Is Nolan's Batman overrated?

no

Just a little. Inb4 69ballzdeep and Marvel Kills DC

I never liked the Nolan movies and never understood all the hype around them.

While I can't argue that the first two are bad movies (mostly because they're not), they ARE bad Batman movies as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I say that I'm usually met with arguments like "It's okay to change things, get over it", but I don't care that they change things and dumb it down to the point of idiocy; I think they're bad Batman films because they make Batman look like an idiot, make Joker a political activist (which is downright awful) and Bane might as well not even be called Bane. They're overrated to the extreme and I hope to hell that we get something more faithful to the comic books in BvS (ie a Batman who can actually fight, is intimidating, etc).

@fattytravy: When they are all critically acclaimed and the majority of people love them, that is not overrated. If the were given bad reviews and people still raved over them then yes, that would be overrated, but that is not the case.

Now, I am not going to try to change your opinion of the movie, but Batman was never at any point an idiot in the movie, Joker had nothing to do with politics, and Bane, was very much like the bane from the comics. He had time with the league of assassins and Ra's and Talia, he had superhuman strength, he was born in a prison and escaped to defeat batman, he broke Batman's back, and he was very smart- Just like the comic book Bane. The Nolan movies are a lot more faithful to the comics books than people think.

Also the notion that Nolan's Batman cannot fight is ridiculous. Same with the intimidation. Maybe you didn't think he was scary, but he scared the criminals in the movie which is all that matters.

@jayc1324: theyre not all "critically acclaimed", only the second one is and even then I'd say that's pushing it. There are no guidlines as to what is or is not overrated, so seeing as how theyre NOT by any means great films in and of themselves, I'd say theyre highly overrated.

Batman in the films is often portrayed as a man who is better with his fists than he is with his brain, which entirely against the point of him being The Worlds Greatest Detective. To be fair, Bane isn't as bad as I said he was but there are a number of things about him which ARE pointless changes, like his nationality. Joker, on the other hand, is very ckearly meant to represent ultra anarchist political movements, which is complete nonsense. Joker is a serial killer whose goal in life is to have fun, at least what his own broken, twisted mind considers to be fun. I've found that people have trouble separated Ledgers performance, which was good, from the character itself, which was almost nothing like the Joker save for what is seen at face value.

Batman in the films fights like an idiot and is not at all intimidating. The argument that he is able to fight off and scare the thugs within means that he IS those things is by its very nature flawed. If Nolan put him in a pink batsuit and had him twirling around, literally, like a ballerina and still managing to scare people, it wouldn't mean that he was ACTUALLY intimidating. In the comics, he very clearly can fight and IS intimidating, and the movie comes nowhere close to capturing that. I fail to see how the audience finding the Batman unintimidating doesnt matter when it completely shatters the illusion?

Forgive any spelling mistakes or grammar issues, trying to write that all out on a tablet is less than easy, for me.

@jayc1324: theyre not all "critically acclaimed", only the second one is and even then I'd say that's pushing it. There are no guidlines as to what is or is not overrated, so seeing as how theyre NOT by any means great films in and of themselves, I'd say theyre highly overrated.

Batman in the films is often portrayed as a man who is better with his fists than he is with his brain, which entirely against the point of him being The Worlds Greatest Detective. To be fair, Bane isn't as bad as I said he was but there are a number of things about him which ARE pointless changes, like his nationality. Joker, on the other hand, is very ckearly meant to represent ultra anarchist political movements, which is complete nonsense. Joker is a serial killer whose goal in life is to have fun, at least what his own broken, twisted mind considers to be fun. I've found that people have trouble separated Ledgers performance, which was good, from the character itself, which was almost nothing like the Joker save for what is seen at face value.

