham City, this bozo _hides in his house_ -- for 8 years!

And then to cap it all off, he fakes his own death so he doesn't have to be Batman anymore.  He abandons Gotham City so he can run around Europe with Catwoman.

...I'm sorry, I don't know who that impostor is, but that definitely isn't Batman.  The Batman I know has dedicated his entire life to being Batman, so he can fight back against the criminals who plague his city.  The Batman I know sees Bruce Wayne as a part he must occasionally play between the times when he's doing his _real_ life's work, fighting crime as Batman.

The guy in the movie trilogy has it the wrong way around: he apparently sees his role as Batman getting in the way of the fun stuff he'd like to do as Bruce Wayne.  He jumped at the first chance to dump the whole Batman role so he could go party.

That said, I don't actually hate Christopher Nolan.  He's made some other decent movies.  I just wish when they were planning on making a Batman movie trilogy, they had given the reins to someone who would actually have Batman appear in them, instead of Nolan's pale imitation.

Johnathan


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 7, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Heath Ledger's Joker is an extremely strong character IMHO. You rarely see a villain as nihilistic and outright evil, and as chaotic as him.




I can completely understand that.  The Joker as portrayed by Heath Ledger does have some strong traits.  He's one of the few openly Neutral Evil characters in film.  I think you misunderstand if you think he's chaotic.   In Chaotic Evil, there is an attitude of, "The only way to get ahead is on the backs of others."  But there is no sign that his Joker character is trying to advance himself or even his own survival as an agenda - "He just wants to watch the world burn."   Destruction for its own sake, often motivated because you don't believe the world is worth saving, is a neutral evil agenda.  

And while the Joker as neutral evil in motivation is something I'd accept, the fact is that this character, while strong isn't what I want to see in The Joker.  That makes it difficult for me to relate in the way someone with no prior experience of the character probably would.  Ironically, by removing his charm, his humor, they make the joker less menacing because the really disturbing thing about the character is his charisma.  We want our pure evil to look ugly, scarred, and venomous so that we can easily reject it.  When that same pure evil is presented as an anti-villain, it's disturbing.  This is particularly effective when you hide the evil at first, garner some empathy, and then just rub it in the person's face that the villain has no redeeming qualities at all.



> His motives are hard to fathom, it's next to impossible to foresee his next move. The makeup alone tells you that he is approaching hi sunset, just making the character all the more interesting. What is his history, what has made him like this? He was a successfull criminal, but how so?




What you see as strengths, I across the board see as weaknesses.  If his motives are hard to fathom, then the character hasn't been drawn well.  The reason his moves are impossible to foresee, is that the character possesses profound 'magic' - the ability to conjure and teleport bombs.   He seems to have no logistic trail at all.  Things just happen magically because he wants them to.  He has no history.  He has no backstory.  He has no actual means of being a successful criminal.  There is no reason to think this guy could organize or create or stay in charge of an organization of the size that would be required to pull of his outlandishly complicated schemes.   He's not at all a believable character, and his schemes happen with the power of plot.  There is no way for a detective to anticipate him because there is no reality behind what he's doing.  It's like watching the story told by a bad improvisational DM where things just happen to challenge the PC's.  It's not like there is any story behind what we are watching on the screen.  It's shallow and empty. 



> Christian Bale's Batman isn't as strong a character...




Not only is his batman completely unsympathetic and flat, so that we are never really rooting for him, but he's just not given enough time to develop the character.  The story wants so much to happen in 2 hours, that by the time we jumped through all the stupid hoops necessary to advance the plot points, exposition to tell us what is going on, and minor character introductions - there just isn't any time to develop Batman.  Nolan is relying on the fact that Batman is pretty darn iconic to begin with and that people are going to bring some notion of the character and that he's someone you should care about to the film.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2014)

Richards said:


> My problem with the Christopher Nolan "Batman" trilogy is that Batman doesn't appear in them.
> 
> Oh, sure, there's a guy named Bruce Wayne who dresses up like a bat to fight crime, but that's pretty much where the parallels end.  The guy in these films is a wuss.  He hides in his mansion for 8 years because he's upset about what happened to his buddy Two-Face.  That's worth repeating: while crime runs rampant through Gotham City, this bozo _hides in his house_ -- for 8 years!
> 
> ...




There are thousands of versions of Batman. Every writer, artist, or filmmaker interprets the character differently. He's been around nearly a century, through a thousand interpretations. To pick one and declare it "wrong" is the height of hubris. Every version of Batman is valid, from Kane's gun-toting, wisecracking Zorro-like figure through the camp crusaders of the 60s, the grim interpretations of the Dark Knight Returns, the animated versions of the 90s, through the various modern films.  Nolan's interpretation of this character is perfectly valid, whether if be to your personal taste or not. Batman is grim, camp, hi-tech, low-tech, detective, action hero, gothic, procedural, hero, anti-hero, mysterious, popular, flashy, circumspect, and a hundred other things.

If that description of yours is "the Batman [you] know" you are being extremely selective. It's sure as heck not the Batman plenty of other people know, including the character's creators.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 7, 2014)

you realize that the only movie to even say this is how the Joker was made was Tim Burton's Batman....and in the character's own words :

"Something like that... happened to me, you know? Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another; if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"—The Joker, The Killing Joke


ugh I still can't believe I don't own a copy of that comic....


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 7, 2014)

frogimus said:


> They have worn the paint off Batman, Spiderman, and Superman. Anytime I see a movie teased for any of these IPs it just shows that Hollywood has very little imagination.
> 
> Redbox only, if I'm even tempted to see it.



It would be refreshing to give the old stand-bys a break, and introduce some newcomers to the big screen, wouldn't it?



billd91 said:


> You *liked* Barman Returns?!? Ugh. I'll take Nolan's Batman movies over Burton's any day, even with that stupid Barman voice they came up with.



Well, yeah...Michelle Pfeiffer!



Richards said:


> Oh, sure, there's a guy named Bruce Wayne who dresses up like a bat to fight crime, but that's pretty much where the parallels end. The guy in these films is a wuss. He hides in his mansion for 8 years because he's upset about what happened to his buddy Two-Face.



Interesting. I interpreted Batman's hiatus from crime fighting as part of his charade as the villain who killed Harvey. I honestly didn't notice enough emotion from Christian Bale in Aaron Eckhart's direction to surmise anything more than an impersonal alliance of good guys.



Richards said:


> And then to cap it all off, he fakes his own death so he doesn't have to be Batman anymore. He abandons Gotham City so he can run around Europe with Catwoman.



To be fair, Anne Hathaway _is_ hott. 



Celebrim said:


> What you see as strengths, I across the board see as weaknesses. If his motives are hard to fathom, then the character hasn't been drawn well. The reason his moves are impossible to foresee, is that the character possesses profound 'magic' - the ability to conjure and teleport bombs. He seems to have no logistic trail at all. Things just happen magically because he wants them to. He has no history. He has no backstory. He has no actual means of being a successful criminal. There is no reason to think this guy could organize or create or stay in charge of an organization of the size that would be required to pull of his outlandishly complicated schemes. He's not at all a believable character, and his schemes happen with the power of plot. There is no way for a detective to anticipate him because there is no reality behind what he's doing. It's like watching the story told by a bad improvisational DM where things just happen to challenge the PC's. It's not like there is any story behind what we are watching on the screen. It's shallow and empty.



I don't see it as a weakness, but you are right that CN's joker isn't truly human -- I actually kinda took "I'm an agent of chaos" as "I'm _literally_ a supernatural embodiment of Chaos." It mixes genres, but I'll be damned if I didn't love it!



