I hate when people say Nolan's Batman is faithful.

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by MrErbac (115 posts) - - Show Bio

Really? Having Ra's Al Ghul as part of Batman's origin. Ra's didn't appear until the seventies, and Henry Ducard was a separate character. Not to mention the stupid way they did Two-Face. The way Dent got the face in the comics is much better, he got acid thrown in his face in a courtroom. Oh, and why did Joker look like he was going to a grunge concert? He never looked like that in the comics. That was not Joker, that was some psycho with paint on his face and grunge hair. Oh, and now we got a puny 5'9'' Bane whose going to be looking up at Batman instead of Batman looking up at him. Anyway, there's a million other unfaithful things in the Nolan movies. Feel free to point them out.
#2 Posted by Jean_Luc_LeBeau (84704 posts) - - Show Bio

I think, could be wrong, that when fans say Nolan's adaptation of Batman is faithful the mean in the larger scope. His parents were killed, he traveled the World picking up various skills, Gotham, gadgets, Millionaire Bruce Wayne, etc. How the Joker looked is pretty minor when compared to his overall interpretation. Certain things were altered, I agree with you there, but I dont think people are using "faithful" as a substitute for "perfectly accurate."

#3 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio
@Gambler said:
I think, could be wrong, that when fans say Nolan's adaptation of Batman is faithful the mean in the larger scope. His parents were killed, he traveled the World picking up various skills, Gotham, gadgets, Millionaire Bruce Wayne, etc. How the Joker looked is pretty minor when compared to his overall interpretation. Certain things were altered, I agree with you there, but I dont think people are using "faithful" as a substitute for "perfectly accurate."
Pretty much this, but let me add that it's more about how he got the characters right, I'd argue perfect. Yes, Joker never had scars and makeup, but Joker always did things for seemingly no reason and just murdered for the fun of it, he did not try to pick up chicks and shoot down jets with revolvers. If you want to make the argument that the Nolan films don't look like the comics I'll agree with you, if you want to make the argument that they don't follow the continuity of the comics verbatim then I'll agree with you but these are invalid points. They didn't want to try to make it look like the comics, they didn't want everything to work in the exact same way that they did in the comics, that's the point. What you're doing is like going to see a metal concert and complaining  that the music is to loud...
#4 Posted by War Killer (20376 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate when people make threads criticizing one of (if not) the best superhero movies to date.

#5 Posted by Mercy_ (92997 posts) - - Show Bio
@Sydpart2 said:
@Gambler said:
I think, could be wrong, that when fans say Nolan's adaptation of Batman is faithful the mean in the larger scope. His parents were killed, he traveled the World picking up various skills, Gotham, gadgets, Millionaire Bruce Wayne, etc. How the Joker looked is pretty minor when compared to his overall interpretation. Certain things were altered, I agree with you there, but I dont think people are using "faithful" as a substitute for "perfectly accurate."
Pretty much this, but let me add that it's more about how he got the characters right, I'd argue perfect. Yes, Joker never had scars and makeup, but Joker always did things for seemingly no reason and just murdered for the fun of it, he did not try to pick up chicks and shoot down jets with revolvers. If you want to make the argument that the Nolan films don't look like the comics I'll agree with you, if you want to make the argument that they don't follow the continuity of the comics verbatim then I'll agree with you but these are invalid points. They didn't want to try to make it look like the comics, they didn't want everything to work in the exact same way that they did in the comics, that's the point. What you're doing is like going to see a metal concert and complaining  that the music is to loud...
So much this. Great posts gentlemen. 
Moderator
#6 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4786 posts) - - Show Bio

The first Batman movie wasn't entirely like the comic, although it wasn't so much an origin story as it was Batman becoming a known figure in the criminal underground. If things had been accurate (or faithful), then Batman would have worn spandex with a variety of useless gadgets to catch a Joker whose main goal is to make jokes. The last film was probably a more innovative interpretation of the comics, despite the armor, tank and scars. I think I enjoyed it more because Nolan wanted something different.

#7 Posted by The_Peter_Cosmic (401 posts) - - Show Bio

Most other Batman movies have been either super campy or made his life look fun and glamorous. Nolan's movies are the only one's that have conveyed the lonely life Bruce Wayne lives, how he will never be able to make meaningful interpersonal relationships last because his persona as Bruce Wayne is the mask and the Batman is who he truly is.