Batman in the films fights like an idiot and is not at all intimidating. The argument that he is able to fight off and scare the thugs within means that he IS those things is by its very nature flawed. If Nolan put him in a pink batsuit and had him twirling around, literally, like a ballerina and still managing to scare people, it wouldn't mean that he was ACTUALLY intimidating. In the comics, he very clearly can fight and IS intimidating, and the movie comes nowhere close to capturing that. I fail to see how the audience finding the Batman unintimidating doesnt matter when it completely shatters the illusion?

Forgive any spelling mistakes or grammar issues, trying to write that all out on a tablet is less than easy, for me.

@fattytravy: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises are critically acclaimed. Both made the AFI Top 10 lists of their respective years; whereas The Dark Knight got 94% on Rotten with an 8.6/10 avg rating, The Dark Knight Rises got 88% with an 8/10 avg rating in addition to 78/100 on MetaCritic. These are healthy scores.

Batman was intimidating against the thugs in the film, but to ask for a Batman that appears intimidating to an adult viewer is an Oxymoron as the vast majority of adult viewers are suspending their disbelief because we all know Batman is a man in a costume. Unless of course, the viewer is a child, then Batman will probably appear more intimidating, but then again many kids don't exactly find Batman to be scary, because even they have to suspend disbelief.

Bane did not have a Nationality change either. You do know Bane's father King Snake is British? The Joker was a Terrorist, the political consequence was the aftermath of the actions of a Terrorist.

I really love this threads, it show Nolan haters didnt saw the movies and they try to make a movie that didnt happened, just for the sake of hate.

Then go and cry about not being like the comic book, but fail to notice all the comic book aspects.

With their logic, isnt style over substance so it sucks.

@fattytravy: Read what Frozen said about being critically acclaimed and the joker being political.

And batman is not supposed to be scary to the viewers. Its not a horror movie, he's not meant to be a scary monster to us. But he was shown to be that to the criminals which is what is important. I'm not scared or batman in comics either. And Batman was a trained ninja. The best ninja actually. He's nowhere close to comic batman, but he can fight extremely well. Same with intelligence. He wasnt a genius like comic batman but he was smart enough to think to use the sonar device at the end of the dark Knight for example. He also was smart enough to think of a way to try to get fingerprints off of a shattered bullet in the dark knight. No idiot is gonna be a successful batman for long.

But I suppose when the large majority of people praise something as the best superhero movie ever, and you don't think it is, then by your standards yeah its overrated. But most disagree.

There is a difference between intimidation and being scared of someone. No normal, rational adult would find Batman scary because, as you send, we're suspending our disbelief that a man can dress up as a bat and beat the crap out of people. Intimidation, on the other hand, is something which is more of a universal thing. We may not be scared of Superman were he to swoop down and save us, but we'd most certainly be intimidated. And why not? He's a good 6'6, can fly and throw tanks, and the same thing should apply to Batman but for different reasons. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor but he's just not an intimidating man and certainly doesn't have the build to make up for it. Batman is someone who's supposed to be at peak physical perfection but Bale not only looks shorter than half the men he stands next to but any physique he might have is hidden under the ridiculous pseudo Bat-suit. It all comes together only to shatter the illusion that he's supposed to be the Batman.

I'm also well aware of who Bane's father is but his mother is Caribbean and he was raised in Santa Prisca, in a normal prison (another thing they changed, though I wouldn't say it takes anything away). I don't quite know what you're trying to say about the Joker because I said Joker was a political activist, albeit a very extreme, anarchic political activist in the films. In the films he was, indeed, a terrorist and the definition of a terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims". In the film, Joker has a very clear message and "plan", he has very clear political overtones, which is the exact opposite of what Joker is supposed to be. To put it simply, Joker in the film is a man, ultimately, of reason and logic whereas the proper Joker in the comic books is basically insanity personified, the opposite of reason and logic.