Celebrim said:


> The joker is supposed to be actually charming, entertaining and funny - which is supposed to act in contrast to his complete brutality and disregard for life.



For all my love of CN's trilogy, I'd totally be into watching a different Hollywood take on Batman, with more character detail and a charming Joker. This is actually the first I've ever heard that the Joker can be charming and funny.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 7, 2014)

Richards said:


> My problem with the Christopher Nolan "Batman" trilogy is that Batman doesn't appear in them.
> 
> Oh, sure, there's a guy named Bruce Wayne who dresses up like a bat to fight crime, but that's pretty much where the parallels end.  The guy in these films is a wuss.  He hides in his mansion for 8 years because he's upset about what happened to his buddy Two-Face.  That's worth repeating: while crime runs rampant through Gotham City, this bozo _hides in his house_ -- for 8 years!




In *The Dark Knight Returns*, he had retired for 10 years while crime ran rampant. Was that not-Batman too?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 7, 2014)

billd91 said:


> In *The Dark Knight Returns*, he had retired for 10 years while crime ran rampant. Was that not-Batman too?




Considering how bad DKR was, yes.
I know it's considered iconic, and a revolutionary change in the way the characters interacted, but DKR suffered from the same bad writing as Watchmen: overly simplified reactionary politics of the writer. (Can't go into any more detail, as my critique would certainly violate this board's rules).
Aside from the notion that Batman and Super man wouldn't be chums because their styles of fighting crime conflict, DKR has nothing: Over-rated hogwash.

Yes, I said it. 

To say that calling one version of batman is right or wrong is hubris: no. The argument presented was entirely valid, and supported. Based on the character and motivations, the whole "taking 10 years off and not doing jack poop while crime ran rampant" was entirely out of character for any version of Batman. Any Version. Take _the_ defining characteristic of a person. Remove it. Is it the same person? No.

Consider: I somehow got the rights to make Justice League: The First Movie. I do the following: Superman is an aryan, cigar-smoking, steroid enhanced leftover from WWII (remember, Superman was originally conceived of as a villain), Batman is a birth-defect with enormous ears that give him active sonar and the ability to glide from tall buildings, Aqua-man is a water elemental with the combined IQ of the aquatic animals swimming within 50 feet of him, WonderWoman is a Raging "feminist" who grew up reading Ann Rand, Green Lantern is a former call girl who got a magic ring from a sorceror who didn't have any cash on him. Would you consider this a valid interpretation of the characters? Would this be "Justice League"?
Sure, I painted an extremely ugly and offensive picture. But if "any interpretation is valid", then so is this one.
(Note: I not only would not suggest making a movie with this version of the characters, I probably wouldn't want to see a movie with any one of these characters in any way.)


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 7, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> So I'm curious: What are these plot holes, and why all the apparent hate?



You are obviously mistaken. There is no widespread hate for the movies. Imho, they're the only good translation to the screen that has been done so far. Even if the third Batman movie was a tad disappointing.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 7, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> So I'm curious: What are these plot holes, and why all the apparent hate?




Part One [video=youtube;wEa_AXZZJUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEa_AXZZJUw[/video]
and [video=youtube;QeCDTYszuho]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeCDTYszuho[/video]

Part Two [video=youtube;XUohSqT-PZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUohSqT-PZg[/video]
and [video=youtube;u843KNE-exo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u843KNE-exo[/video]
and [video=youtube;seBpXt8_6xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs[/video]

Part Three [video=youtube;j2tE-BCwZtw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tE-BCwZtw[/video]
and [video=youtube;WQJuGeqdbn4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQJuGeqdbn4[/video]
and finally [video=youtube;fLyoog562x4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyoog562x4[/video]


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 7, 2014)

You can find those videos for almost every popular movie with in the last 5 years

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins even more than 5 years..they even did one of The Running man

EDIT II: however if it really bugs you that much, you should check out http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/TheDarkKnightSaga and then dive into each film's own headscratcher section..as a way to point out flaws with the movie.

EDIT III: As to the whole this bamtan was done wrong..there's only one true way junk..I guess someone needs to tell the editors at DC along with the writers too since they have had more different takes on batman than  GRUPS has books....Golden Age bats,sliver age bats,dark age etc...and that's not even getting to Earth 2 and so on and so forth so yes there really is NO one true one way of doing bats...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 7, 2014)

billd91 said:


> In *The Dark Knight Returns*, he had retired for 10 years while crime ran rampant. Was that not-Batman too?




I didn't have the impression that in the movie (I don't know the comic) that crime was running rampant.

In fact, a lot was alluded to that the Harvey Dent Act cleaned up Gotham City pretty well. Batman was not needed on the streets anymore, only as the vigilante turned bad that made the person Harvey Dent shine brighter.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 7, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> To say that calling one version of batman is right or wrong is hubris: no.




Yes.  Really, yes.  Kick and scream if you want, shout to the skies that it is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce.  Batman is modern mythology, so that saying there's only one correct Batman is like saying there's only one correct King Arthur or Zeus.  In fact, specifically, multiple versions for different times is expected.  Times change, and Batman *will* change with them.



> Based on the character and motivations, the whole "taking 10 years off and not doing jack poop while crime ran rampant" was entirely out of character for any version of Batman. Any Version. Take _the_ defining characteristic of a person. Remove it. Is it the same person? No.




Real people, however, are not static.  They do, in fact, change.  None of us is "the same person" forever. Humans cannot take combat level stress indefinitely and remain sane and operational.  Now, Bats isn't a real person, but he exists in part to address and reflect real-world things under guise of fiction.  If he fails to eventually bend, he ceases to be plausible to the modern mind, and then ceases to be a useful vehicle for much of anything.  Thus, the authors go with it and write a story in which any person, even the monomaniacal Batman, can burn out.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 7, 2014)

I thought the Nolan stuff was pretty damned good for what it is: A superhero movie.  Srsly, if you wanna dissect this stuff to hell and back I can't see the point in it.  It's summer movie trash, not cinema.  In that respect it does its job quite well - better than any previous version, that's for damned sure.  I mean, really.  It's _Batman_, not Being John Malkovich.

At any rate, I did have some problems with the series.  I liked the first one fine, loved Ledger's joker but also got fed up with the exaggerated voice BS.  Eventually I stopped caring about the series.  The only reason I was even remotely interested in seeing the third was to leer at Anne Hathaway in a skintight suit.  I've still only seen minutes of it and don't plan on watching it any time soon.  But yeah, best of the bunch by far.  That may not say a lot but ... Batman, not The Deer Hunter.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 7, 2014)

Yeah, actually there is only one real, true King Arthur.
Everything else is a legend or "inspired by" story. Mostly borrowing from the French legends of Lancelot.

Is Batman Sane? Are you sure?


----------



## Richards (Apr 8, 2014)

Morrus said:


> There are thousands of versions of Batman. Every writer, artist, or filmmaker interprets the character differently. He's been around nearly a century, through a thousand interpretations. To pick one and declare it "wrong" is the height of hubris. Every version of Batman is valid, from Kane's gun-toting, wisecracking Zorro-like figure through the camp crusaders of the 60s, the grim interpretations of the Dark Knight Returns, the animated versions of the 90s, through the various modern films.  Nolan's interpretation of this character is perfectly valid, whether if be to your personal taste or not. Batman is grim, camp, hi-tech, low-tech, detective, action hero, gothic, procedural, hero, anti-hero, mysterious, popular, flashy, circumspect, and a hundred other things.
> 
> If that description of yours is "the Batman [you] know" you are being extremely selective. It's sure as heck not the Batman plenty of other people know, including the character's creators.