#8 Posted by TheBatman (27 posts) - - Show Bio


I'd have to agree that Nolan's film ISN'T 100% faithful but hey, who cares?
Burton's films were his interepretation of the characters as were Joel's... Whether or not you think they worked, is a totally different thing.

I think Nolan's two films were great. I didnt think of them as faithful/ unfaithful, just a particular vision.

 

For example, while TDK presents an alterative Two-Face origin to the one we're used to... Somewhat different from that in the comics, it REALLY builds a FAR stonger character!

Having his relationship with Rachel, how he losses her... THAT is what really justifies his madness.

In the comics it's like, Oh, he's always been troubled and aggressive, the accident triggered him to snap, blah blah blah...

 

In the FILM, we DO see that agression, but that alone would not drive his actions nearing the end of the film. Nolan takes it further! He kills off the love of Harvey's life THUS destroying Harvey and creating Two-Face.

 

Sometimes... ALOT of the time the original source material just isn't appropriate to adapt to film. Comics are fundimentaly drawings. You can get away with just about anything. In FILM people expect a degree of realism, at least in most cases. At least when it came to Nolan's sequel!

So yeah, in some ways.. MANY ways, the film ISN'T totally faithful to the original material (Thank god!) ... Nobody can say it is! BUT, it's an interpretation just as all the previous B'man films were!

I dont think we'll EVER see a B'mam films that's a totally accurate portrayal! How could we? FILM is film, comics are comics, two different media forms that can INSPIRE oneanother but never adapt without compromise!

 

=)

#9 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio
@TheBatman: it might also be worth noting that in TDK, there was a shout out to Harvey's coimc book origin, that scene in the courtroom where he's questioning the gangster and suddenly the guy stands up and yells at him while reaching for something in his coat...yeah as a big comic fan the first time I saw that I was like "Oh wow they're doing this early" but then when you see it's a gun that doesn't work...you realize that scene not only furthered the story but also was a big shoutout to the fans. It was almost like Nolan saying "We know how it happened in the comics, but we're doing it differently here"
#10 Posted by darkcloakx (788 posts) - - Show Bio

@ the batman you are absolutely right about comics and film.

#11 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio

I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.

#12 Posted by keith7198 (4 posts) - - Show Bio

Nolan's Batman films have been brilliant. Of course they aren't exactly "faithful" but they don't mock or ridicule the source material. Nolan respects it and it shows in his films. Simply put, comic book based movies will always have discrepancies. The directors have a window of around 2 hours to tell a story of characters with years and years of developed stories. I have no problem cutting filmmakers some slack as long as they don't abuse the source material with crappy decisions. Just look at the last two X-Men movies and their treatment of Cyclops (especially X3). Superman Returns and it's pathetic ending. These are changes that really turned me off. Nolan has done great in my opinion.
#13 Posted by Billy Batson (58275 posts) - - Show Bio
@War Killer said:
I hate when people make threads criticizing one of (if not) the best superhero movies to date.
#14 Posted by MrErbac (115 posts) - - Show Bio

@Billy Batson said:

@War Killer said:
I hate when people make threads criticizing one of (if not) the best superhero movies to date.


 

That's just an opinion, not a fact. Some people like you think it is, some people like me think it's overrated. I still think Batman '89 is one of (if not) the best superhero movies to date. So I guess I hate it when people criticize that movie which is the best interpretation of Batman to live action ever. And if it wasn't for that movie being a hit, you wouldn't have your precious so-called great Nolan movies.
#15 Posted by MrErbac (115 posts) - - Show Bio
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.

#16 Posted by virgin4life (428 posts) - - Show Bio

i think when they say batman is faithful it means he doesn't cheat on his girls

#17 Posted by DarkShadows (742 posts) - - Show Bio

 I think when fans say faithful I think they meant the way Batman would act.
Sure it wasn't entirely like the comics, but the movie is still pretty good to watch.

#18 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Dark Huntress said:
@Sydpart2 said:
@Gambler said:
I think, could be wrong, that when fans say Nolan's adaptation of Batman is faithful the mean in the larger scope. His parents were killed, he traveled the World picking up various skills, Gotham, gadgets, Millionaire Bruce Wayne, etc. How the Joker looked is pretty minor when compared to his overall interpretation. Certain things were altered, I agree with you there, but I dont think people are using "faithful" as a substitute for "perfectly accurate."
Pretty much this, but let me add that it's more about how he got the characters right, I'd argue perfect. Yes, Joker never had scars and makeup, but Joker always did things for seemingly no reason and just murdered for the fun of it, he did not try to pick up chicks and shoot down jets with revolvers. If you want to make the argument that the Nolan films don't look like the comics I'll agree with you, if you want to make the argument that they don't follow the continuity of the comics verbatim then I'll agree with you but these are invalid points. They didn't want to try to make it look like the comics, they didn't want everything to work in the exact same way that they did in the comics, that's the point. What you're doing is like going to see a metal concert and complaining  that the music is to loud...
So much this. Great posts gentlemen. 
Yup, same as what DH said.