To clarify, which I thought I initially had, the first two films are NOT bad films, which a few of you seem to be taking from my comments. Batman Begins and, to a greater extent, The Dark Knight are good films which tell a well written story. I think that they're overrated because I've seen way too many people suggest that they should have even gotten an Oscar for Best Picture, they're so good. People put these films up on such a high pedestal despite them being merely GOOD films. What *I* am bringing into question is whether or not they are good films in the sense that they're adaptations of a preexisting mythology, which I think they fail at. Indeed, I'd argue that if you simply stripped out the Batman elements and replaced them with someone completely unrelated to comic books that it would only make the films better. However, as is, they are NOT, in my opinion, good adaptations.

The notion that the movies fail to use pre-existing mythology is just flat out wrong. And how much batman stuff they use doesn't affect the quality of the film anyway. Bale batman doesn't have to be as good as comic batman for the movie to be good, that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. Movie Thor is weaker than comic Thor. Same for superman. Same for ironman. Same for hulk. Same for everyone. Bale is six feet tall, and in the batsuit he is probably one or two inches taller, putting him at Batman's height in the comics. He also showed really good strength feats, like lifting Ra's Al Ghul from the icy cliff with one arm. He had pretty good strength.

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part-vi.html

Also this site shows tons of references the movies took from the source material. Saying it is a bad interpretation is unfounded

As a movie, no. As a batman/ COMIC BOOK movie? Absolutely.

@jayc1324 said:

It's funny you say that because he WASN'T Batman for long, though for different reasons, of course.

Batman in the films is not a good enough fighter to get me to suspend my disbelief. Half of the time the enemies he's fighting are running at him one at a time or he's just kinda swiveling at his waist while keeping him fists up against his head. It's not only a dull, silly looking fighting but it's also impractical. The problem with his fighting abilities is that we're told that he's the best ninja in this League of Assassins, but we never actually see him doing anything to prove it. When he's fighting you can tell that Bale is in no way a trained fighter, even modestly for the sake of the film (and not very well if he DID), and that Nolan simply didn't know how to shoot these scenes which were meant to show off his fighting prowess. It's a problem that got worse as the films went on (I'd say it was suitable enough in Batman Begins), which is surprisingly because you'd expect the opposite to be true.

You're completely ignoring the fact that I'm not judging the quality of the films, which I've now clarified twice. Please, read what I say before you reply and put words in my mouth.

Hell the F*ck yes

@fattytravy: You're saying they are overrated... Which has to do with their quality.

And no his style isn't impractical. Its called the Keysi fighting method and it is a real thing used by real people in real life. His fights with Ra's and Bane and the ninjas and taking out the swat team and large groups of thugs in seconds shows he can fight extremely well. Keeping his fists by his head is exactly what Keysi teaches.

I'm sorry but you really seem to be mixing up references to bits and pieces of the source material, which in any film is ultimately pointless and exist solely for people like us to say "Hey, I get that!", and the idea that when you look at the big picture (ie the characters, their personalities, their motivations, the intricacies of their being, etc) the Nolan trilogy is a mediocre at best adaptation of the Batman mythology. I'd like to stress again that you please read what I say before responding, and I don't mean to come off as cheeky when I say that, I just don't want to explain everything I have already said.

Again... no... it has to do with them being overrated BATMAN films... which I have now said at least 3 times... not as films on the basis of them being films.

Beyond.

Nolan's Batman is overrated. For what they had to work with it's just not good enough. Bale didn't have to be as good as the comics version for these to be better, that's impossible but Batman is too popular, he has too much source material, he has too many abilities, skills and gadgets for this trilogy to be our foremost modern representation of the character. I expected more out of these films.

@fattytravy: I know what you said, but they are not overrated batman movies either. The quality of a batman movie is not based solely on how similar it id to the comic book.

Yes, let the Nolan haters rise.

The quality of ANY adaptation is based on how well it adapts the source material. The Nolan trilogy simply doesn't do a very good job of it and, again, I mean big picture. That doesn't mean that they're bad movies, it just means that they're bad adaptations. The Shining, for example, is a brilliant film, one of Stanley Kubrick's best, but it is a bad adaptation of Stephen King's novel.