Well thank you, Morrus, for the lesson on, and accusation of, hubris.

Go back to the original post, though.  The question was asked: "Why are Batman fans unhappy with the Christopher Nolan movies?"  I provided my answer as to why I didn't like them.  And just because different artists can present their own interpretations on Batman doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or enjoy them.  The answer I gave was simply my own personal opinion on how Batman should be, not a universal "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" line in the sand.

Otherwise, every reply in this thread would have to be variations of "I didn't agree with Christopher Nolan's take on Batman, although his take was a perfectly viable one and it would certainly be wrong of me not to have enjoyed it."  And that doesn't sound like much fun at all.

Johnathan
AKA: "The New Measuring Stick for the Height of Hubris"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 8, 2014)

Richards said:


> Go back to the original post, though.  The question was asked: "Why are Batman fans unhappy with the Christopher Nolan movies?"  I provided my answer as to why I didn't like them.  And just because different artists can present their own interpretations on Batman doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or enjoy them.



The way I see it, it's simply post-9/11 Batman. It's not an interpretation that Bob Kane or Frank Miller would have come up with, but it makes sense for this generation. To me, reading The Dark Knight returns used the character to capture the zeitgeist of the '80's. It's pop art. The Dark Knight poster with the Batman standing in front of a skyscraper with his symbol set upon it in flame is the same: it's something I can show to people twenty years from now and say "that's what it felt like to live in that era".

To me, it is different than anything before it, but it is entirely the real Batman. To say that it isn't, period, does seem impertinent. If it didn't seem right to you personally, that's fine, but that wasn't what came across from your earlier posts.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 8, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah, actually there is only one real, true King Arthur.
> Everything else is a legend or "inspired by" story. Mostly borrowing from the French legends of Lancelot.



Wait, are you saying that the only 'true' King Arthur story is the historical account of the real man that the King Arthur myths came from? I.e., the one we don't even know the name of? Or are you referring to the very first _known_ King Arthur myth, which may or may not be the first actual myth? Or maybe you mean one of the best-known tellings of the King Arthur myth?

Which one exactly is truer than the others?



Richards said:


> Well thank you, Morrus, for the lesson on, and accusation of, hubris.
> 
> Go back to the original post, though.  The question was asked: "Why are Batman fans unhappy with the Christopher Nolan movies?"  I provided my answer as to why I didn't like them.  And just because different artists can present their own interpretations on Batman doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or enjoy them.  The answer I gave was simply my own personal opinion on how Batman should be, not a universal "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" line in the sand.



I'm just going to say that 'pale imitation' and 'imposter' are strong words to throw around without an IMO to clarify the expressionless communication channel of an internet forum. Especially when others very much _are_ throwing opinions around as if those opinions are facts.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 8, 2014)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
The only "True" King Arthur is the actual King who ruled somewhere around the 5th Century.
Anything else is a legend, myth, or story, which may be losely based on the True historical person.
Now, if you want to work with the character based on the myths, fine. You may have an interpretation of the character. But will it be "True"? Strictly speaking, no. Not unless you have a time machine or are about 1600 years old and remember being there, or for some reason, have access to long lost secret historical records or such like.

I leave my earlier question open for any and all to answer. Would the Justice League I "proposed" be acceptable to you?


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 8, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> I leave my earlier question open for any and all to answer. Would the Justice League I "proposed" be acceptable to you?




If it came out of the blue with* no comic story line behind it* no it wouldn't be acceptable


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 8, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I thought the Nolan stuff was pretty damned good for what it is: A superhero movie.  Srsly, if you wanna dissect this stuff to hell and back I can't see the point in it.  It's summer movie trash, not cinema.  In that respect it does its job quite well - better than any previous version, that's for damned sure.  I mean, really.  It's _Batman_, not Being John Malkovich.




I just want to quote this because, in the thread that spawned this one, people mistakenly thought I was primarily making a comment on people who watch movies, rather than on movies.  This quote succinctly covers my major points.  People are permitted to like movies that they know are mindless entertainment.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 8, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> If it came out of the blue with* no comic story line behind it* no it wouldn't be acceptable




So that would be one vote for "Not all interpretations are valid"?


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 8, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So that would be one vote for "Not all interpretations are valid"?




You ignored the bold part..next time i'll underline it....Every recent batman movie has taken cues from the comics for polt points,tell me which comics your plans are pulled form and then we'll talk.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 8, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
> The only "True" King Arthur is the actual King who ruled somewhere around the 5th Century.
> Anything else is a legend, myth, or story, which may be losely based on the True historical person.
> Now, if you want to work with the character based on the myths, fine. You may have an interpretation of the character. But will it be "True"? Strictly speaking, no. Not unless you have a time machine or are about 1600 years old and remember being there, or for some reason, have access to long lost secret historical records or such like.



So your response to Umbran's comment is that since we don't know the true story of the real King Arthur, _none _of the King Arthur stories are acceptable. And, by inference, only the very first author's interpretation of Batman is acceptable.

I'm just going to say that while I can see how the Christian Bale Batman taking a hiatus and then retiring from crime fighting might ring hollow for a comic book aficionado, I just can't get myself worked up about it. If anything, these things make Batman a more believable character. I mean if there are no super villains to fight after Harvey's death, Gotham doesn't need him. And if fact hates him. Sure he could spend his Saturday nights taking down petty crooks, but leaving the small fish to the cops is a perfectly reasonable decision too. Likewise, I took his retirement as the result of character growth. I know Batman is just a super hero blockbuster, but I'm not going to complain if a bit of character growth worms its way into my mindless entertainment.

I don't see Batman's hiatus and retirement as at all comparable to your parody of the Justice League, but whatever. You've clearly got The Facts all worked out for yourself, and I'm just some dude who's never read a Batman comic, so I bow to your superior wisdom.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 8, 2014)

Yes, leave the small time crooks to the cops. The small-time victims don't matter--they're only people.

(Sorry, bold formatting didn't show up in my view).

King Arthur: The problem there is that there is a real, historical person. And the word "True" was used. True to history would require historical backing (the Bruckheimer movie from about 10 years ago says that they found new records, but doesn't say anything about what they are/were, so how can we judge it? Based solely on itself, it is an inferior movie. Judged by history, it is an inferior movie.) True to the original legend would require identifying the original legend and working from there.

Yes, Batman has had dozens if not hundreds of people writing for him, and he has evolved based on how seriously the writers took the character and how times and perceptions have changed (the 1940s movies are incredibly racist and stupid).
Nolan's movies do not reflect an understanding of the character. Bale's acting does not display any character whatsoever--more of a character void.
In that regard, they are both similar to the Bay/Orci/Kurzman version of Transformers--no understanding of the characters or world (all flash, no substance).


----------



## Richards (Apr 9, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I'm just going to say that 'pale imitation' and 'imposter' are strong words to throw around without an IMO to clarify the expressionless communication channel of an internet forum. Especially when others very much _are_ throwing opinions around as if those opinions are facts.



Okay, fair enough.  I guess I just assumed the "IMO" was assumed.

Johnathan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2014)

Just a question. Lots of Batman stories have had Batman taking a break haven't they?  Batman Beyond did I know. But aren't there several batman stories that have Bruce Wayne going into retirement?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But aren't there several batman stories that have Bruce Wayne going into retirement?



Given that Batman was first published 75 years ago this May, and stuff like Bat-Mite exists, it's probably a safe bet there have been stories featuring Bruce Wayne retiring. Or in a retirement home. Possibly in drag (Bat-Granny!).