As for the actual topic;
(sigh)
#19 Posted by CRTrobinson (272 posts) - - Show Bio

So you basically just prefer the older movie to the newer one.  That isn't enough reason to hate on Nolan as he is bringing a fresh take on the movies to a new generation.  this can be only positive as it clears the way for further movies and outlets for the beloved Batman to be exposed to growth and new takes.  If they just did the same thing over and over it would get stagnate and people would lose interest.  Nolan was faithful as he did not reinvent the character he took liberties but definitely did not color too far outside the lines.  At least he didn't pull a Brian Singer.  I think the general Batman fan should be content and happy with the way things turned out.  I actually prefer the 89 movie myself but I enjoy the new ones and have an open mind to their direction.

#20 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac said:
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.

Ok, so let me walk you through a hypothetical. You just robbed a 7-11 and are making a get away down an alley, suddenly a huge figure lands about 10 feet in front of you and appears to be a giant bat. The figure closes the distance between you two and is (in the first scenario) a short guy in a rubber suit with muscles that are obviously fake, and he whispers at you "Put down the money punk" or (in the second scenario) is a guy in armor who towers over you and screams "PUT DOWN THE MONEY PUNK!" before he runs at you and  punches you right in the nose instantly breaking it. Which one of these two are you more likely to be afraid of? Oh and by the way I like how you don't even take on the best arguments in the posts above you, but address one sentence and use the same complaints that all the critics have rehashed.
#21 Posted by Roldan (241 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac said:
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.

Batman actually killed someone in the batman '89 film. That's worse than anything the Nolan films did wrong. Also Vicki Vale.
#22 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

Can't we all just like the movie?
#23 Posted by Neuron (109 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac said:

Really? Having Ra's Al Ghul as part of Batman's origin. Ra's didn't appear until the seventies, and Henry Ducard was a separate character. Not to mention the stupid way they did Two-Face. The way Dent got the face in the comics is much better, he got acid thrown in his face in a courtroom. Oh, and why did Joker look like he was going to a grunge concert? He never looked like that in the comics. That was not Joker, that was some psycho with paint on his face and grunge hair. Oh, and now we got a puny 5'9'' Bane whose going to be looking up at Batman instead of Batman looking up at him. Anyway, there's a million other unfaithful things in the Nolan movies. Feel free to point them out.

 These are all nitpicks.  There have been so many interpretations of all of the Batman characters, it's silly to say one particular interpretation is less valid than any other, especially because of all of these details.  The themes, ideas, and overall concepts were faithful to the general ideas of the characters, but of course the details would need to be changed and updated to make things fit together for a movie format.  Getting hung up on details like these, continuity, and how earlier iterations of the characters were portrayed are serious impediments to accepting good quality interpretations.  Which The Dark Knight certainly is, in my opinion.
#24 Edited by gridlock464 (84 posts) - - Show Bio

I think biggest difference between Burton’s Batman movies and Nolan’s Batman movies is that Nolan seems to be drawing on Frank Miller’s Batman, where Burton seems to be drawing on pre-Frank Miller Batman. I think ’s Burton's stuff is faithful to material that he’s drawing from, just as Nolan’s take is faithfully to darker, grittier, vision of the character that Miller created.

#25 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac
Idk why but for some reason the site took some stuff I said and sent it to the OP in a PM, he replied back to me and this is the message I sent and his reply...this site get's weird from time to time guys.
 @MrErbac said:

@Caligula said:

I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.

Ok, so let me walk you through a hypothetical. You just robbed a 7-11 and are making a get away down an alley, suddenly a huge figure lands about 10 feet in front of you and appears to be a giant bat. The figure closes the distance between you two and is (in the first scenario) a short guy in a rubber suit with muscles that are obviously fake, and he whispers at you "Put down the money punk" or (in the second scenario) is a guy in armor who towers over you and screams "PUT DOWN THE MONEY PUNK!" before he runs at you and  punches you right in the nose instantly breaking it. Which one of these two are you more likely to be afraid of? Oh and by the way I like how you don't even take on the best arguments in the posts above you, but address one sentence and use the same complaints that all the critics have rehashed.

