Log in or sign up to comment
41 Comments
Posted by Lvenger

@HolySerpent: Yeah I can see what you mean in that regard. Like Nolan's Batman films, Smallville was quite realistic for a story about a young Superman. Probably because it focused on the teen drama aspect a fair bit and toned Clark's powers down a fair bit for the first few seasons. And they did a relatively good job putting together a fledgling Justice League on a TV show budget.

Online
Posted by HolySerpent

@lvenger: when I think of a justice league movie. I think of smallville...sort of. The first severals seasons of smallville had a realistic sense to it, in my opinion. The only problem would be Martian manhunter....I just see it

Posted by Lvenger

@HolySerpent: But do you think that it's a double edged sword? Making Batman a bit too realistic means that it would look silly for Nolan's Batman to be in a Justice League film with aliens, an amazon, a man who can run faster than light as well as a guy with a ring that can create anything he imagines. The realism of Batman's film does mean we have to wait for a reboot to see a Justice League film with Batman in it.

Online
Posted by HolySerpent

The one thing truly love about Nolan's batman is the realism in it..like you said.

Posted by Lvenger

@CrimsonCake: I know. The Amazing Spider-Man does look like Spider-Man a la Nolan but the inclusion of more Spider-Man wisecracks and the introduction of the web shooters are a nice touch. Obviously the whole Peter's parents thing plays into the realism of it. As for MoS I'm holding judgement on that until I see a trailer and can judge just how 'realistic' Superman will be. If he acts like the New 52 Superman, I might not be pleased. And whilst the realism of comic book movies may not always be a good thing, allow me to remind you just what Joel Schumacher was responsible for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3slInVLWC9I

Online
Posted by CrimsonCake

The points given are very valid but as for the whole realism aspect,well a few superhero movies are taking inspiration from it because of the realistic and dark tones to it.The amazing spider-man is supposed to be more "realistic".Man Of Steel is supposed to be more "Realistic".All these new super hero movie trends are making me appreciate Joel Schumacher more.

Posted by Lvenger

@Deranged Midget: Batman would have every children's charity as well as the criminal underworld gunning for him lol. Your comment has reminded me though of the wider Bat family. I didn't discuss them at all. Obviously Robin is out of the picture but what about Batgirl, Batwoman, Huntress or another Gotham City related vigilante who may be inspired by Batman to take up arms against injustice? Obviously Nolan seems to be doing that with Catwoman in TDKR but could he have done that with someone else? And finally, better no Robin at all as introducing him as a young adult was an absolute disgrace. I'm looking at you Schumacher.

Online
Posted by Deranged Midget

@Lvenger: Personally, I'm on Nolan's side with that one. I don't find it realistic to see a child/teenager running around at Batman's side in a realistic universe or setting. No one in their right mind would allow a child to undertake something like that.

Moderator
Posted by Lvenger

@Gambit1024: Indeed. Thanks again for commenting. Glad my blog post interested you.

@Deranged Midget: Same here. For all my negativity towards the realism, it's the film's greatest strength as well. Even though it doesn't interconnect with any other superheroes, it does make you think that Batman or someone like Batman could be a possible reality.

Online
Posted by Deranged Midget

@Lvenger: Personally, I love the Nolan Bat-films but I don't find them to be the best comic-book related films ever made. The biggest strength out of these films to me is that the universe is actually completely grounded into reality, or as much as it can be. It helps connect the viewer that much further, making you believe a man can do this, for the most part.

Moderator
Posted by Gambit1024

@Lvenger: Even if it were Superman, I'd still have no problem with them ditching the love interest, but that's another issue for another time. lol

Posted by Lvenger

@Deranged Midget: Thank you for saying something reasonable. I didn't know FTBB was such a massive fan of the Nolan films but it's not as if I'm saying they're as bad as Batman and Robin. All I'm saying is that they aren't perfect or the best superhero films ever. I still really like them but to me, those films do have flaws.

Online
Posted by Deranged Midget

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

I constantly hear the same complaints, and they're never worth anything. You're lucky I'm on stronger meds, or I'd have torn you a new one. Seriously, if you care that much about a significant media personality disguising their voice as much as possible to avoid detection, you are just thick.

Honestly, I have respect for you FTBB, but this is an incredibly biased statement mate. The OP is merely stating their own opinion and they're completely entitled to that. We all know that you adore Batman and what Nolan has done for him as do most comic-book fans, but if someone's thoughts differ from yours, it's doesn't necessarily give you the right to attempt to bash his brains in. That's just not fair man.

Moderator
Posted by Lvenger

@Gambit1024:

1. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. His dedication/obsession should be a prominent factor in this film yet he contemplates giving it up to be with a woman. I know Bruce is quite the lady's man but he's supposed to be focused on avenging his parents by instilling fear into the hearts of criminals every night. We just don't see that in the film at all.

