|
Post by Batlaw on Aug 19, 2007 22:47:02 GMT -5
remember... Everyone has their own opinion and everyone is entitled to it. Everone is welcome and encouraged to voice those opinions here. However; everyone here is expected to express their opinions and respond to those of others with tact and respect. Always. Not everyone sees things the same way (even in the world of Bat fandom).
|
|
|
Post by coliv1977 on Aug 20, 2007 7:03:57 GMT -5
And the same with the Spiderman Suit, it has pretty much stayed to comic book form
I have to disagree with you here. I'm not a fan of the silver webbing that they put in the costume...in every movie! I was hoping it would've gone away at some point!
|
|
|
Post by coliv1977 on Aug 20, 2007 7:25:50 GMT -5
God, I'm so angry right now, I can't even think straight. WOW! then you're really gonna blow a fuse now... If "Nolan is saving this franchise" means to reinterpret the Bat-mythos then count me out. I can understand maybe a little change in costume design, but dammit, DC or even Marvel should not let directors have free range on changing a mytho for the sake of change! We saw what Singer did with the Superman/Lois/child line, Rami with the Goblin, Goblin II and Venom and now this so called "savior of the bat" named Nolan is re-writing the whole Bat-universe. At least Schumacher was closer to the mark than Nolan will ever be. While Burton's Joker may have looked bad, make-up and prosthetics have changed in the last 18 years and I'm sure they could have made it look better. remember, it was the vat of chemicals that the Joker fell into that changed his face white, hair green and gave him the smile. not some supposed knife slice. Hell I'd rather see Romero's Joker on the big screen again before Ledger's. As for the bat suit, you might as well change the cowl to a motocross helmet and sign Travis Pastrani to play Batman in next year's summer X-games. How is this suit supposed to be better? what was wrong with the look before? Sure, I love the fact that the costume designers after all these years figured out how to not restrict the actor's head movement, but come on! There's wider gaps in between the armor plates, how is this suppose to protect? I'll end my rant for now, but I'll be back when the next set of "Nolan is the Bat-savior" comes up I agree with pretty much this whole thing, except the part about Burton's Joker. I'm one of the few people that saw nothing wrong with Burton's interpretations of the mythos itself, meaning GC, Joker, Batman(I thought Keaton was the best of all of them, BTW)The problem with Burton's interpretation was not going more into the origin of Batman, and making The Joker the one who killed Bruce's parents instead of the mugger later known as Joe Chill. The suit is by far my favorite of all of them, except for the bat emblem. Other then that, You could argue Nicholson's Joker was too comedic and silly and not sinister enough, but the more I think about it, I think lots of people are going to compare it with the BTAS Joker(who was one EVIL SOB!) because between Burton's movie and BTAS there was nothing else, so the comparisons are inevitable, IMO
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Aug 20, 2007 8:07:46 GMT -5
remember... Everyone has their own opinion and everyone is entitled to it. Everone is welcome and encouraged to voice those opinions here. However; everyone here is expected to express their opinions and respond to those of others with tact and respect. Always. Not everyone sees things the same way (even in the world of Bat fandom). Here, Here... Well Spoken =)
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Aug 20, 2007 8:10:59 GMT -5
Total agreement Techno Bat! Those Fan film suits were great and worked well Thank You... Even The Dead End/Worlds Finest Cowl has more character to it then the new The Dark Knight cowl. Either way though I will still be buying a ticked for the new film, and eventually like the last Batman film I will get over the suit. Oh but what could have been. Maybe if they ever do a Justice League Movie or a Batman/Superman movie and different directors perhaps they will get it right and put the appropiate suit on Bats
|
|
Christopher Jones
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Member of the Bat-Comic Industry
Batman Strikes Artist Christopher Jones, Causing Minor Injuries.
Posts: 231
|
Post by Christopher Jones on Aug 20, 2007 9:39:10 GMT -5
The Batsuit was probably my least favorite thing about Batman Begins, even though I thought it was better than the suits in the previous series of four films. The biggest issue I had with the portrayal of the Joker in Batman '89, was that we'd seen Nicholson play crazy before, so he never disappeared into the character. It was Nicholson with green hair. And that familiarity kept the Joker from being shocking, which he HAS to be to work well. That's what excites me the most about the Joker we're getting in The Dark Knight. When I see these photos, I'm not seeing Heath Ledger. I'm seeing the Joker. I don't know what kind of Joker we're getting yet, but I think it's going to be something extreme, exciting, and new.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Aug 20, 2007 12:05:43 GMT -5
Darkclaw wrote:
"remember, it was the vat of chemicals that the Joker fell into that changed his face white, hair green and gave him the smile."
