As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A Thread About Movies

19394969899

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    Exactly. But it also is not (so far) the main thrust of the series that Bruce Wayne should give all this money to the GCPD and sit quietly at home.

    True. In Nolan's universe Batman has a reason to stay around. Without him Gotham wouldn't have survived Begins, never mind dealing with the Joker.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    We're starting to see some attempts at deconstruction now, although everyone seems way to taken with self-referential humour as false deconstruction to try really taking the stuff apart.

    While I would say the real era of deconstruction started around the time Watchmen and DKR came out, I agree that a lot of the late-80s/early-90s self-referential stuff rang pretty false because it was little more than a bunch of neckbeards figuring out that they were all just a bunch of neckbeards and hahaisn'tbreakingthefourthwallfunny?

    It is cyclical, and the cycles are going to be faster and faster, but I hope the era of comics when childishly grimdark books like The Crow and The Mask are big sellers are long behind us.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Fairly certain he does. They just haven't shown this in the Nolan films (because, frankly, it hasn't fit in)

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    We're starting to see some attempts at deconstruction now, although everyone seems way to taken with self-referential humour as false deconstruction to try really taking the stuff apart.

    While I would say the real era of deconstruction started around the time Watchmen and DKR came out, I agree that a lot of the late-80s/early-90s self-referential stuff rang pretty false because it was little more than a bunch of neckbeards figuring out that they were all just a bunch of neckbeards and hahaisn'tbreakingthefourthwallfunny?

    It is cyclical, and the cycles are going to be faster and faster, but I hope the era of comics when childishly grimdark books like The Crow and The Mask are big sellers are long behind us.

    I think we have slightly different chronologies.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.

    I'm sure it will be (Warners is great at clumsily looking around at other studios' success and saying, "Hey, let's do THAT"), but even that might not be something I'm all for.

    The Burton films and the Nolan films, while different in approach and aesthetic, both understood the melancholy inherent of a character built on a foundation of witnessing his parents' violent murder that turned him to a life of spending his fortune making sure the bad people feel pain like he feels it.

    Batman's not a sunny character, and there's not a lot of cheerfulness that can be organically harvested from his origins.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    And frankly, the sorts of problems Gotham has wouldn't be solved by a fleet of SWAT trucks and some new bullets.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Who asked for that? If you're interested in a convo, then the all or nothing approach has to stop, guys.


    And I don't see him having helped them at all, being as they're markedly outclassed in pretty much every single encounter.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Harry Dresden on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Sigh.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't really want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.

    It is a nice touch. I really engaged with the way that Bruce had such high hopes for Harvey being successful so he could just stop all this silly shit and go live his life.

    But I love Bale's Bruce Wayne anyway. He always has this little bit of sadness and detachedness within him, like he's never going to be fixed after being so broken and this is the only thing he knows to do to make it better. You really see it more in TDK than in Begins, but even as Batman you can feel his loathing for himself and the city he's trying to salvage.

    He's the first Batman to really hate being Batman and hate living in a world that needs Batman, and that's really dynamic.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Who asked for that? If you're interested in a convo, then the all or nothing approach has to stop, guys.

    What? I was exaggerating to make a point, but there's really no need for a scene where Bruce gives the chief of police a big check. There's every indication in the films that Gotham PD is well-equipped and well-trained, but suffer from corruption and facing against a class of criminal they can't deal with. Not because he has better guns or superpowers, but because he's out-planning them. Because it's a superhero movie about a man doing what the cops can't, not just because they don't have the money, but because it's simply not their role in society.

    It's like you didn't see the same movie! I mean, it's fascinating that you can come away with such different impressions, but I really don't get it.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't really want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.

    It is a nice touch. I really engaged with the way that Bruce had such high hopes for Harvey being successful so he could just stop all this silly shit and go live his life.

    But I love Bale's Bruce Wayne anyway. He always has this little bit of sadness and detachedness within him, like he's never going to be fixed after being so broken and this is the only thing he knows to do to make it better. You really see it more in TDK than in Begins, but even as Batman you can feel his loathing for himself and the city he's trying to salvage.

    He's the first Batman to really hate being Batman and hate living in a world that needs Batman, and that's really dynamic.

    Indeed, it's why this version has beaten out BTAS on my list of best Batmans.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    It also wouldn't be very effective.

    Also that after hours video about Batman was pretty inaccurate in an attempt to be humorous.

    Quire.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Mad King George,

    What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't really want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.

    It is a nice touch. I really engaged with the way that Bruce had such high hopes for Harvey being successful so he could just stop all this silly shit and go live his life.

    But I love Bale's Bruce Wayne anyway. He always has this little bit of sadness and detachedness within him, like he's never going to be fixed after being so broken and this is the only thing he knows to do to make it better. You really see it more in TDK than in Begins, but even as Batman you can feel his loathing for himself and the city he's trying to salvage.

