This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
General Movie Discussion Thread
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
If it's profitable, and people will watch it, they'll make a movie about it; and that's yet another way to do a reboot and make a new Batman without any real issues....and sadly, that means more of my favorite villains of the Bat-verse will get the Nolan treatment, transforming them from interesting characters into cliches.
And,
CAD
actually did a fairly amusing thing today lol.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Lol, the Nolan movies already #$%^ on canon =p.
Canon? What canon? There is no universal batman canon, just like virtually every other super hero series, there are multiple different incarnations of the same hero, written by different writers, and Nolan's Batman is one of those. None of these different incarnations are canon to one another, so that's a pretty redundant statement.
No I kind of agree with him, canon is usally considered the mainstream Batman series, not elsworlds storys.
I also think though that for a seires to be good it has to @#$% on canon a little. These storys were all written like 50 years or more ago. A movie like the Avengers can make up for big green dudes and guys dressed as the American flag by being tongue in cheek funny, and having big action sequences and such, and generally being a really fun movie.
Batman on the other hand is one of your more dark and serious characters... and he also dresses like a giant bat. So you kind of have to walk a tightrope between being serious and staying true to the character. Like Ive said many times, I think Nolan did this very well in his movies, and I hope they leave Batman alone for a few years now and work on tying some movies together with continuity (JLA or bust).
Another example of making subtle changes to keep teh story down to earth btw, Superman ditched the underwear on his new costume. Different from the comics? Yes. But I still approve.
Post by
Adamsm
Lol, the Nolan movies already #$%^ on canon =p.
Canon? What canon? There is no universal batman canon, just like virtually every other super hero series, there are multiple different incarnations of the same hero, written by different writers, and Nolan's Batman is one of those. None of these different incarnations are canon to one another, so that's a pretty redundant statement.
Turning Ras and his daughter into simple terrorists !@#$ on their canon. Turning Two-Face into that pathetic mockery that he was in the Dark Knight, !@#$s on the canon. Doing what they did to Bane, for no real reason, $%^&s on all of the canon out there.
There are universal things when it comes to characters, and Nolan's version ^&*!s all over that and has a grand ole time doing that; ESPECIALLY! since the Nolan movies follow specific Batman story lines(Knightfall/No Man's Land in the case of Rises).
Edit: And to clarify: The Demon is easily the most intelligent and at the same time monstrous villain Batman routinely goes up against; he has a firm belief in what he does, that is echoed across all versions of him that show up, and that's about making the world a much better place...but Nolan's version? They took out all of the noble demon that makes up the character to just stuff him and his daughter(who has always been an Anti-Hero not a straight up villain) into a really pathetic version of themselves.
Post by
Patty
Most Superhero films take specific plots from some version of the comics and then change it. Singling out the Dark Knight series is really unfair.
Post by
Adamsm
Most Superhero films take specific plots from some version of the comics and then change it. Singling out the Dark Knight series is really unfair.
I don't mind when they do that, but at least leave the Villains like they are, rather then screwing them up like what happened in the Dark Knight series.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Turning Ras and his daughter into simple terrorists !@#$ on their canon. Turning Two-Face into that pathetic mockery that he was in the Dark Knight, !@#$s on the canon. Doing what they did to Bane, for no real reason, $%^&s on all of the canon out there.
There are universal things when it comes to characters, and Nolan's version ^&*!s all over that and has a grand ole time doing that
; ESPECIALLY! since the Nolan movies follow specific Batman story lines.
See idk if I agree with that either. Ras wasnt a simple terrorist, he wasnt everything that he is in the comics, but he clearly had motives geared twords the greater good.
Two-Face, the only thing you can really complain about is how little screen time he got before being killed off. But i think his transformation from Harvey Dent to Two-Face was great, it followed really well with the way he changed in The Long Halloween. And I think his big speech at the end "We tried to be decent men, in an indecent time" was one of the best parts of the movie.