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile.
and we've had discussion about the suit before. in a realistic world where there are no mutants with powers, a vigilante has to wear body armour to protect himself. wearing a Batsuit like in the comics wouldn't work, because it would offer no protection whatsoever. in the real world Nolan has created, everyone would just laugh at Batman if he wore grey spandex pyjamas and expected to intimidate a villain.
the thin material suits are ok for Superman or Spider-Man because they are aliens/mutants, therefore the suits only top-up their already near-invincible bodies. they are more for show than ultimate protection. in Nolan's world (even in Burton's too), Batman is just a man with no powers or invincibility, so he has to wear a suit that actually does offer him genuine protection.
if achieving realism and believability means dressing Batman up like a motorcross rider, then so be it, IMO. leave the other costumes for the comics. and yes there are wider gaps between the armour panels of the "new" suit, but the panels are attached to an already protective undersuit, so although slighty vulnerable, the gaps still do offer some protection. in the movie they're gonna explain how the undersuit is strengthened by being dipped in some special alloy, then the armour plates attached.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Aug 20, 2007 13:41:33 GMT -5
the main thing to remember is - the comic stories work best in the comics. the movies of these comics are only an interpretation, nothing else. it may define the character for the majority of people and non-comic readers, but we, the true fans, know the truth. as much as i would love to see bats in his gray long-johns, i understand what Nolan is doing. besides, if i want to see batman they way he's supposed to look, he's starred in a couple thousand comic books over the last 70 years. the movies can make their own rules. and, furthermore, who cares about the aesthetics of the movie as long as they get the character and story correct.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Aug 20, 2007 14:46:45 GMT -5
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile. and we've had discussion about the suit before. in a realistic world where there are no mutants with powers, a vigilante has to wear body armour to protect himself. wearing a Batsuit like in the comics wouldn't work, because it would offer no protection whatsoever. in the real world Nolan has created, everyone would just laugh at Batman if he wore grey spandex pyjamas and expected to intimidate a villain. the thin material suits are ok for Superman or Spider-Man because they are aliens/mutants, therefore the suits only top-up their already near-invincible bodies. they are more for show than ultimate protection. in Nolan's world (even in Burton's too), Batman is just a man with no powers or invincibility, so he has to wear a suit that actually does offer him genuine protection. if achieving realism and believability means dressing Batman up like a motorcross rider, then so be it, IMO. leave the other costumes for the comics. and yes there are wider gaps between the armour panels of the "new" suit, but the panels are attached to an already protective undersuit, so although slighty vulnerable, the gaps still do offer some protection. in the movie they're gonna explain how the undersuit is strengthened by being dipped in some special alloy, then the armour plates attached. the main thing to remember is - the comic stories work best in the comics. the movies of these comics are only an interpretation, nothing else. it may define the character for the majority of people and non-comic readers, but we, the true fans, know the truth. as much as i would love to see bats in his gray long-johns, i understand what Nolan is doing. besides, if i want to see batman they way he's supposed to look, he's starred in a couple thousand comic books over the last 70 years. the movies can make their own rules. and, furthermore, who cares about the aesthetics of the movie as long as they get the character and story correct. I couldn't have said it better myself. What it all comes down to is, do you want a Batman who looks like Batman, or a Batman who is Batman? It's not like they're killing the character or anything by giving his suit an armored appearance. In fact, they're pointing out that he's human, and that he needs this sort of protection or he'll die. No element from outer space, obscure color or other strange substance can purely do him in. A mere bullet could end his life, and this armor that he wears is the only thing that separates him from death. With pen and ink, it's simple to throw away that sort of realism because it's up to the readers to imagine how Batman copes. But it doesn't make sense to have him running around on screen in tights, dodging everything that comes his way without so much as a scratch. Nolan hasn't gotten everything right, in my opinion, but he's pretty much nailed Batman (I just want to see some more detective work this time around, and then I'll be 100% sold).