    He's the first Batman to really hate being Batman and hate living in a world that needs Batman, and that's really dynamic.

    Agreed.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Who asked for that? If you're interested in a convo, then the all or nothing approach has to stop, guys.

    What? I was exaggerating to make a point, but there's really no need for a scene where Bruce gives the chief of police a big check. There's every indication in the films that Gotham PD is well-equipped and well-trained, but suffer from corruption and facing against a class of criminal they can't deal with. Not because he has better guns or superpowers, but because he's out-planning them. Because it's a superhero movie about a man doing what the cops can't, not just because they don't have the money, but because it's simply not their role in society.

    It's like you didn't see the same movie! I mean, it's fascinating that you can come away with such different impressions, but I really don't get it.

    And yet Cracked.com did a whole thing on it which I wasn't even aware of. So I can't be only one...

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't really want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.

    It is a nice touch. I really engaged with the way that Bruce had such high hopes for Harvey being successful so he could just stop all this silly shit and go live his life.

    But I love Bale's Bruce Wayne anyway. He always has this little bit of sadness and detachedness within him, like he's never going to be fixed after being so broken and this is the only thing he knows to do to make it better. You really see it more in TDK than in Begins, but even as Batman you can feel his loathing for himself and the city he's trying to salvage.

    He's the first Batman to really hate being Batman and hate living in a world that needs Batman, and that's really dynamic.

    Indeed, it's why this version has beaten out BTAS on my list of best Batmans.

    Yeah, Conroy is great and all, but I don't think we'll see Bale shouting from the rooftops, "I AM THE NIGHT!"

    TAS' Batman treated the cowl like a sacred burden.

    Nolan's Batman treats the cowl like someone who takes chemotherapy.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Who asked for that? If you're interested in a convo, then the all or nothing approach has to stop, guys.

    What? I was exaggerating to make a point, but there's really no need for a scene where Bruce gives the chief of police a big check. There's every indication in the films that Gotham PD is well-equipped and well-trained, but suffer from corruption and facing against a class of criminal they can't deal with. Not because he has better guns or superpowers, but because he's out-planning them. Because it's a superhero movie about a man doing what the cops can't, not just because they don't have the money, but because it's simply not their role in society.

    It's like you didn't see the same movie! I mean, it's fascinating that you can come away with such different impressions, but I really don't get it.

    And yet Cracked.com did a whole thing on it which I wasn't even aware of. So I can't be only one...

    "Not being the only one" doesn't make you right, either :P

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

    That whole line of reasoning is just weird anyway, Burton's Joker DOES commit terrorist acts, as does the Penguin. As does the comics Joker (who also, at one point, fell into a vat of poison).

    Need we be reminded that Jack Nicholson Joker is already a homicidal maniac before he falls into the poison vat?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    It also wouldn't be very effective.

    Also that after hours video about Batman was pretty inaccurate in an attempt to be humorous.

    It's like "The Rebel Alliance murdered millions of innocent people when they blew up the Death Star" or the Ewok Holocaust.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.

    Out of curiosity, how would he "help out" the police without it being bribery?

    "Here Mr. Mayor, Commisioner, citizens of Gotham, a fleet of new squads cars and better equipment for the SWAT units courtesy of Wayne Enterprises."


    Like that. That wouldn't be bribery.

    I always got the impression that he does that and the whole Batman thing. Given how he's so buddy-buddy with the cops in TDK, anyway.

    And the adventures of Super Philathropist Man would be pretty boring. It is a movie, after all, so that's all, you know, off-screen.

    Who asked for that? If you're interested in a convo, then the all or nothing approach has to stop, guys.

    What? I was exaggerating to make a point, but there's really no need for a scene where Bruce gives the chief of police a big check. There's every indication in the films that Gotham PD is well-equipped and well-trained, but suffer from corruption and facing against a class of criminal they can't deal with. Not because he has better guns or superpowers, but because he's out-planning them. Because it's a superhero movie about a man doing what the cops can't, not just because they don't have the money, but because it's simply not their role in society.

    It's like you didn't see the same movie! I mean, it's fascinating that you can come away with such different impressions, but I really don't get it.

    And yet Cracked.com did a whole thing on it which I wasn't even aware of. So I can't be only one...

    Fucking...

    If your going to us it as evidence you could at least watch the video.

    http://www.cracked.com/video_18175_why-batman-secretly-terrible-gotham.html

    Quire.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Are you guys forgetting the part in TDK when they flat out showed Batman helping Gordon by giving him irradiated bills to use to trace the mob's bank accounts?

    And then a few scenes later, Dent literally says "Lightly irradiated bills... fancy stuff for a city cop." And then the sting gets torpedoed by the mob's corrupt sources in either Dent's office or Gordon's force?