This threads are hilrarious, dont matter how much you show haters are wrong and all its based on their flawed logic that makes no sense, they keep going, with the idea that if they keep going, sooner or later they would be right or that they are right without any evidence.

Their opinions are facts!!!

Also the whole he wasnt Batman enough, its the most hilarious thing you can read.

He wasnt Batman because he wasnt what our lord Wen Jun Chew said, a guy that would take the Empire alone with the power of his male genitals.

99% of Batman interpretations arent Batman by this half an a$$ed logic.

Batman wasnt a$$pulling everything by the powers of fan fic writing, so it sucks?

I'd give a proper reply to this if it wasn't obvious that you're either trolling or simply aren't reading the comments of those who disagree with you, like the ones which very clearly put forth evidence and arguments WHY they're bad adaptations.

@fattytravy: With thousands of batman comics, saying it is a bad adaptation is too vague. There are many points of Batman's character that it adapts perfectly

A bad adaptation is a bad adaptation. Batman and his accompanying mythology make a whole, and that whole as seen in the Nolan trilogy is a bad adaptation. I've already explained why Joker, and to a lesser extent Bane, are bad adaptations, but if you want to go even deeper into why the main character is a bad adaptation than I can. I don't really think I NEED to, however, considering how I've already pointed out that he's by no means a genius, nor is he someone capable of even similar physical feats. Batman has a depth of character which is never explored within the films; as far as the films are concerned, he's just someone who's sad that his parents died and decides to do something about it, to put it simply.

I'm curious as to what points of his character, save for the points which are required for it to actually BE Batman (ie a less than happy, dedicated man), you're referring to. Unless, of course, you're not referring to anything beyond that, in which case we're in agreement that the Nolan Batman is a shallow character.

EDIT: Also, I'd say that the "there's too much" argument in reference to Batman is pointless as he's one of the few characters in the Big Two who remains consistent in his depth of character.

Got lots of love for the first two but he third was a turd.

@fattytravy: but the mvoies did capture the depth of his character. A man who never got over his parents death. Now you've gone on to call him a shallow character. Despite his relationship wit Rachel, his belief system, all the development be went through in BB...

None of them are bad adaptations, I showed you that earlier. It sounds like just want to complain about them because they aren't exactly like the comic book version.

And dude now I can tell you didn't want the movies carefully. He's not just a guy who's sad about his parents. Remember batman begins? His goal is to become something greater than that. "A legend Mr. Wayne". And he did become that by the end. He went from an angry young man who just wanted to kill Joe chill to a noble hero who gave his life for his city and would never kill anyone. That's not shallow. His dedication to Gotham is one area they adapted well. You just like complaining about the film it seems, but like I said earlier they are critically acclaimed, have tons of references and ideas from the comics, and take the core of batman and make him realistic and believable.

And no, there's way too much batman to say one adaptation is bad. Even in new 52 batman has different personalities under different writers.

An adaptation is just that- an adaptation. Its not supposed to be just like the comic. It takes the basic character of batman and adapts it to the big screen. And that adaptation happened to be praised by critics so it is definitely not a bad one.

Going from wanting to kill someone to not is exactly what I said it is... shallow character development. You dont seem to understand difference between shallow character development and depth of character. Nearly every main character has development, in good films and bad, that doesnt mean that there is a depth of character. You also somehow think that critics liking a film adaptation of a sourfe material most have never read somehow justifies your argument, which is in itself folly because I'M not arguing the quality of the film... for the 5th time lol

You also seem to be confusing charcter traits with a characters depth. Again, all main characters have identifiable traits, that doesnt mean that they have depth of charavter. Youre taking what is only seen at face value and not what is supposed to be underneath all that, which in the case of the Nolqn trilogy is next to nothing.