Banes origin wasnt changed for no reason. Theres no such country as Santa Prisca, they just made it some generic middle eastern country so it would be easier for the audience to buy/relate to. The universal things about Bane are all still there, hes still smart, hes still capable of physically comminating Batman. The only really big thing that they changed was the venom, which again is just part of making him more down to earth.
Some things in comics just dont translate well on the big screen.
Post by
Adamsm
Burton's movies were just as gritty and had sliding scales of realism to them, and yet, the villains still ended up resembling their comic book counter parts(Michelle Pfeiffer is always going to be Catwoman to me, same as good ole Jackie as the Joker).
Edit: Ras wasnt a simple terrorist, he wasnt everything that he is in the comics, but he clearly had motives geared twords the greater good.Gonna have to disagree there; he came across as just another terrorist in the first movie, and his daughter was just as bad in Rises....except you know, she was completely one dimensional and didn't have any of the depth of character that she has in the comics.
Theres no such country as Santa Prisca, they just made it some generic middle eastern country so it would be easier for the audience to buy/relate to. So, they couldn't have chosen another South/Central American country, they had to go with Middle East 'freedom fighters' eh?
The only really big thing that they changed was the venom, which again is just part of making him more down to earth.All Venom was a drug that caused him to get larger and stronger(gee, why does that sounds familiar =P) they easily could have left it in, saying it was a new type of steroid or other drug.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
Some things in comics just dont translate well on the big screen.
While I don't agree with that, I agree on all other points. It's just different tastes, and if someone dosn't like it then it's not for them.
Me? I'm going to see it again this afternoon. Even for it's flaws, I really enjoyed watching it. The acting was top-notch, the visual were still great, and the story, even for whatever flaws may be there, was still enough to draw me in and make me love the movie.
Post by
Gone
I didnt like the Burton movies, they only got the renoun they had at the time because nothing better was around. The best you can say about them, is that they were better than the Adam West Batman. The Batmobile looked too cheesey and so did Batmans costume. And honestly Burton has this way of stylizing his movies, that I generally just dont like.
Jack Nicholson played an ok Joker, but he didnt come anywhere near Mark Hammil and certainly not Heath Ledger in quality. Honestly idk how you can compare his Batmobile/Catwoman/Joker/Batsuit/etc with Nolans and still claim the movie was gritty or realistic.
And honestly just because the villains resembled their comic counterparts more, dosnt mean its better. Case and point the Joker, he had the same toys and the same look, but Ledgers Joker was better acted. And Ledger blew Nicholson out of the water.
Post by
Adamsm
Case and point the Joker, he had the same toys and the same look, but Ledgers Joker was better acted. And Ledger blew Nicholson out of the water./shrug Opinions; I hate Ledger, so I hated him as the Joker. Now, if it had been another actor, maybe I would have liked it more, anything is possible.
I loved Jack as the Joker; from 'Wait till they get a load of me' to the final battle with Batman on the clock tower, right up to the creepy laugh as the body lay there, that to me is the Joker.
Can't really compare Mark Hamil, since he blows all other Jokers out of the water(well, almost all: The guy who did the Joker voice in The Batman was great).
Honestly idk how you can compare his Batmobile/Catwoman/Joker/Batsuit/etc with Nolans and still claim the movie was gritty or realistic.Fairly easily; Batman Returns is easily the darkest Batman movie in the last 3 decades(including animated The Batman vs Dracula). Between the utter psychopath of the Penguin and all his quirks(Danny Devito did the character very well) to all the &*!@ that happened to poor Selina Kyle and all the rest, it worked. Catwoman has some weird voodoo in her past too, so the one from Returns worked for me.
But yes, it's all opinions here; sorry but I'm never going to see the Nolan movies as 'great' because of the way they %^&*ed up so many of my favorite villains from the Bat-verse; as I've said before, I only liked Scarecrow out of them/
Post by
Gone
So, they couldn't have chosen another South/Central American country, they had to go with Middle East 'freedom fighters' eh?