As for the Nolan films, yes, some longtime fans didn't like them. Given the success of the series, I'm pretty sure many more did. That's just... math.

I think the real phenomenon here is how nerd audiences often like to express their affection for a given work through feelings of ownership, authority, and exclusion. "The definitive version is the one I like best", "I know the character/setting better than the writers", "I'm a _real_ fan", etc.

This is part of the reason why nerd criticism is sometimes indistinguishable from fan-fiction.

Personally, I found _Batman Begins_ to be competent, but largely forgettable (though I liked Cillian Murphy). _The Dark Knight_ was mostly excellent, a one-note film (existential urban dread) that hit it's note perfectly. And the _The Dark Knight Rises_ was something a mess, but also the most comic book-y of the three. I kinda the loved how operatic is was; the exaggerated length of Batman's sidelining, Bane's hijacking of Gotham City, Bats being cast down into the Pit of Metaphor. Of course, the happy ending was totally un-operatic.

I'll echo the sentiment that Nolan's films gave as a good Batman for their time. But I'm glad he's done.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> I have a confession to make: I love CN's Batman trilogy. It's got continuity, memorable villains, and Hans Zimmer. The only other Batman flick that sticks out in my mind is Batman Returns...and I think CN's trilogy still wins out as my preference.



I must confess, I don't like Tim Burton movies, but I did like Batman and Batman returns. 



> why all the apparent hate?



Some people just want a reason to complain, and they'll look long and hard until they find one. The Nolan movies are great for what they are: entertainment. As ZB mentioned, if you're going to a Batman movie (or any other super hero movie) expecting The Deer Hunter, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Consider: I somehow got the rights to make Justice League: The First Movie. I do the following: Superman is an aryan, cigar-smoking, steroid enhanced leftover from WWII (remember, Superman was originally conceived of as a villain), Batman is a birth-defect with enormous ears that give him active sonar and the ability to glide from tall buildings, Aqua-man is a water elemental with the combined IQ of the aquatic animals swimming within 50 feet of him, WonderWoman is a Raging "feminist" who grew up reading Ann Rand, Green Lantern is a former call girl who got a magic ring from a sorceror who didn't have any cash on him.



I want to watch that movie. I really do. If you start up a Kickstater for this movie, I'll support it.







> Would you consider this a valid interpretation of the characters?



Sure, why not? They're fictional characters. Every new writer and artist that works on a super hero comic is giving us their interpretation of the character.







> Would this be "Justice League"?



Sure, why not? I mean, it won't be the Justice League that people are expecting. It would be your interpretation of the Justice League.


> Sure, I painted an extremely ugly and offensive picture. But if "any interpretation is valid", then so is this one.
> 
> (Note: I not only would not suggest making a movie with this version of the characters, I probably wouldn't want to see a movie with any one of these characters in any way.)



I think your version would be far more entertaining than whatever Justice League movie the studios actually come out with.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

frogimus said:


> They have worn the paint off Batman, Spiderman, and Superman.  Anytime I see a movie teased for any of these IPs it just shows that Hollywood has very little imagination.
> 
> Redbox only, if I'm even tempted to see it.



I wouldn't say they have a limited imaginations. I just don't think they have the confidence in any of the other characters available. Batman and Superman are well known characters, even to non-comic book fans. They are two characters that most people have heard of. They are pretty much guaranteed to attract a large movie viewing, and paying, audience. Other characters, not so much. Making a movie isn't cheap, and he studios are not likely to invest in a character that they don't believe will make them their money back and a profits. Thus, we get stuck with Batman and Superman remakes.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 9, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I want to watch that movie. I really do. If you start up a Kickstater for this movie, I'll support it.Sure, why not? They're fictional characters. Every new writer and artist that works on a super hero comic is giving us their interpretation of the character.Sure, why not? I mean, it won't be the Justice League that people are expecting. It would be your interpretation of the Justice League.
> I think your version would be far more entertaining than whatever Justice League movie the studios actually come out with.




It's not the Justice League they need, but the one they deserve? Or is it "It's not the Justice League they deserve, but the one they need"?

(Please tell me you're joking--OK, the last sentence is probably true...)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> It's not the Justice League they need, but the one they deserve? Or is it "It's not the Justice League they deserve, but the one they need"?
> 
> (Please tell me you're joking--OK, the last sentence is probably true...)



Need? Deserve? No, it's the Justice League they get. You get what the studios put out. Some times is what you want. Some times is not. 

And no, I'm not joking, I'd watch your version of The Justice League.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And no, I'm not joking, I'd watch your version of The Justice League.



People watched the new Battlestar Galactica for four years, and it wasn't any more revisionist than your Justice League!

I mean, the creators of that show took a cheesy Star Wars knockoff featuring Lorne Green, a cute kid, and a robotic dog and turned into an apocalyptic soap opera for the War on Terror/War in Iraq & Afghanistan-era. With lots more sex. 

In fact, that bit of revisionist TV is widely considered a contemporary classic, up there along with the likes of The Wire.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 9, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I wouldn't say they have a limited imaginations. I just don't think they have the confidence in any of the other characters available. Batman and Superman are well known characters, even to non-comic book fans. They are two characters that most people have heard of. They are pretty much guaranteed to attract a large movie viewing, and paying, audience. Other characters, not so much. Making a movie isn't cheap, and he studios are not likely to invest in a character that they don't believe will make them their money back and a profits. Thus, we get stuck with Batman and Superman remakes.




Yeah, but thanks to JLU and even (I'm sorry) Smallville, Green Arrow has made it to his own series. He wasn't widely known outside of comic book fandom.

I blame the seeming deliberate failures and shoddy work with movies like Green Hornet, green lantern, and The Spirit. They took comic book/radio serial characters and utterly failed to translate them. Sure, they were matinee-fodder back in the day. So was Super-man, and they managed to make decent movies for him. (OK, one good, one decent, and 4 or 5 others).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So was Super-man, and they managed to make decent movies for him. (OK, one good, one decent, and 4 or 5 others).



Which superman movie do you consider to be the good one?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 10, 2014)

Mallus said:


> People watched the new Battlestar Galactica for four years, and it wasn't any more revisionist than your Justice League!
> 
> I mean, the creators of that show took a cheesy Star Wars knockoff featuring Lorne Green, a cute kid, and a robotic dog and turned into an apocalyptic soap opera for the War on Terror/War in Iraq & Afghanistan-era. With lots more sex.
> 
> In fact, that bit of revisionist TV is widely considered a contemporary classic, up there along with the likes of The Wire.



QFT.

If anyone ever needs proof that the original isn't automatically better than the remake, New BSG is it. Ten years after it aired, I'm still regularly listening to its soundtrack, and every time I see it on my netflix queue I get a little closer to rewatching it. For the second time!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah, but thanks to JLU and even (I'm sorry) Smallville, Green Arrow has made it to his own series. He wasn't widely known outside of comic book fandom.



There's a Green Arrow show? Is it cartoon or is it like Smallville?


> I blame the seeming deliberate failures and shoddy work with movies like Green Hornet, green lantern, and The Spirit. They took comic book/radio serial characters and utterly failed to translate them. Sure, they were matinee-fodder back in the day.



Those were all characters that the general movie going audience isn't too familiar with. They have limited a limited audience.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> There's a Green Arrow show? Is it cartoon or is it like Smallville?
> Those were all characters that the general movie going audience isn't too familiar with. They have limited a limited audience.