Going from wanting to kill someone to not is exactly what I said it is... shallow character development. You dont seem to understand difference between shallow character development and depth of character. Nearly every main character has development, in good films and bad, that doesnt mean that there is a depth of character. You also somehow think that critics liking a film adaptation of a sourfe material most have never read somehow justifies your argument, which is in itself folly because I'M not arguing the quality of the film... for the 5th time lol

You also seem to be confusing charcter traits with a characters depth. Again, all main characters have identifiable traits, that doesnt mean that they have depth of charavter. Youre taking what is only seen at face value and not what is supposed to be underneath all that, which in the case of the Nolqn trilogy is next to nothing.

No. All three movies are three of the best superhero movies around. Only TFA, Iron Man and The Avengers rival how good Nolan's movies were, especially the first 2.

@fattytravy:

There is a difference between intimidation and being scared of someone. No normal, rational adult would find Batman scary because, as you send, we're suspending our disbelief that a man can dress up as a bat and beat the crap out of people. Intimidation, on the other hand, is something which is more of a universal thing. We may not be scared of Superman were he to swoop down and save us, but we'd most certainly be intimidated. And why not? He's a good 6'6, can fly and throw tanks, and the same thing should apply to Batman but for different reasons. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor but he's just not an intimidating man and certainly doesn't have the build to make up for it. Batman is someone who's supposed to be at peak physical perfection but Bale not only looks shorter than half the men he stands next to but any physique he might have is hidden under the ridiculous pseudo Bat-suit. It all comes together only to shatter the illusion that he's supposed to be the Batman.

No rational adult would find Batman intimidating on the silver-screen. If he was real? Maybe. But for a movie/comic? Hell to the no. Your argument of '''we'd be intimidated by Superman'' seems to be putting forward whether Superman in real-life would be intimidating, which he would. This is not the same as viewing him on film. And again, please add some correct information --- Superman is not 6''6, he is 6''3. Bale was about 6''0 which is the same height as Henry Cavill; and quite frankly there was only one or two actors in the trilogy taller than him. Again, you've not given any rational reason to why an adult viewer would find Batman on-film to be intimidating.

I can assure you that had the comic suit with the underwear been used, he'd be even less intimidating than the armored Kevlar.

Again, viewers are suspending their disbelief in a Batman movie.

I'm also well aware of who Bane's father is but his mother is Caribbean and he was raised in Santa Prisca, in a normal prison (another thing they changed, though I wouldn't say it takes anything away). I don't quite know what you're trying to say about the Joker because I said Joker was a political activist, albeit a very extreme, anarchic political activist in the films. In the films he was, indeed, a terrorist and the definition of a terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims". In the film, Joker has a very clear message and "plan", he has very clear political overtones, which is the exact opposite of what Joker is supposed to be. To put it simply, Joker in the film is a man, ultimately, of reason and logic whereas the proper Joker in the comic books is basically insanity personified, the opposite of reason and logic.

The Joker was not a political activist. He was very philosophical but at the core he was just a terrorist. His aim was to completely destroy Harvey Dent which exceeds your typical political aim and his over-reaching aim was to destroy Batman and make him break his one rule, which in this context fit. The film has political overtones but I fail to see how this robbed Joker of his performance, The Joker was not reasonable and logical --- his entire plan hinged on anarchy.

The Joker in the comics is not only capable of causing political terror but he's freaking given superhumans trouble.

To clarify, which I thought I initially had, the first two films are NOT bad films, which a few of you seem to be taking from my comments. Batman Begins and, to a greater extent, The Dark Knight are good films which tell a well written story. I think that they're overrated because I've seen way too many people suggest that they should have even gotten an Oscar for Best Picture, they're so good. People put these films up on such a high pedestal despite them being merely GOOD films. What *I* am bringing into question is whether or not they are good films in the sense that they're adaptations of a preexisting mythology, which I think they fail at. Indeed, I'd argue that if you simply stripped out the Batman elements and replaced them with someone completely unrelated to comic books that it would only make the films better. However, as is, they are NOT, in my opinion, good adaptations.

I don't know why the first two escape but the third does not? The third received a better reception than the first. Now on the Best-Picture talk, I think the second film did deserve it, far more than Slumdog Millionaire because The Dark Knight was literally hailed as one of the best films of 2008.