To view this thread, follow the link below:
I hate when people say Nolan's Batman is faithful.

To change your notification preferences, follow the link below:
Notification Preferences

Thanks,
Comic Vine
Private Message by MrErbac

Well first of all, your calling Keaton short, when Bale is only like two inches taller than him. Keaton is just above average height. Average height is 5'9'', not tall, but not short. The second thing is, I would be laughing at Bale because of his silly looking suit from the Dark Knight. That suit does not resemble Batman at all. Should've called him Bat Dude. And how is it that his suit had the opposite effect that Keaton's did? Keaton's suit made him look bigger, Bale's suit made him somehow look skinnier. The head on that suit was also dorky looking. Not intimidating at all. And you wouldn't be laughing at Keaton when all of the sudden he picks you up a foot off the ground and than all of the sudden your knocked out in one second, the same amount of time it just took for him to take down that impostor Batman who should really be playing Knight from Knight and Squire.

Private Message by MrErbac






Ok, Keaton may not be that short then, he's taller than me but whoever was doing the camera angles on that film should be fired because people towered over Keaton in that movie and he always looked so short to me, but I'll leave that not a big deal. But dude are you kidding me no one's going to be afraid of some dude in a black rubber S&M suit! It looked like a joke. If you don't like Bale's that's one thing but it's a suit of armor come on. But ya know what this is all opinion and speculation on both our parts so let's go back to my first post in the topic, where I expanded on what the guy just above me said. Give me a criticism of that that sounds intelligent or gives credence to your claim that the Nolan films are inaccurate and I'll be happy to talk to you about it.
#26 Posted by VampireSelektor (749 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac said:
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.


Batman, during his initial adventures, fought criminals with a style more confrontational and, dare I say it, sloppy than his current manner of dispatching criminals. 
#27 Posted by MrErbac (115 posts) - - Show Bio
@VampireSelektor said:
@MrErbac said:
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.


Batman, during his initial adventures, fought criminals with a style more confrontational and, dare I say it, sloppy than his current manner of dispatching criminals. 

That's a good point about his initial adventures, but I don't think that's what they were thinking about when making the last two movies.
#28 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac said:
@Caligula said:
I think when people say his Batman is faithful, they mean that he acts like batman would act.


You mean talk with marbles in his mouth and lung cancer, scream and yell while interrogating, disguise his English accent, and use too much movement in his fighting style.

 

Three things that summed up Batman correctly in Batman '89. Picking the guy up in the beginning off his feet and calmly saying, "I'm Batman", the one hit KOs, especially when the guy comes around the corner in the Axis chemical plant and Batman just KOs him with the back of his fist, that is straight from the comics. So the fighting style is the closest to the comics in Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is quick and efficient when taking on thugs, not a lot of wasted movement. And Keaton also showed you can do a Batman voice without overdoing it. There's other things too but there's too many to name.

actually the way he speaks as Batman, is how Bruce speaks when he is Batman. Dick Grayson once said, "He does a poor Clint Eastwood imitation to mask his real voice". and if you watch the Nolan films, that's exactly what he's doing because he uses two different voices, one as Bruce, the other as Batman. So yes the voice is accurate to the comics.

So quit trolling.
#29 Posted by Omega Ray Jay (7955 posts) - - Show Bio

Christ,  these days even some of the comics aren't faithful to the comics.

#30 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@Omega Ray Jay said:
Christ,  these days even some of the comics aren't faithful to the comics.
you mean comics aren't faithful to what fans think.

No media, more so then comics are judged not by their own merit but by what "fans" feel should have happened. When A character beats another character the losing side will holler PIS.

Imagine this in films, Imagine if John Connor blew up a Terminator and the fans of the machines would yell out PIS every time the Terminator took damage. it would be retarded. yet this is what happens in the comics community, I love comic books but some fans take things way too far. Just enjoy the book or hate the book, don't try to cry, and complain about a feat being invalid even though it happened.
#31 Edited by cosmo111687 (1489 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd have to say that Nolan's films were a fare interpretation of Batman and Gotham,albeit, it wasn't a faithful one. I mean, he clearly took a lot of creative license with the property, sometimes for the better (changing the Batcave, the Batmobile, Batman's history, the origins of the Joker and Two-face, etc.) But I felt there were a lot of things that were lacking: I connected with Batman's loneliness but not with his cause (given the gibberish that came at the end of the Dark Knight, I don't think the director or writer did either), I would've liked to have seen Batman as more of the solitary Caped Crusader we know (having Luscious Fox there sort of diminished the greatness of Batman's character, as we know him from the comics), and I really don't feel any guilt in saying that Bale's interpretation of Batman's voice was way out of line and completely ridiculous. 
 