Green Arrow show was called "Arrow". Live, and unlike smallville, it has a plot rather than being a static soap-opera. Yes, it does have soap-opera elements, but the character has a mission, has a goal, and has a plan. And he is actively working it the whole time, rather than just trying to stay home on the farm and ignore the world around him.

Even if the characters weren't familiar, had the movies actually been good, people would have watched them and probably liked them, and maybe even discovered the comics through them. With what was done, and the way they were handled, I doubt very much if anyone wanted to discover their sources, or indeed pay much attention to them. I don't know what audience Green Hornet was made for, but Spirit and Green Lantern were strictly for comic fans.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 10, 2014)

I think a lot of a hate for the Nolan movies comes down to a couple factors:

* They weren't perfect / how the critic would have done Batman, so they sucked. Geeks are very binary and polarized by nature. 
* They were popular so they must be crap. The hipster paradox. We geeks are on the fringe so often, some feel they cannot enjoy anything with mainstream appeal.
* They had plot holes / were imperfect. Because, somehow every other movie's giant plot holes are excusable. 
* They didn't capture the essence of Batman. Because a character that is equal parts campy intergalactic cop, grim street vigilante, and gadgety superhero can totally be realized in any one interpretation.

But, as I tell the kids at my school, it would be a boring, boring world if we all liked the same thing. The Nolan trilogy is just as valid as the Schumaker toy commercials, the '90s cartoon film, the Burton Burtonesque movies, the cheesy '60s film, or the forgotten '40s serials. 
I loved Dark Knight and thought DKR was decent and worked as the conclusion to the Batman story the comics could never give the character. Someone can hate all they want and it doesn't affect my enjoyment. Maybe the Batman in _Superman Vs Batman _will be more to their liking.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 10, 2014)

When I think of comic book naysayers I'm always reminded of _Superman Returns_. The film was one giant homage to the Donner film-and-a-half from the late '70s. 
I quite liked it. Although I had to see it twice to get over the initial emotional bias from all the fan service. 

But there were a lot of people who didn't like the film, because of what we could do technically at the time that couldn't work as easily in the past. Such as a super brawl. There were the continual complaints of "Superman didn't throw a single punch!"
As a result, we got _Man of Steel_. The direct response to that complaint. 

There you go whiners. Superman throws punches. Happy?!?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 10, 2014)

I didn't like Superman Returns because it was... Boring. Really just dragged. and dragged... It felt so hollow and empty. And the "Twists" were entirely predictable.
In many ways, it and IJatKotKS were very much the same: long lost son introduced (but main character doesn't know he's the father), overblown sepia tones trying to pull nostalgia, deus ex machina resolution, and with the wrong directors in charge.

All I want it a good movie.
Really.
It shouldn't be that hard.
I'm open to an alternate interpretation, but you have to make an effort--maybe work to overcome a previous version--and put together a better story than previous.
And that, I think, is where most reboots and reinterpretations fail: they don't improve on the past. They don't learn the lessons of the past. They often repeat the mistakes of the past.
It is kinda sad


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Green Arrow show was called "Arrow". Live, and unlike smallville, it has a plot rather than being a static soap-opera. Yes, it does have soap-opera elements, but the character has a mission, has a goal, and has a plan. And he is actively working it the whole time, rather than just trying to stay home on the farm and ignore the world around him.



I've seen commercials for Arrow. I didn't know that was supposed to be Green Arrow. I tried to watch it once. That lasted about 10 minutes. 



> Even if the characters weren't familiar, had the movies actually been good, people would have watched them and probably liked them, and maybe even discovered the comics through them. With what was done, and the way they were handled, I doubt very much if anyone wanted to discover their sources, or indeed pay much attention to them.



I doubt even if the movies were good, that many people would care enough to go discover the source material. Besides, if you want a movie that is done well, you need to put money into it. A good writer is far more expensive than a bd writer. A good director is far more expensive than a bad director. If you can't convince the studios that there is a large audience for whatever movie you are wanting to make, you're not going to get a large investment from the studios. Thus, you are stuck with a smaller budget, and you need to prove that more money would get a larger audience.

The Green Lantern movie, while admittedly terrible, still got people talking. They could have made a much better movie, right? They could have made a movie, that like the Nolan Batman movies was financially successful. With enough of that type of talk, someone who matters may decide that it is worth putting in more money to make a good Green Lantern movie, even though the first one was horrible.

That being said, I don't think a Justice League movie will be any good. Sure, they can dump boat loads of money, get amazing actors, a great director, a group of awesomely talented writers, and the greatest special effects available, but the movie still has one weakness: it's a Justice League movie. 



> I don't know what audience Green Hornet was made for, but Spirit and Green Lantern were strictly for comic fans.



And that was part of the problem. Comic book fans aren't enough to make a movie financially successful, at least not a big budget movie. In fact, I'd argue that targeting comic fans is a terrible idea. Fans of the comics are the most annoying, most absurd, most hate filled fans of movie adaptations. Nerd rage runs rampant any time a new movie is made of someone's favorite hero. Anything from the actor chosen to play the hero to what comics influenced the movies gets torn down.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah, but thanks to JLU and even (I'm sorry) Smallville, Green Arrow has made it to his own series. He wasn't widely known outside of comic book fandom.
> 
> I blame the seeming deliberate failures and shoddy work with movies like Green Hornet, green lantern, and The Spirit. They took comic book/radio serial characters and utterly failed to translate them. Sure, they were matinee-fodder back in the day. So was Super-man, and they managed to make decent movies for him. (OK, one good, one decent, and 4 or 5 others).




Well, let's be honest here.  There are FAR FAR more crappy super hero movies than good ones.  It wasn't until Spider Man that you actually got an honest to goodness good superhero movie that managed to keep being good.  Sure, we had the first Superman movie and the Tim Burton Batmans, but, you can count on your hands the number of good superhero movies and you'll run out of fingers and toes trying to count the bad.

It's really taken until the last five years for super hero movies to be even close to consistently watchable.  Even the not so great ones are still pretty darn entertaining.  Compared to say things like Spawn, Punisher, and a heaping, steaming pile of others.



sabrinathecat said:


> Green Arrow show was called "Arrow". Live, and unlike smallville, it has a plot rather than being a static soap-opera. Yes, it does have soap-opera elements, but the character has a mission, has a goal, and has a plan. And he is actively working it the whole time, rather than just trying to stay home on the farm and ignore the world around him.
> 
> Even if the characters weren't familiar, had the movies actually been good, people would have watched them and probably liked them, and maybe even discovered the comics through them. With what was done, and the way they were handled, I doubt very much if anyone wanted to discover their sources, or indeed pay much attention to them. I don't know what audience Green Hornet was made for, but Spirit and Green Lantern were strictly for comic fans.




When Arrow has ten seasons under its belt, you can complain about Smallville.  Smallville managed to stay on for ten seasons.  That's no mean feat for any TV show, let alone a superhero one.  It's largely due to Smallville that you can actually get Arrow.

But, I have to agree with Squirrel on this one though.  I watched maybe one episode of Arrow and gave it up.  Did nothing for me.  

But to each his own.


----------



## Serendipity (Apr 10, 2014)

No idea, having not encountered this particular thing.  Being a fairly hardcore Bat-fan, one of many of my circles of friends, I'd have to say that all of us really liked the Nolan series.  (Though I thought three was.....considerably less good than the others, but mostly because Bane.)
IMO, the purest form of the Bat franchise is Batman the Animated series in terms of getting certain characters right etc etc but the Nolan films (esp the first two) come AWFULLY close.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 10, 2014)

My point was: Make a good movie.
If you think about it, I'm actually agreeing with you that targeting comic nerds is a bad idea.
Make a good movie. Use enough of the comic source materials to keep the nerds in check. Make a GOOD movie.