Yea but dude if thats the only probelm you have with the character, then thats a pretty small one. South American/Middle East, it essential dosnt change who he is by all that much.
All Venom was a drug that caused him to get larger and stronger(gee, why does that sounds familiar =P) they easily could have left it in, saying it was a new type of steroid or other drug.
It makes his feat of breaking the Bat more impressive without it though. In the comics where Batman deals with super powered villains every day, then you expect him to be able to beat some big roided up monster. So the fact that Bane was able to break him seemed more unbelievable. Where as in the movies, where batman has never faced anything like that, everybody would just assume thats the only reason Bane defeated him.
Bane is the kind of villain that to me, isnt all that impressive on his own. I mean hes good, but hes not on the same level of noteriety as Joker/Two-Face/Riddler, the usual crowd. Bane however does have some very great storys. Obviously the most famous being Nightflall. He was the first one to find out who Bruce Wayne was, he released all those inmated from Arkham to tire him out, then he met Batman inside his cave, beat the @#$% out of him, and broke his back.
http://www.bestgeekblogever.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Bane_breaks_Batman.png
^ One of the most iconic moments in Batmans history. To give Bane something like Venom, in Nolans world, would only serve to taint his victory. I think it was better done this way, Bane defeated Batman and all of his tricks through his own cunning and strength. It wasnt as extravigant as in the comics, but the scene was handled very well.
I loved Jack as the Joker; from 'Wait till they get a load of me' to the final battle with Batman on the clock tower, right up to the creepy laugh as the body lay there, that to me is the Joker.
Like I said Jack was good at the time, I just fealt as though he didnt immerse himself as deep in the role as others have. I mean he had his moments, you mentioned the laugh as he was dying. Wait till they get a load of he was a good line as well, but he didnt do anything to make it all that special. To me what made the line so great was all the Joker backstory behind it, now on the big screen. as the audience, we know the Joker, and we know whats coming when he says something like that.
Also since you mentioned it earlier, I wanna point out Burtons Batman deviated from canon as well. The Joker was never the one who killed batmans parents.
Can't really compare Mark Hamil, since he blows all other Jokers out of the water(well, almost all: The guy who did the Joker voice in The Batman was great).
You were right earlier, it is a matter of opinion. But to me Ledger was on par Hammil
maybe
better. I think Ledger delivered a better preformance in The Dark Knight than any single Hammil preformance. But Hammil is just more iconic, hes been the Joker so much longer, so if you compare their complete history, Hammils is better. Hammil also had the best Joker laugh of anybody who has ever played that role.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ABUXVq0NSVY/TUXB1VibN_I/AAAAAAAAB18/xr6R2DU7ShE/s400/Holy%20Wall%20of%20Text.jpg
Didnt mean for that to be so long winded, guess I got carried away Xp.
Anyway Im actually off to the movies atm, so Imma have to put this on paus.
Post by
Adamsm
Yea but dude if thats the only probelm you have with the character, then thats a pretty small one. South American/Middle East, it essential dosnt change who he is by all that much.It really changes everything; Bane lived in that prison for his entire life and eventually conquered it. But by reducing him to another common terrorist does dull the character and makes him a hell of lot less effective then he was.
Bane is the kind of villain that to me, isnt all that impressive on his own.Not to me; he was impressive from his first comic appearance and the fact that now he's an Anti-Hero is even better...but the Rises Bane? That one could never evolve like that, because of the dumbing down that happens to make the changes 'more realistic'(read standard bad guy).
^ One of the most iconic moments in Batmans history. To give Bane something like Venom, in Nolans world, would only serve to taint his victory. I think it was better done this way, Bane defeated Batman and all of his tricks through his own cunning and strength. It wasnt as extravigant as in the comics, but the scene was handled very well.And he still had Venom when he did it; this was before the true super powered villains started showing up, and he was mainly just up against people in fancy suits(except for Ivy and Croc); the fact Bane was pumped up on something doesn't take away anything from his victory....plus, the mask thing in Rises is still idiotic; it took Batman the second time around to realize why that gizmo was important.....*grumble about world's greatest detective*.