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Aug 20, 2007 15:31:20 GMT -5
yeahh, more detective work would be great! i wish we saw him training and meeting with the FBI and stuff like that, like in the denny o'niel story, the man who falls, or something like that.
|
|
darkclaw
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 249
|
Post by darkclaw on Aug 20, 2007 17:55:31 GMT -5
and, furthermore, who cares about the aesthetics of the movie as long as they get the character and story correct. But that's one of my points, Nolan is not getting the character correct.
|
|
darkclaw
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 249
|
Post by darkclaw on Aug 20, 2007 17:57:51 GMT -5
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile. Sorry Muksc, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951) revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, the Red Hood falls into a vat of chemicals while escaping from Batman. He emerges with white skin, green hair, and a bizarre grin. Don't confuse the 89 Burton origin with the true origin. See why I don't like directors that mess with mythos, it just confuses people
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Aug 20, 2007 18:51:46 GMT -5
and, furthermore, who cares about the aesthetics of the movie as long as they get the character and story correct. But that's one of my points, Nolan is not getting the character correct. how didn't he get the character correct? yes, he changed the origin of bruce around a little (him with a gun willing to kill joe chill) but that just humanized the characte even more and made him that much more relatable. because, as human as batman is, he is probably the least relatable characters out there. you can relate to peter parker so much more than bruce wayne, and parker has spider powers! all i'm saying is, all of nolan's tweaks to the character don't change batman. they just ground him and give him more layers of reality and relevance.
|
|
|
Post by RJ on Aug 20, 2007 21:04:45 GMT -5
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile. and we've had discussion about the suit before. in a realistic world where there are no mutants with powers, a vigilante has to wear body armour to protect himself. wearing a Batsuit like in the comics wouldn't work, because it would offer no protection whatsoever. in the real world Nolan has created, everyone would just laugh at Batman if he wore grey spandex pyjamas and expected to intimidate a villain. the thin material suits are ok for Superman or Spider-Man because they are aliens/mutants, therefore the suits only top-up their already near-invincible bodies. they are more for show than ultimate protection. in Nolan's world (even in Burton's too), Batman is just a man with no powers or invincibility, so he has to wear a suit that actually does offer him genuine protection. if achieving realism and believability means dressing Batman up like a motorcross rider, then so be it, IMO. leave the other costumes for the comics. and yes there are wider gaps between the armour panels of the "new" suit, but the panels are attached to an already protective undersuit, so although slighty vulnerable, the gaps still do offer some protection. in the movie they're gonna explain how the undersuit is strengthened by being dipped in some special alloy, then the armour plates attached. the main thing to remember is - the comic stories work best in the comics. the movies of these comics are only an interpretation, nothing else. it may define the character for the majority of people and non-comic readers, but we, the true fans, know the truth. as much as i would love to see bats in his gray long-johns, i understand what Nolan is doing. besides, if i want to see batman they way he's supposed to look, he's starred in a couple thousand comic books over the last 70 years. the movies can make their own rules. and, furthermore, who cares about the aesthetics of the movie as long as they get the character and story correct. I couldn't have said it better myself. What it all comes down to is, do you want a Batman who looks like Batman, or a Batman who is Batman? It's not like they're killing the character or anything by giving his suit an armored appearance. In fact, they're pointing out that he's human, and that he needs this sort of protection or he'll die. No element from outer space, obscure color or other strange substance can purely do him in. A mere bullet could end his life, and this armor that he wears is the only thing that separates him from death. With pen and ink, it's simple to throw away that sort of realism because it's up to the readers to imagine how Batman copes. But it doesn't make sense to have him running around on screen in tights, dodging everything that comes his way without so much as a scratch. Nolan hasn't gotten everything right, in my opinion, but he's pretty much nailed Batman (I just want to see some more detective work this time around, and then I'll be 100% sold). I totally agree with you guys on this, if I wanted to know the "correct" history of Batman I would read the tons of comics available, or watch a documentary, but if I want to see one of the best comic book characters of all time on film I'll watch a movie. Let's not forget that all characters that have been around for as long as Batman have to adjust to the times. If it's not fresh and exciting, it's yesterday's news and no one will pay to see or read it. From what I've seen so far, Chris Nolan has a true passion to create the Batman film that many people feel will be one of the best representations we may ever get on film. After all, how many times can some guy fall into a vat of chemicals and emerge as the Joker, and people still care to pay to see it in the movies?