Simple. Made a good movie.

What was the number 1 pick-me-up for Smallville? Green Arrow showing up and telling Clark Kent to get off his ass and start doing something. Number 1 problem with the show: demand for static "We're not leaving Smallville, even though Clark Kent has about 15 different motivations to do so. This is where the show is set, and we're not leaving."

If you didn't like "Arrow", but liked "Lost" or "JJA Trek", then there is no point in further conversation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> QFT.
> 
> If anyone ever needs proof that the original isn't automatically better than the remake, New BSG is it. Ten years after it aired, I'm still regularly listening to its soundtrack, and every time I see it on my netflix queue I get a little closer to rewatching it. For the second time!



BSG greatness may be partially due to Bear McCreary's greatness. He's absolutely my favorite composers right now, and I might start watching a show just because I read he's the guy behind the soundtrack.


----------



## frogimus (Apr 10, 2014)

Mallus said:


> People watched the new Battlestar Galactica for four years,.




Four minutes for me. Between that and wrestling, I took SyFy off my channel list.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 10, 2014)

Serendipity said:


> (Though I thought three was.....considerably less good than the others, but mostly because Bane.)



That's interesting, what don't you like about Bane?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> BSG greatness may be partially due to Bear McCreary's greatness. He's absolutely my favorite composers right now, and I might start watching a show just because I read he's the guy behind the soundtrack.



Ooh, I didn't even know he's been involved in other shows! Any recommendations?


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> If you didn't like "Arrow", but liked "Lost" or "JJA Trek", then there is no point in further conversation.



Speaking of Lost, a friend and I have a running joke that Sayid is Batman. He's an emotionally tortured tech guy badass!

We consider this a feature of Lost, rather than a flaw.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 10, 2014)

Good thing I like neither Arrow nor Lost. Although I consider Arrow at least watchable - it's just not great. And the Star Trek Reboot: I quite liked the first movie but was less enthusiastic about the second. I think they're losing it. It's no longer recognizable as Star Trek.

Battlestar Galactica however is awesome - you can argue about season 3 to end, but I don't see how anyone who's the least bit interested in scfi-fi/space opera cannot like at least the two first seasons.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> My point was: Make a good movie.
> If you think about it, I'm actually agreeing with you that targeting comic nerds is a bad idea.
> Make a good movie. Use enough of the comic source materials to keep the nerds in check. Make a GOOD movie.



I disagree. Forget "using enough comic source material to keep the nerds in check." It will never be enough, and/or it will be the wrong source material. 



> Simple. Made a good movie.



Several good movies have been made. You're actually a good example of what I'm talking about. You seem to have a certain criteria for what you would consider "a good movie," and anything that doesn't strictly adhere to that criteria is "a bad movie." So why bother trying to put enough source material to satisfy someone like you when it won't be enough and/or the wrong material? It's a waste of money for studios. Instead, they should be putting money in to movies that will appeal to a larger audience. Adding in all the extra source material is probably going to make people not want to see a movie. Why would someone want to see a movie if they have to go read a bunch of comics just to know what is going on? 



> What was the number 1 pick-me-up for Smallville? Green Arrow showing up and telling Clark Kent to get off his ass and start doing something.



Google tells me that Green Arrow didn't show up in Smallville until season six. It took, what? Another four seasons for Green Arrow to get his own series? And really, from what I saw, it wasn't very good. In any case, Smallville went on for 10 seasons. That's a pretty good run. It shouldn't be a surprise that some of those seasons weren't all great. It happen. Over the course of 10 seasons there is bound to be new writers coming in, new ideas being thrown around, actors moving on to do other things, etc. The fact that they were able to make 10 seasons shows that they had a good product for a good amount of time. That being said, I didn't watch Smallville either. Never had the time to watch it. i saw a few episodes. Some were good. Some where not.



> Number 1 problem with the show: demand for static "We're not leaving Smallville, even though Clark Kent has about 15 different motivations to do so. This is where the show is set, and we're not leaving."



Why is wanting to keep the show in Smallville a problem? I think it would be odd to have the show moved to some other location and still call it Smallville. 



> If you didn't like "Arrow", but liked "Lost" or "JJA Trek", then there is no point in further conversation.



Actually, I didn't like lost. I saw a few episodes, but never got into it. Abraham's Star Trek movies would have been good if I could have seen them. Too much lens flare made it a pain in the ass to watch. That aside, the movies were good. they were entertaining. Best of all, they weren't some stupid re-make of the same movies that have already been made.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 10, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Best of all, they weren't some stupid re-make of the same movies that have already been made.



Into Dorkness was a bit of a remake of the Wrath of Khan.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Into Dorkness was a bit of a remake of the Wrath of Khan.



True, and it was the weaker of the Abraham movies. Still, it had enough differences that it wasn't the same thing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 10, 2014)

Khaaaaaan!


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 10, 2014)

I have to say, I really liked the first Star Trek reboot -- time travel handwavium aside -- and fully intent to see the second one at some point.

The other Trek movies are varying degrees of entertaining, and there are bits and pieces of the various series that I enjoyed -- the overarching plot of DS9 and the second two seasons of Entrerprise, namely -- but I find Trek series to be largely forgettable.

I know, I'm a horrible geek. I'll turn in my members-only dice set.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Simple. Made a good movie.




If it were universally clear what "a good movie" was, they'd all be good.  So, there's nothing simple about it.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If it were universally clear what "a good movie" was, they'd all be good.  So, there's nothing simple about it.



If it were universally clear what a good movie was, my wife and I would agree about which movies are good!

(I'll give her _Nashville_, though. And _Wages of Fear_. Two great films she introduced me to.)


----------



## Serendipity (Apr 10, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> That's interesting, what don't you like about Bane??




A combination of factors - Bane has never, out of the whole of Bat's rogues gallery of villains, ever especially grabbed me; not in the comics and not in other media.   While quite like Tom Hardy as an actor, he has this unfortunate tendency to play villains in genre films that I don't care for.  (No one should have to mention Nemesis on their resume really.  Ever.)   So herein the specific implementation didn't do it for me either, lots of which was very reminiscent of Knightfall (the character's first appearance in the comics IIRC).  
TLDR - it succumbed to third film syndrome.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> That's interesting, what don't you like about Bane?
> 
> 
> Ooh, I didn't even know he's been involved in other shows! Any recommendations?



- The Walking Dead (Pretty popular, but I stopped following it a while ago)
- Human Target (First Season Only, I enjoyed that one)
- Defiance (Computer Game and TV Show)
- The Cape (not that great of a show, to be honest)
- Caprica (the BSG:TNS prequel show)
- Marvel Agent of Shields
- Black Sails
- Da Vinci's Demons (the theme title is a musical palindrome even)
I recommend checking his website: http://bearmccreary.com/


And now back to the Nolan Batman. I liked him, and I don't care one bit how "authentic" he was to the comics or the Adam West Batman or whatever. They were good as movies and really made me aware of how interesting the Batman character actually is (or can be).


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If it were universally clear what "a good movie" was, they'd all be good.  So, there's nothing simple about it.