    The problem with law enforcement in TDK is never implied to be lack of funding. Ever. It's corruption, straight from the beginning of Batman Begins.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.

    I'm sure it will be (Warners is great at clumsily looking around at other studios' success and saying, "Hey, let's do THAT"), but even that might not be something I'm all for.

    The Burton films and the Nolan films, while different in approach and aesthetic, both understood the melancholy inherent of a character built on a foundation of witnessing his parents' violent murder that turned him to a life of spending his fortune making sure the bad people feel pain like he feels it.

    Batman's not a sunny character, and there's not a lot of cheerfulness that can be organically harvested from his origins.

    Nolan's staying on as producer so I'm not to worried about the reboot. I'd like to see Jim Caviezel pick up the mantle from Bale.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.

    I'm sure it will be (Warners is great at clumsily looking around at other studios' success and saying, "Hey, let's do THAT"), but even that might not be something I'm all for.

    The Burton films and the Nolan films, while different in approach and aesthetic, both understood the melancholy inherent of a character built on a foundation of witnessing his parents' violent murder that turned him to a life of spending his fortune making sure the bad people feel pain like he feels it.

    Batman's not a sunny character, and there's not a lot of cheerfulness that can be organically harvested from his origins.

    Nolan's staying on as producer so I'm not to worried about the reboot. I'd like to see Jim Caviezel pick up the mantle from Bale.

    I would be if I were you. He also consulted on Man of Steel and that looks...

    Quire.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Are you guys forgetting the part in TDK when they flat out showed Batman helping Gordon by giving him irradiated bills to use to trace the mob's bank accounts?

    And then a few scenes later, Dent literally says "Lightly irradiated bills... fancy stuff for a city cop." And then the sting gets torpedoed by the mob's corrupt sources in either Dent's office or Gordon's force?

    The problem with law enforcement in TDK is never implied to be lack of funding. Ever. It's corruption, straight from the beginning of Batman Begins.

    Exactly.

    A SWAT team armed and equipped and numbered to take Normandy isn't going to do shit if it's run by people in the pay of the Mob.

    Which was the problem Wayne created the Batman to solve.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

    That whole line of reasoning is just weird anyway, Burton's Joker DOES commit terrorist acts, as does the Penguin. As does the comics Joker (who also, at one point, fell into a vat of poison).

    Need we be reminded that Jack Nicholson Joker is already a homicidal maniac before he falls into the poison vat?

    So you're saying that a Smilex filled Macy's Day parade and blowing up a ferry full of people are things that are equal in your realism scale? 'Cause one is like actual terrorism and one is like comic-book froofrah.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

    That whole line of reasoning is just weird anyway, Burton's Joker DOES commit terrorist acts, as does the Penguin. As does the comics Joker (who also, at one point, fell into a vat of poison).

    Need we be reminded that Jack Nicholson Joker is already a homicidal maniac before he falls into the poison vat?

    So you're saying that a Smilex filled Macy's Day parade and blowing up a ferry full of people are things that are equal in your realism scale? 'Cause one is like actual terrorism and one is like comic-book froofrah.

    The ferry scenario is so comic book. If anything, a poison gas attack on Macy's Day parade is far more realistic and terrifying! It would kill thousands of people! And it's more like a real terrorist attack since it's aim is to cause general fear and chaos rather than just being a little morality play that maybe kills a couple hundred in a big spectacle.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.

    I'm sure it will be (Warners is great at clumsily looking around at other studios' success and saying, "Hey, let's do THAT"), but even that might not be something I'm all for.

    The Burton films and the Nolan films, while different in approach and aesthetic, both understood the melancholy inherent of a character built on a foundation of witnessing his parents' violent murder that turned him to a life of spending his fortune making sure the bad people feel pain like he feels it.

    Batman's not a sunny character, and there's not a lot of cheerfulness that can be organically harvested from his origins.

    That didn't really stop them in 1966:


    I love the look Batman gives the spotlight/camera, as if we're all the biggest shitheads he's ever seen.

    That said, the type of comedy I most want to see Batman in is a black comedy.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

    That whole line of reasoning is just weird anyway, Burton's Joker DOES commit terrorist acts, as does the Penguin. As does the comics Joker (who also, at one point, fell into a vat of poison).

    Need we be reminded that Jack Nicholson Joker is already a homicidal maniac before he falls into the poison vat?

    So you're saying that a Smilex filled Macy's Day parade and blowing up a ferry full of people are things that are equal in your realism scale? 'Cause one is like actual terrorism and one is like comic-book froofrah.