Now whether they're good adaptions opposed to films, I just see them as a ''re-imagining'' of the character, which was generally faithful. The watering down of the source material led to a better film.

The last two DK films are better than the first IMO.

@fattytravy: Nope. You can't just call them shallow characters and expect that to mean anything. That's not true either. You're argument has been changing this entire time. First it was that he couldn't fight and his style was impractical, which is false because it's used in real life. Then it was that it doesn't use source material which is wrong as well as the site showed you. Then you said joker was a political activist, also a lie. Now its they are shallow characters despite them going through major developments and having deeply rooted motivations and their own themes and such. You're just insulting the movie and it's characters now. You also said earlier that only the second one was critically acclaimed, which frozen showed you to be a lie...

Having development as a character and having many layers is not at all shallow.

And the movies are an adaptation. So if critics praise it, I'm not sure how you can say it's a bad one, especially with all the references it has. The actors read batman comics to prepare too, and the plot of all the movies take things from comics. What makes a good adaptation to you? Being just like the comic? Taking a storyline right from the comics? It doesn't have to. It takes stuff from the conic and adapts it to the big screen.

Somewhat

I must say that I find it fascinating how much you seem to enjoy twisting someones words to fit your own argument rather than provide an actual argument for me to respond to. This entire time you've basically just said that you're right because some critics agree with you, that it's loyal to the source material because there are easter eggs and references (lolwut), that a character changing moods from one scene to the next, to put it simply, shows a depth of character and *I* am the one putting forth a dubious argument?

You even continue to put words in my mouth because you're incapable of reading what someone says and thinking about it for a second before responding with rehashed, fallacious drivel... and even accusing me of doing the very thing which YOU are doing, like saying something meaningless and leaving it at that (whereas I actually put forth an argument for it, whether you agree with it or not). You can't just call someone a liar because you disagree with them, nor can you just attack them (as you have at least twice now) simply because they put forth an opinion in opposition to your own. It's all the sign of a small mind, frankly, and I don't have much interest in spending the next two days reading someones ramblings about how critics liking a film makes it a good adaptation, as opposed to a good film, which is apparently a more difficult concept for some than I previously thought.

You see comic books and movies are incredible different mediums, movies are show dont tell, but in comic the movement and the interesting stuff happens in your mind, between the panels, sound, music and every other thing is made by your mind.

A great adaptation, is the one that keeps the spirit of the character, his universe, but at the same time redefine the paradigm(hate this word) of what this characters, story and universe are, why they are, who they are, it redefine them without changing who they are, that is why Nolan TDK gets way more praise that all Snyder films put together.

But people fail to understand what makes a good adaptation.

Also thatsome one say i am trolling when his logic that a bad adaptation is a bad adaptation because it a bad adaptation, must be the dumbest trolling i have see.

Critics agreeing with me is not the basis of my argument. Just support. And the movies are not just easter eggs. TDKR takes a lot of its plot from No Mans Land and some from Legacy too. BB takes some scenes from Year One. You just don't recognize the stories it copies. So it does draw from the source material, you not noticing it is your fault. I am not calling you a liar because I disagree with you, I am doing it because you lied when you said that only TDK is critically acclaimed. They all are. I did not claim something as meaningless and leave it at that, I explained myself.

I've also never said a character changing moods means anything... But changing into an entirely new person does mean something. And you say I have attacked you when you are the one saying I have a small mind. I never attacked you, I just said you lied in your argument. Which you did, about them being acclaimed.

Also it sounds like you are quitting the argument. That's odd because you are the one who lied in your argument. Not only about them not being critically acclaimed, but also about calling his fighting style impractical, when it is a real thing used in real life. But sure, go on and quit.

You didn't know about Keysi, or about the storylines from NML, Legacy, Knightfall and year one and you didn't know about them all being acclaimed. Seems like you don't know very much about them. That's not me attacking you, just stating what I have observed.

No