No problem.
A good movie has strong plot and character development (one of these MUST be the driving force for the rest).
It is internally consistent and abides by a set of rules. (Doesn't matter what those rules are, so long as they are consistent)
There should be some guiding principle (be it to illicit laughter, a cry for help, exposing something, forcing people to face and address an issue, what have you).
Good music helps
Looking pretty with awesome special effects comes in last. That's right, FX are great, but they come in LAST in priority. "Special Effects are a way to help you tell the story. If you have a movie that's all effects and no story, you would have a pretty boring movie" --rough paraphrase of George Lucas 1978 (oh, the irony)

There you go.
Good movie defined.
Thank Aristotle.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> No problem.
> A good movie has strong plot and character development (one of these MUST be the driving force for the rest).
> It is internally consistent and abides by a set of rules. (Doesn't matter what those rules are, so long as they are consistent)
> There should be some guiding principle (be it to illicit laughter, a cry for help, exposing something, forcing people to face and address an issue, what have you).
> ...




That's all in your opinion, FX is a big thing for me,that's mainly why i go to the movies. The story takes second place. Music is last for me, I don't care that much about music one way or another. As for a guiding principle, mindless entertainment works for me. 

[sblock] 
[/sblock]


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 10, 2014)

You must have loved the Prequel Trilogy then.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 10, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> A good movie has strong plot and character development



Submitted for your approval (hah!): _Last Year at Marienbad_, _Metropolis_, [_Synecdoche, New York_], _The Holy Mountain_, and, for good measure, most Hitchcock films.



> It is internally consistent and abides by a set of rules.



_Blazing Saddles_. 



> There should be some guiding principle (be it to illicit laughter, a cry for help, exposing something, forcing people to face and address an issue, what have you).



What about films that do all of that and more, without a more narrow focus? 



> Good music helps



It sure does! 



> Looking pretty with awesome special effects comes in last.



_Black Narcissus_, _2001: A Space Odyssey_, _The Scarlet Empress_, heck _Speed Racer_.



> There you go.
> Good movie defined.



And now complicated a little...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Looking pretty with awesome special effects comes in last. That's right, FX are great, but they come in LAST in priority.



I'm pretty sure a Batman movie with no special effects would be pretty crappy, regardless of how great the script is.







> "Special Effects are a way to help you tell the story. If you have a movie that's all effects and no story, you would have a pretty boring movie" --rough paraphrase of George Lucas 1978 (oh, the irony)



That guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near movies. He shouldn't be allowed to comment on movies or even see a movie. 


> There you go.
> Good movie defined.
> Thank Aristotle.



All the things you mentioned are subjective. Also, Aristotle is overrated.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> You must have loved the Prequel Trilogy then.



Too much talking. Heck, some of the talking scenes are the worst in the whole movie. _Anakin and Padmé... *shudder*_

Crank would be a better example. But even there, too much talking.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> There you go.
> Good movie defined.
> Thank Aristotle.




Except that, by those criteria, I think "Dumb and Dumber" may qualify as a "good movie".

Note that "strong", which you seem to be applying to plot and character development, is not well defined.  What makes a strong plot?  If it is strong, but stupid, is that okay?  If the characters develop but remain insipid, is the movie still good?

You are free to define what you personally feel is a good movie.  That's fine.  Suggesting that your definition holds for *everyone* falls into hubris, I'm afraid.

In the original meaning - there is no accounting for taste.  It is not mathematical, cannot be codified.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 11, 2014)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> why all the apparent hate?




Several reasons: 
They don't feel like Batman films, they feel like mundane crime drama films with a character that sorta resembles Batman who appears in less than half the film. The first half of the first movie was very good, since we've never gotten a film with Bruce's training. Also, kudos for using R'as al Ghul.

The emphasis on 'realism' set up expectations and tone for other DC films - DC characters don't do 'realism' very well at all. The vast majority of them are very much larger than life. As a good example, the Bane you see there is a pale shadow of the actual character. Characters can be done in a 'realistic style' without sacrificing their integrity. We can see how this played out to terrible, terrible effect in Man of Steel, and the others like likely to be just as bad as long as Nolan is king of the hill at WB.

No Robin. Batman needs a Robin. Batman requires a Robin. First film should have ended with Bruce going to the circus, second film should have had a truncated Robin origin and Two-Face, save the Joker for your crown in the trilogy.

That stupid, stupid 'Batman Voice' that Bale adopts in the second and third films. The Bane voice is even worse.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 11, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> That stupid, stupid 'Batman Voice' that Bale adopts in the second and third films. The Bane voice is even worse.



As it happens, Bane and his voice helped me memorize a formula I needed for a test today because I like them so much!

_You have merely adopted the shadow; I was born in it.
I did not see the light of day until I was a man.

_So, _so _creepy! Just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 12, 2014)

One of the thing that many people call out is the end of _Dark Knight Rises_, where Wayne is in a cafe and everyone is all "why does no one recognise him?!?" 
Which never bugged me at all. 

I never saw any reason people overseas would recognise Bruce Wayne. He was a minor US celebrity. Especially as, at that point, he was broke. 

Imagine if you will, there was a vigilante in New York. The Batwoman. She was armed with all kinds of high tech gadgets and regularly put herself in harm. 
And then someone comes and says to you "I know who the Batwoman is. I figured it it. It's... Paris Hilton!" 
What would your honest reaction be? 

Now imagine the Hilton family goes under. The company survives by the Hiltons themselves are broke. Then there was some kind of terrorist attack in New York and hundreds if not thousands of people were killed but many, many bodies were not recovered. Among the presumed dead is Miss Hilton. 
And after that, in some place in Europe, someone spots Paris having an espresso. 
Is the reaction when people hear that "OMG she's alive?" or is it "Huh. Thought she was dead. Pass the chips" or "was she dining with Elvis?"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 12, 2014)

The thing with that is, he only has to get recognized by one person. If hundreds or thousands of people walk by him in a metropolitan area, even if only one of them figures out who it is, that could be a serious problem.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 12, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> No problem.
> A good movie has strong plot and character development (one of these MUST be the driving force for the rest).



If that were a universal rule the Transformers movies wouldn't have made all of that cash*.

*I consider that if they made so much money some people must have found them good.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> The thing with that is, he only has to get recognized by one person. If hundreds or thousands of people walk by him in a metropolitan area, even if only one of them figures out who it is, that could be a serious problem.



The solution is obvious then: Bruce should have just bought a pair of glasses after pulling the big fake.

Hey, if it works for one caped superhero...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 12, 2014)

I do not thing that at any point in the movies, Batman was publically identified as Bruce Wayne. They disappeared, one in a nuclear explosion, the other during a terrible terrorist attack that lasted months. No one really kept track of who was where. And a lot of other people - some of them rich and influential - died there. (Remember all the people that were "exiled" to death from the Gotham City wall street equivalent.)
And furthermore, Wayne had not appeared much in the public for years before that. He only briefly returned to the public eye when he went practically bankrupt, and a while later, in some obituary. 

I wouldn't recognize Waren Buffett in a small street café. And if I would, I would probably not assume it was him, but just someone fairly similar. (Like how I saw someone that looked eerily similar to Klaus Kinski once in a cafeteria.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 12, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I do not thing that at any point in the movies, Batman was publically identified as Bruce Wayne.



Maybe they haven't made the connection. But a celebrity presumed dead and reappearing is news.



> I wouldn't recognize Waren Buffett in a small street café. And if I would, I would probably not assume it was him, but just someone fairly similar. (Like how I saw someone that looked eerily similar to Klaus Kinski once in a cafeteria.)



Most people wouldn't. But all it takes is one person to say "Hey, that guy looks familiar", snap a picture, and post it online somewhere. A lot of borderline celebrities claim they have no privacy because stuff like this happens. And if, say, the remnants of the league of shadows caught on to this and Bruce no longer has his cool toys...