|
|
darkclaw
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 249
|
Post by darkclaw on Aug 20, 2007 21:06:16 GMT -5
how didn't he get the character correct? yes, he changed the origin of bruce around a little (him with a gun willing to kill joe chill) but that just humanized the characte even more and made him that much more relatable. because, as human as batman is, he is probably the least relatable characters out there. you can relate to peter parker so much more than bruce wayne, and parker has spider powers! all i'm saying is, all of nolan's tweaks to the character don't change batman. they just ground him and give him more layers of reality and relevance. How can Batman be the least unrelatable? He's a man who's mother & father were killed in cold blood. Sure most of us here didn't have their parents killd in from of them, but ANYONE can be a Batman. People can relate to Parker only cause of his everyday problems i.e. rent due, girlfriend/wife problems, school(in the old days), work, etc.. My point is, Nolan is re-writing origins when there is no reason to re-write almost 70 years of completely good mythos that work still to this day. Change for the sake of change is not always good. Sure Nolan wants to create his own universe, but leave the base of the characters alone and just create new stories. You want to design the batmobile like a crumpled piece of paper with wheels? sure go ahead, but don't change something like how Joker got his smile or white face and green hair.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Aug 20, 2007 23:08:15 GMT -5
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile. Sorry Muksc, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951) revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, the Red Hood falls into a vat of chemicals while escaping from Batman. He emerges with white skin, green hair, and a bizarre grin. Don't confuse the 89 Burton origin with the true origin. See why I don't like directors that mess with mythos, it just confuses people Since when is the origin absolutely essential to define a character? There have been numerous Joker origin stories in the comics; what's to say this isn't just another one of those stories? The red hood and vat of acid aren't essential; it's who the Joker becomes after whatever incident that is. Most people agree on that, and that's why most people have started to regain faith in this sequel (f they didn't have it already).
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Aug 21, 2007 1:39:37 GMT -5
how didn't he get the character correct? yes, he changed the origin of bruce around a little (him with a gun willing to kill joe chill) but that just humanized the characte even more and made him that much more relatable. because, as human as batman is, he is probably the least relatable characters out there. you can relate to peter parker so much more than bruce wayne, and parker has spider powers! all i'm saying is, all of nolan's tweaks to the character don't change batman. they just ground him and give him more layers of reality and relevance. How can Batman be the least unrelatable? He's a man who's mother & father were killed in cold blood. Sure most of us here didn't have their parents killd in from of them, but ANYONE can be a Batman. People can relate to Parker only cause of his everyday problems i.e. rent due, girlfriend/wife problems, school(in the old days), work, etc.. My point is, Nolan is re-writing origins when there is no reason to re-write almost 70 years of completely good mythos that work still to this day. Change for the sake of change is not always good. Sure Nolan wants to create his own universe, but leave the base of the characters alone and just create new stories. You want to design the batmobile like a crumpled piece of paper with wheels? sure go ahead, but don't change something like how Joker got his smile or white face and green hair. what i meant by bats being unrelatable, i was not talking about his origin. he is sooo emotionally detached and, the way he has been interpreted the last 20 or so years, he's been written basically as a schizophrenic. sure, once in a while, we all get depressed and brood, and in that sense, we can relate to batman. but other than that, he is usually written as a very cold character. don't get me wrong, he's still the best. and like i said, i don't think nolan is changing things just for the sake of change, everything has a practicality to it that previous interpretations did not. or he's adding emotional substance and real-life drama to the character. but i see where you're coming from.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Aug 21, 2007 8:43:01 GMT -5
the chemicals didn't give him the smile, the rococheted bullet injured his face so the plastic surgeon had to repair his face, giving him the smile. Sorry Muksc, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951) revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, the Red Hood falls into a vat of chemicals while escaping from Batman. He emerges with white skin, green hair, and a bizarre grin. Don't confuse the 89 Burton origin with the true origin. See why I don't like directors that mess with mythos, it just confuses people sorry, i got the distinct impression you were reffering to Burton's 1989 Joker, not the origin from the comics, that's why i said what i said in response. and i must confess i don't have any interest in the comics of animated series, i just dig the movie versions of Batman. i own and have read Year One and Dark Knight Returns, but nothing else in comic-form, so i don't really care if the origin stories in the movies are accurate or not, all i want is for them to make sense and be entertaining. i can understand that you hardcore comic fans might not like Nolan changing the mythos from what it was in the comics, but at the end of the day, it's only his interpretation of the Batman history. there will never be a Batman movie that satisfies casual observers and hardcore fans alike, so in my opinion we just have to appreciate that someone is willing to invest time in making something he cares for, i certainly do because i have little or no interest in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four or Superman movies, because anything is possible in a superhero world where they're aliens or mutants, so i find them ultimately less impressive as movies. although slightly far-fetched, the Nolan Batman universe is real and practical, and that's what i really love about it, i can see that this is the real world he's operating in and is vulnerable like me. coming back to the suit, i'd have seen it as a massive failure if Batman had been wearing long-johns or spandex in an otherwise totally realistic world.
|
|