New TDKR trailer today!!!

I honestly don't care if the Batman's world depicted in the Nolan films aren't compatible with other DC characters. If that was his real intention, so be it, it's a director's prerogative as much as it was for Tim Burton's when he made his two films. What matters to me most of all is not whether it's 100% accurate to the source material, but whether the final result makes a good film on its OWN merits. BATMAN RETURNS took a lot of liberties to the point it was no longer Tim Burton's BATMAN but rather TIM BURTON'S Batman. Despite that, I find what he put on screen was very engaging. Bryan Singer did the same with SUPERMAN RETURNS, albiet he went more extreme with the characters and ultimately the film was FAR from engaging.

As for the talk about realism and such, I never saw Nolan's films try going for pure realism. None of his films ever really achieve that and I always shake my head when Nolan-ites keep banging that drum about how it's "more realistic". It ain't, and it was never Nolan's goal. The reason Nolan chose to do BATMAN was because it was his opportunity of fufilling his childhood desire to make an action adventure blockbuster. In his BATMAN pictures you can see a lot of the films that influenced his work. One big example is the cop chase in BATMAN BEGINS that's inspired by the 70s James Bond flicks (Nolan has gone on record as a huge Bond fan) where Bond is being chased by a bunch of cops while there's a bunch of comical gags thrown in to give relief to audiences. There's even that gag where a cop looks into his drink after Batman passes him by at the toll both.

I don't think Nolan is going for realism, from what I've seen in the films he's going for a middleground between fiction and reality where the absurd happens in a world that only seems real. I also believe this approach was done as a way to really differentiate itself from what came before, solidifying Nolan's stamp.


Of course, you don't have to like it. I like what I like, to hell with Nolan-ites and other bandwagons I say.

I was thinking about something today, and I want to throw it out as a question to everyone here:

Has anyone else noticed that Nolan's Batman doesn't take his responsibilities as "personal" as he should? That he almost acts like it's just a job that he can't wait to quit?

Does that sound like the Batman YOU know?

No it doesn't and I see the point you brought up. Now I may not know much on how bruce is in comics old/new. But from little I know he takes being batman as a big thing and he would only quit when he is dead or physically can't do it any more right.

That was one issue I had in THE DARK KNIGHT, and I realized why Nolan went with that. It's his attempt at making a SUPERMAN II with the hero wanting to give up his job so he can bang his girlfriend 24/7 but in the end realizes the world needs a hero and goes on. Sam Raimi fell for the same thing in SPIDER-MAN 2.

Unlike SUPERMAN III and SPIDER-MAN 3, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES doesn't have a blonde that he wants to bang. At least, as far as we know...

Stockslivevan wrote:That was one issue I had in THE DARK KNIGHT, and I realized why Nolan went with that. It's his attempt at making a SUPERMAN II with the hero wanting to give up his job so he can bang his girlfriend 24/7 but in the end realizes the world needs a hero and goes on. Sam Raimi fell for the same thing in SPIDER-MAN 2.

Out of all 3, Batman has always been portrayed as being more DRIVEN than that.

At least, up until now.

Unlike SUPERMAN III and SPIDER-MAN 3, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES doesn't have a blonde that he wants to bang. At least, as far as we know...

Brunette:

SHE'S NOT A BLONDE! I TOLD NOLAN TO GET A BLONDE BUT HE DIDN'T! HE IS INSOLENT!

Stockslivevan wrote:I honestly don't care if the Batman's world depicted in the Nolan films aren't compatible with other DC characters. If that was his real intention, so be it, it's a director's prerogative as much as it was for Tim Burton's when he made his two films. What matters to me most of all is not whether it's 100% accurate to the source material, but whether the final result makes a good film on its OWN merits. BATMAN RETURNS took a lot of liberties to the point it was no longer Tim Burton's BATMAN but rather TIM BURTON'S Batman. Despite that, I find what he put on screen was very engaging. Bryan Singer did the same with SUPERMAN RETURNS, albiet he went more extreme with the characters and ultimately the film was FAR from engaging.

Part of me wants to have a live and let live attitude.

But no. See, once upon a time, comics influenced the movies adapted from them. But when the industry started to tank, what publishers began doing was modifying their comics to fit with what the movies were up to. Want to know why DC went into a "Superman returns after a lengthy absence" storyline right as Singerman premiered? Probably the same reason Lex Luthor hijacked Kryptonian technology and Superman got his hands on a crystal-oriented Fortress of Solitude in that same story. They wanted it to resonate with Singerman. Mostly. But partly I think it was a "fuck you, this is how you do it" to Bryan Singer.

It's the same reason Spider-Man conveniently reclaimed the black outfit in 2007. Or the same reason that we'll probably see a Lizard story in Spider-Man sometime soon. Or the same reason the Joker in Batman comics now seems have scars and wear fucking makeup now.

Movie concepts bleed over into the comics. Some third rate, hack director pisses all over everything that makes Batman cool and then the comics companies, desperate to beef up their sales, emulate what they think is a winning formula. I get a shitty movie foisted upon me and then the comics follow suit. Forgive me if I don't care what "makes a good film on its OWN merits". As far as these characters are concerned, my first love is almost always the comics.

Hollywood has negatively intruded on my comics too many times. And it pisses me off.

I wouldn't pin the responsibility on the films. This reminds me of an argument that STAR WARS ruined cinema because studios started focusing more on blockbuster spectacles thus there was less variety in film. But I don't blame STAR WARS' success for influencing studios to go one way and make a bunch of shit sci-fi/fantasy films like SPACEHUNTER 3D. It was studio's call, not STAR WARS. Christopher Nolan isn't aiming a gun at the comic book writers to make comics closer to his films.

Stockslivevan wrote:I wouldn't pin the responsibility on the films. This reminds me of an argument that STAR WARS ruined cinema because studios started focusing more on blockbuster spectacles thus there was less variety in film. But I don't blame STAR WARS' success for influencing studios to go one way and make a bunch of shit sci-fi/fantasy films like SPACEHUNTER 3D. It was studio's call, not STAR WARS. Christopher Nolan isn't aiming a gun at the comic book writers to make comics closer to his films.

Maybe not. But the net effect is the same as if he were. Comics follow the movies. Until and unless that trend changes, my attitude about it will stay the same.

To be honest I haven't read comics since I was in high school, about a year before SR came out. It's too bad DC seems to have no confidence in itself and its titles. The whole reboot thing baffles me for one.

Speaking of asm comic there is indeed a lizard story coming in july/aug after the current ends of the earth event ends, and after the miles/ultimate and peter/616 crossover mini.