My take on the whole situation is that his life would be quite a challenge, that's all.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe they haven't made the connection. But a celebrity presumed dead and reappearing is news.
> 
> Most people wouldn't. But all it takes is one person to say "Hey, that guy looks familiar", snap a picture, and post it online somewhere. A lot of borderline celebrities claim they have no privacy because stuff like this happens. And if, say, the remnants of the league of shadows caught on to this and Bruce no longer has his cool toys...
> 
> My take on the whole situation is that his life would be quite a challenge, that's all.




Well, let's be honest here.  The odds that you could actually keep a secret identity in this day and age is pretty far fetched anyway.  Good grief, how many CCTV's are there in any major urban centre?  Do you really think it would take very long for anyone to "pierce" the cowl using today's technology?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 13, 2014)

I suppose the real issue to me is that the whole series of movies was about consequences and impossible choices and life being hard, and then in the end this far-fetched plan that would never work happens and everything is apparently fine.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Apr 14, 2014)

> They don't hate them. The Nolan Batman movies are extremely popular. Two of them made over a billion dollars. I enjoy all three immensely. They're as good, if not better in some ways, than the Marvel offerings.




Personally, even putting aside the plot holes, I have mxed feelings about the trilogy _as superhero films_.
While I love CN's stuff in general (Inception, Memento, etc.), I found the Batman trilogy hard to get through.

While they're generally technically proficient, well-written, well-cast and (mostly) well-acted films...
they just don't being me the JOY that other superheroes movies do. (And yes, I understand that Batman is a darker, grimmer character, but tha shouldn't make the movie any less pleasurable/joyful.)

For instance, as bad as it is, the "Fantastic Four" movie remains a guilty pleasure that I can pick up and re-watch and enjoy periodically, warts and all. "Batman Begins" on the other hand, is something


----------



## billd91 (Apr 14, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe they haven't made the connection. But a celebrity presumed dead and reappearing is news.
> 
> Most people wouldn't. But all it takes is one person to say "Hey, that guy looks familiar", snap a picture, and post it online somewhere. A lot of borderline celebrities claim they have no privacy because stuff like this happens. And if, say, the remnants of the league of shadows caught on to this and Bruce no longer has his cool toys...
> 
> My take on the whole situation is that his life would be quite a challenge, that's all.




Maybe, but a financial/business celebrity is quite a bit different from a movie/TV star celebrity (or a family with a very good publicist celebrity). That's typically a much lower level of exposure.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 14, 2014)

ShadowDenizen said:


> they just don't being me the JOY that other superheroes movies do. (And yes, I understand that Batman is a darker, grimmer character, but tha shouldn't make the movie any less pleasurable/joyful.)



That really goes to an identity issue though. Was Batman every really a superhero? In a lot of ways, he is very distinct from most of the other characters that are referred to as such (even though in some incarnations he actually shares the playing field with "Super"-man).

To me, one of the foundations of the character's lore is that he is not super (meaning above or better than) human. He doesn't have any powers, just a lot of money and some nice tech. He isn't operating from some moral superiority either, he's just a guy who's feeling lost and vengeful and is trying to channel it into something. Those are things the movies definitely are trying to capture.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 14, 2014)

"No, my friend, you were trying. The lady was succeeding."


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 14, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> No Robin. Batman needs a Robin. Batman requires a Robin. First film should have ended with Bruce going to the circus, second film should have had a truncated Robin origin and Two-Face, save the Joker for your crown in the trilogy.




For the love of god, no.  Robin is terrible.



> That stupid, stupid 'Batman Voice' that Bale adopts in the second and third films. The Bane voice is even worse.




That wasn't Bale, it was Nolan.  Done in post, holmes.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 15, 2014)

Robin serves a function: he's there so Batman has someone to explain what he's doing to. Robin is the audience for Batman's thoughts.
At least, that was the original idea, so that everything wasn't a thought bubble.

Aristotle: yeah, what a poser. "Founder of Dramatic Criticism." Pffft, what does he know?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 15, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Aristotle: yeah, what a poser. "Founder of Dramatic Criticism." Pffft, what does he know?



Nothing. He is dead.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 15, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Robin serves a function: he's there so Batman has someone to explain what he's doing to. Robin is the audience for Batman's thoughts.
> At least, that was the original idea, so that everything wasn't a thought bubble.
> 
> Aristotle: yeah, what a poser. "Founder of Dramatic Criticism." Pffft, what does he know?




I'd rather see a thought bubble than a loser/poser/lackey.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 15, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Aristotle: yeah, what a poser. "Founder of Dramatic Criticism." Pffft, what does he know?



He didn't know how to write *every possible* good story/play/film/<insert medium here> that would ever be written, ie there a plenty of great works that don't conform to Aristotle-based criticism.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'd rather see a thought bubble than a loser/poser/lackey.




Well, these days Batman could just talk into a tape recorder or note-taker and have it turned into special files on the Bat Computer.

Not all Robins are poser lackeys.

True. Death of a Salesman is a rather famous deviation from the formula. Decide for yourself if it is a success or not.
Aristotle's Principles were made for Tragedies. He never wrote (of if he did, they're lost) principles for comedies. Funny, though, how well those principles still hold up. Some updates necessary, but still a good foundation.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 15, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Well, these days Batman could just talk into a tape recorder or note-taker and have it turned into special files on the Bat Computer.
> 
> Not all Robins are poser lackeys.
> 
> ...




Wasn't there only like one tough Robin?  And that begs the question: If he's tough enough to be on a superhero level, why is he playing second fiddle to Bat?  Be your own hero, loserboy!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wasn't there only like one tough Robin?  And that begs the question: If he's tough enough to be on a superhero level, why is he playing second fiddle to Bat?  Be your own hero, loserboy!




Robin was always the kid Batman was training to be his own hero. That was the point: Batman was training his eventual replacements. But no one can truly replace Batman--not even his quazi-clone son.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 18, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wasn't there only like one tough Robin?  And that begs the question: If he's tough enough to be on a superhero level, why is he playing second fiddle to Bat?  Be your own hero, loserboy!




All of them have been tough - you pretty much have to be to run around with Batman. All of them are master martial artists, with most of Batman's other skillsets - Dick is better acrobat, Jason is arguably better with weaponry, and Tim was a computer genius. Tim was also a master detective - Batman remarked once that Tim would surpass him once he got some experience under his belt. 

All of them with the exception of Damien also went on to be their own solo hero; Dick as Nightwing, Jason as the Red Hood, and Tim as Red Robin. Dick had mostly separated from Batman even when he was Robin, after he started leading the Teen Titans. Jason was Robin for only a few years, and struck out on his own after his resurrection. Tim operated solo a great deal even while being trained.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2014)

From the movie perspective though you don't really need Robin. Alfred served as the expository sounding board and giving Batman a companion would really take away from the "brooding lone scary guy" thing that was going on.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 21, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> All of them have been tough - you pretty much have to be to run around with Batman. All of them are master martial artists, with most of Batman's other skillsets - Dick is better acrobat, Jason is arguably better with weaponry, and Tim was a computer genius. Tim was also a master detective - Batman remarked once that Tim would surpass him once he got some experience under his belt.
> 
> All of them with the exception of Damien also went on to be their own solo hero; Dick as Nightwing, Jason as the Red Hood, and Tim as Red Robin. Dick had mostly separated from Batman even when he was Robin, after he started leading the Teen Titans. Jason was Robin for only a few years, and struck out on his own after his resurrection. Tim operated solo a great deal even while being trained.




So then the Robin role is pointless.  If they're all able to strike out on their own after a short time there's no point to them as a sidekick and there's no point to Bat training them as a replacement.


----------