    The ferry scenario is so comic book. If anything, a poison gas attack on Macy's Day parade is far more realistic and terrifying! It would kill thousands of people! And it's more like a real terrorist attack since it's aim is to cause general fear and chaos rather than just being a little morality play that maybe kills a couple hundred in a big spectacle.

    A less comic-booky act of terrorism would be to do something like blow up a hospital, threaten an entire city, then tell them that all the bridges and tunnels are also rigged with bombs.

    KalTorak on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    I think the general interpretation is that Batman is the heavy/targeted strike, where one guy with a shitload of effectiveness can help you out more than giving everyone a couple more bullets.

    Sounds accurate.
    I mean, seriously, the entirety of Batman Begins is showing Gotham to be magnificently corrupt. Without Batman in Batman Begins, there is no Harvey Dent or Lt Gordon and the MCD.

    There is a very good thread in TDK about escalation and such, but it isn't really following "Selfish Bruce needs to give more to the Fire and Ice Ball".

    I like how with Nolan's Batman he doesn't want to stay Batman. That he'd drop it the second it wasn't useful anymore. It made Bruce seem more realistic.
    I don't think the Joker ever said THAT. And I don't think that's anything that hasn't been pointed out about Batman for decades. Perhaps you could argue that the films spend less time talking about the charity funds that Wayne Enterprises carries on, but I still think you're pretty far off base in your interpretation of what Nolan is shooting for.

    That could change with TDKR, of course, but I think you're really really reaching.

    I don't. And you can't say these are like the old ones because they're not. In a world where chemicals can turn you into a homicidal clown, you can have a guy with gadgets be the square-jawed white-hat.

    In a world where it's a loony who wears make-up and commits terrorist acts, a dude who puts billions into a super car instead of helping out the local police is kinda a dick.

    I'm actually giving Nolan a lot of credit. I think he very quickly realized what Batman himself becomes if you make his world super realistic. It's really the fans that don't want to acknowledge it.
    IIRC Nolan's not the first to do this. The comics have touched on the subject and Batman: TAS.

    What episode? I don't remember that one.

    There's a massive difference between touching on and making explicit.

    True. The episode was "Trial".

    Again, you can't compare a world where the Joker is a dude who fell into chemical soup and came out a clown to one where a homicidal maniac wears makeup and commits terrorist acts. TAS Batman is Burton's Batman, not Nolan's.

    Batman: TAS may have been influenced by Burton's movies but it's more faithful to the comics then Burton's. Batman, Joker, Penguin & Catwoman are very different. Batman: TAS Joker has committed terrorist acts before. He tried to blow up Gotham with a nuclear bomb once IIRC. Almost destroyed Metropolis, too.

    That whole line of reasoning is just weird anyway, Burton's Joker DOES commit terrorist acts, as does the Penguin. As does the comics Joker (who also, at one point, fell into a vat of poison).

    Need we be reminded that Jack Nicholson Joker is already a homicidal maniac before he falls into the poison vat?

    So you're saying that a Smilex filled Macy's Day parade and blowing up a ferry full of people are things that are equal in your realism scale? 'Cause one is like actual terrorism and one is like comic-book froofrah.

    I'm not trying to set up a false equivalency, obviously the Nolan version is more "realistic". That's not what we're talking about, in their respective universes, they're equally terrorists.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I'm sure the next reboot will be lighter in tone than Nolan's.

    I'm sure it will be (Warners is great at clumsily looking around at other studios' success and saying, "Hey, let's do THAT"), but even that might not be something I'm all for.

    The Burton films and the Nolan films, while different in approach and aesthetic, both understood the melancholy inherent of a character built on a foundation of witnessing his parents' violent murder that turned him to a life of spending his fortune making sure the bad people feel pain like he feels it.

    Batman's not a sunny character, and there's not a lot of cheerfulness that can be organically harvested from his origins.

    Nolan's staying on as producer so I'm not to worried about the reboot. I'd like to see Jim Caviezel pick up the mantle from Bale.

    I would be if I were you. He also consulted on Man of Steel and that looks...

    The biggest issue I have with that is the bad costume for Superman, right now I'm confident it'll be ok. Whether it'll be good we'll have to wait and see.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Mad King George,

    What makes you think GCPD is underfunded (anymore than say the NYPD or Chicago PD are)? They don't have the tank that Bruce stole from his company, but again Gotham's problems can't really be solved by throwing money at the police department.

    It also misses the whole point of the first movie. Like completely misses it. And the point of the opening of TDK.

    Batman is a SYMBOL. That's his power. It's not about having the best, most expensive toys, it's about the way he makes criminals feel afraid and ordinary people feel safe.

    A donation to the police department can't solve that.

    shryke on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    I mean, he even lays it out on the plane - he wants to be a symbol that's "incorruptible."

    Heck, the Joker uses the same word when he's hanging upside-down.

This discussion has been closed.