Even Kevin Conroy (the real Batman) thinks so: 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3zJxF-0N3Y

#32 Posted by entropy_aegis (15472 posts) - - Show Bio
@cosmo111687
Since when was Conroy the real Batman? who cares what he thinks.
#33 Posted by cosmo111687 (1489 posts) - - Show Bio
@entropy_aegis@entropy_aegis said:
@cosmo111687:  Since when was Conroy the real Batman? who cares what he thinks.
Since the WB hired him back in '91 (and considering that he's kept the job for 20+ years, I'd say that he pretty IS Batman). And apparently the crowd full of cheering fans care what he thinks.
#34 Posted by joshmightbe (25051 posts) - - Show Bio
@Gambit1024: Haters just want to suck all joy from life, I've noticed if theres anything even slightly enjoyable there has to be 600 people telling you it sucks and you should feel bad for liking it 
Online
#35 Posted by entropy_aegis (15472 posts) - - Show Bio
@cosmo111687 said:
@entropy_aegis@entropy_aegis said:
@cosmo111687:  Since when was Conroy the real Batman? who cares what he thinks.
Since the WB hired him back in '91 (and considering that he's kept the job for 20+ years, I'd say that he pretty IS Batman). And apparently the crowd full of cheering fans care what he thinks.
Irrelevant,comics Batman=Real Batman.Everything else was just a different intrepretation of the Batman character.He gave Batman his voice,nothing more.The show which propelled him to fame was written by Dini and Timm,all he did was use his vocal cords.Tom Welling has been Clark Kent on TV and he's admitted that he does'nt read Superman comics.
The Conroy/Hamill worship is getting tiresome now.
#36 Posted by cosmo111687 (1489 posts) - - Show Bio
@entropy_aegis said:
@cosmo111687 said:
@entropy_aegis@entropy_aegis said:
@cosmo111687:  Since when was Conroy the real Batman? who cares what he thinks.
Since the WB hired him back in '91 (and considering that he's kept the job for 20+ years, I'd say that he pretty IS Batman). And apparently the crowd full of cheering fans care what he thinks.
Irrelevant,comics Batman=Real Batman.Everything else was just a different intrepretation of the Batman character.He gave Batman his voice,nothing more.The show which propelled him to fame was written by Dini and Timm,all he did was use his vocal cords.Tom Welling has been Clark Kent on TV and he's admitted that he does'nt read Superman comics. The Conroy/Hamill worship is getting tiresome now.
I'm only stating my opinion that I enjoy Conroy's rendition of Batman more than Bale's (while, granted, using hyperbole to express that point; i. e. calling Conroy the Real Batman when that's clearly just a matter of opinion.) And I like Conroy and Hamill and I think their voice acting is amazing and their praise well-earned. And it iS a shame that Dini and Timm (as well as all the rest of the cast and crew of TAS, the three movies, JLA:Unlimited, Arkaham Asylum and Arkham City) aren't recognized more often, but when people refer to Conroy and Hamill, I think the praise for the rest of the creative team is implied.  
 
But, yeah, it's just a matter of opinion, and if you don't like them, that's cool and you're entitled to feel that way about him/them.
#37 Posted by joshmightbe (25051 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#38 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio
@joshmightbe: I swear, comic book geeks are the pickiest bunch on earth. If they screw one thing up or it's not word for word from the books, the whole movie sucks.  
 
I liked Daredevil, but according to everyone else, since Ben Affleck was Matt Murdock, it sucked.  
I liked Thor, but according to everyone else, since Heimdal was black, it sucked.  
 