And to me, opinion wise, Ledger was the worst choice to star in a Super Hero movie; the guy came out and stated he hated comics and didn't give a ^&*! about any of the Batman fans. So yeah, that right there, just solidified my own rage at him. Again, had the Dark Knight Joker been played by anyone else, I may have liked it...but they choose the cock knocker, so screw it.
I know he's dead, but I really don't care that much; guy was a major *!@# at times, plain and simple.
Post by
OverZealous
Actually, nevermind - I won't argue against you. I loved the Dark Knight Rises, and I'll leave it at that. I loved the whole series, in fact.
Post by
Rystrave
I'm pretty sure if they had made the new Batman movies to be more costumey they wouldn't have been as popular. There's something more pleasing and exciting seeing more "realistic"
heroes
and
villians
, than someone who looks purposely done up for the role.
Don't get me wrong, Burton's version is incredibly fun and amazing, but the emphasis is on
fun
. Nolan's versions were engulfing and action packed.
IMO, Ledger did an excellent job as the role of the Joker. So what if he hated comic books? Actors get paid to pay a role, whether they like the content or not. They're worried about the payout in the end. What didn't you like about Ledger as an actor, Adams? There had to be something that triggered this hate for him. Also, who do you think would have played the role better? I'm curious! :)
I wish the actress of Rachel wasn't different in every movie. I like consistency.
Post by
Adamsm
Actually, nevermind - I won't argue against you. I loved the Dark Knight Rises, and I'll leave it at that. I loved the whole series, in fact.
Which is fine, I have no issue with people who do love the movies; I just personally really dislike them for the reasons I've stated lol.
I'm pretty sure if they had made the new Batman movies to be more costumey they wouldn't have been as popular. There's something more pleasing and exciting seeing more "realistic"
heroes
and
villians
, than someone who looks purposely done up for the role.
Don't get me wrong, Burton's version is incredibly fun and amazing, but the emphasis is on
fun
. Nolan's versions were engulfing and action packed. I semi-disagree there, considering how dark and disturbing Returns was even with the Circus of Fear as the back up to the Penguin, and the original Batman was fairly dark too. I'm also not asking saying the villains should be as outrageously garish as they are in the comics(though really, a lot of the looks are very toned down now a days), I just want their origins to stay roughly the same and not take the easy route and make them a lot more one dimensional when there isn't a reason too(again, Ras and his daughter stand out the most, but even Bane treads that line in the new movie).
IMO, Ledger did an excellent job as the role of the Joker. So what if he hated comic books? Actors get paid to pay a role, whether they like the content or not. They're worried about the payout in the end. What didn't you like about Ledger as an actor, Adams? There had to be something that triggered this hate for him. Also, who do you think would have played the role better? I'm curious! :)Pretty much everything; I've never liked Heath Ledger in any movie he's appeared in. The guy has always just rubbed me the wrong way and I just can't stand him. But hating on comic books, when you 'get' to play one of the most iconic comic book villains in existence, just really stuck in my craw. As for who; I don't know, just anyone but him, Matt Damon or Ben Affleck(top three males in Hollywood I hate).
I wish the actress of Rachel wasn't different in every movie. I like consistency.
Eh, since I can barely remember her from the first movie, I can't say much lol =P.
Post by
Morec0
Just got back from TDKR; and it was just as good as before.
Which is to say; not at all.
Which is to say; I'm practicing my lying.
Post by
Rystrave
As for who; I don't know, just anyone but him, Matt Damon or Ben Affleck(top three males in Hollywood I hate)
MATT DAMON? Bahaha. I hate Nicolas Cage. *!@#ing hate it. It's all good!
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.