It's things like this that make me angry. Shut up, watch the movie, and enjoy that they're even making these movies. 
#39 Posted by War Killer (20376 posts) - - Show Bio
@Gambit1024 said:
@joshmightbe: I swear, comic book geeks are the pickiest bunch on earth. If they screw one thing up or it's not word for word from the books, the whole movie sucks.   I liked Daredevil, but according to everyone else, since Ben Affleck was Matt Murdock, it sucked.  I liked Thor, but according to everyone else, since Heimdal was black, it sucked.   It's things like this that make me angry. Shut up, watch the movie, and enjoy that they're even making these movies. 
It's a known fact that comic book fans are infamous for being down right spoiled....which is sad really =/
#40 Posted by Billy Batson (58275 posts) - - Show Bio

#41 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio
@War Killer: I know. Is it bad to call myself a comic geek and not be picky? Am I a self hating comic geek? :/
#42 Posted by War Killer (20376 posts) - - Show Bio
@Gambit1024 said:
@War Killer: I know. Is it bad to call myself a comic geek and not be picky? Am I a self hating comic geek? :/
Nah, every comic book fan has an inner fanboy/fangirl, some are just better and controlling theirs than others.
#43 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio
@War Killer: Gotcha. My inner fanboy is worried about Bane's portrayal in the movie, but I think I'm better off enjoying it than being angry about something I can't control. 
#44 Posted by joshmightbe (25051 posts) - - Show Bio
@Gambit1024: I wish these fanatical fan boys would realize they are the reason no one takes comic fans seriously
Online
#45 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio
@joshmightbe: Savages sir. A bunch of savages. 
#46 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (12088 posts) - - Show Bio

IS A FRECKING MOVIE!!!
There is a real human under the suit, for the same there is no way i can belive he can do what he does in the comics.
What works in the comics never will work in the movies.
Comics have a lot of time to take a senless ideas and make it something, in a movie you have 3 hours.
Marvel Fanboys are pissed off, because DC let the directors do their jobs, since Nolan films rape Marvel films, Marvel fanboys say it sucks.
Thor and Ironman movies are by far more overrated that TDK and Begins.

Also the Animated Series was great, not because of the voice actors, was because of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.
Burton films maked no sense, it was a super gothic version of Adam West Batman, without the fun factor o the series.
Batman never maked any sense as a character in the Burton films, he killed like hundreds of guys in a big explosion, killed like 45 guys in minutes and say to catwoman, killing is wrong, is like wtf are you on drugs?

#47 Posted by Benuben (230 posts) - - Show Bio
@MrErbac: I am sorry, but your complain about Ras Al Ghul is completely invalid and hypocritical. So, you are angry, that Nolan used Ras Al Ghul as Batmans mentor, despite the fact, that Bruce traveling the world was almost NEVER explored, despite the fact, that it didnt changed Ras Al Ghuls as a character, and despite the fact, that Joker in Batman 89 KILLED BATMANS PARENT!!!! How is that more faithfull?!!? Or what about Batman being a murderer? Yeah, thats really faithfull to the comics. You are just  a hater and hypocrite. Grow up.
#48 Posted by VampireSelektor (749 posts) - - Show Bio

I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for their faithfulness to the ideas and themes expressed throughout the various Batman storylines, from Bob Kane and onward. At the same time, Nolan deserves much lauding and praise for his courage to translate the Caped Crusader, his supporting cast, and his exploits into a more realistic setting.  Why would Two-Face take up organized crime after repeatedly risking his life to fight the very institution? Portraying Harvey Dent as an tragic district attorney-turned-burn victim driven to vigilantism makes more sense; considering his abrupt departure from the hospital without taking pain medication, it would be unfair to consider Dent a true villain. On the other hand, a Joker with no origin has its benefits. Who wants to feel sympathy for a failed comedian with a murderedc pregnant wife in the face of his mile-long murder count? But.... Bruce Wayne is not the optimal man like his comic book counterpart, the genius who built and amassed his entire arsenal and tools himself.

#49 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4786 posts) - - Show Bio

Movies straying from the comics aren't so incredibly bad. I especially liked the Tumbler. Frankly, I don't want to see Batman in tights with cars, planes and devices with bat prefixes tacked on. Also, I never cared for Robin so his absence is both a mystery and a blessing.

Robin: Holy moly, what's that Batman?
Batman: It's a bat-can opener.
Robin: What's it for?
Batman: So I can open this bat-ravioli so I can bat-eat.
#50 Posted by cattlebattle (13202 posts) - - Show Bio

For the record, Batman did kill (accidentally) in Batman Begins
 
The fire at Ra's Al Ghuls temple probably killed a large amount of of ninjas, being some of them were unconscious during the explosion.....he also let Ra's himself die.
 
As for the Nolan films, they're great, but honestly I don't think they are as amazing as everyone says, If anything is over rated it's these movies.
 
Also them being loyal to the comics is irrelevant, It's a different take on the character

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.