2. Given the poor quality of Rachel Dawes as a love interest I wouldn't have minded Nolan not having a love interest in the first two films. Unlike Superman or Spider-Man, Batman doesn't have a definitive love interest so there wouldn't have been a problem leaving that out. The Catwoman/Talia direction does look good for TDKR though.

3. I'm getting a lot of that in this post. As I said earlier, perhaps it's not Nolan's fault but when it's compared to the direction the Avengers is taking, it made me realize that in terms of films, Marvel are doing better than DC IMO. The branching out approach works so well and puts DC's self contained films to shame in that regard. Hopefully when the next franchise begins like you said, we can have a World's Finest or Justice League movie.

4. And whilst I am critical of Nolan's Bat films, the pros do outweigh the cons. I am just one of those who think Nolan's Bat films are definitely not perfect. And like you, I find the villains more appealing than Batman himself so that makes them worth seeing!

Online
Posted by Gambit1024

Very interesting points, and I agree with a majority of them. Especially the pros.

I agree 100% on how this Bruce Wayne is nothing like the books in the sense that he even contemplated giving up the cowl. Batman is the most dedicated hero I know, and just the thought of him not being Batman isn't right at all. As for Batman not being used as a detective, that has yet to be seen on basically all forms of media (with the exception of TAS and the Arkham games), so I won't hold that against these movies. The bat voice, well... At least it sounds right in the trailer for TDKR.

Personally, I'd prefer Batman not having a love interest at all, but that's just me. It causes unnecessary risks that Batman would never stand for (unless of course the love interest happens to be Catwoman, but even then, it's nothing more than a fling).

I agree with the ones who are saying that you can't hold Nolan against a JLA film. It was in pre-production years before Iron Man came to be. Besides, even if he had the option, Nolan wouldn't be the best choice to begin the JLA, so I say that it's fine the way it is. When they start the next franchise, I say go ahead and plant the seeds.

I guess all I can say is that this is just an adaptation. Sure, things aren't going to be exactly like the books (clearly), but what Nolan has done, as listed in the pros category, make these films awesome. Besides, I come to these movies to see the villains more than I go to see Batman, so then again I just might be biased. :P

Posted by Lvenger

@spiderbat87: Your point rings true but I still feel that Warner Bros, DC and Nolan should have had the hindsight to plan ahead for future movies. Their first foray into non Superman or Batman territory, Green Lantern failed and that was self contained as well. This doesn't look good for the future of other non Superman or Batman films. Perhaps the idea of planning their movies out in an interconnecting manner did not occur to them at the time and thus they cannot be blamed for not thinking of it before Marvel did but it's still a flaw when one looks at the Marvel films in comparison. They've branched out their franchise whilst DC are self contained as ever.

@Strider92: I know. If Bruce had emoed up and done the Saturday Night walk, I would have kicked off majorly. Fortunately that never occured :P

Online
Posted by Strider92

I agree with most of your points especially this one:

@Lvenger said:

  • Am I supposed to believe that this is Batman? He's acting more like Peter Parker in the Dark Knight and not respecting the character's uniqueness is a disadvantage which for the most part is overlooked.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I watched that scene.

Edited by Jonny_Anonymous
@Lvenger: Nolan signed on to do a Batman film and that was it, nothing more nothing less, if DC/WB had want'd to tie it to Green Lantern or the Man of Steel then that would be another thing altogether but it's not up to the director of one film series to tie his work to another's 
 
also I in noway want to see a Worlds Finest movie   
Online
Posted by Lvenger

@entropy_aegis: I'm hoping that Nolan will redeem himself on the love interest thing with the Catwoman/possible Talia in TDKR. That would reduce the cons down a bit. When Nolan began making the Bat films, surely there should have been a lingering thought of how to tie this into the larger DC Universe instead of making it a secular universe where no other DC characters show up. And perhaps the first two are subjective but it's how I feel. I like Sndyer and Morrison's work on Batman equally btw.

@spiderbat87: True but the fact Nolan has made Batman too realistic means that there's no chance of a World's Finest Movie. That would make big money, maybe more than a Justice League film as it involves just Superman and Batman, DC's two biggest and only really well known characters. As a result of Nolan's films, we have to wait until Batman is inevitably rebooted to see a possible World's Finest movie.

Online
Posted by Lvenger

@Deadcool:

@FadeToBlackBolt: Tearing me a new one over my view on Nolan's Batman franchise? What is wrong with you? I am entitled to my viewpoint as you are yours. I'm all for a deep gruff Batman but he should be able to be understood by the audience and all I can hear in the films sounds like he's gargling marbles. My complaints are worth a great deal more than you may think and despite the blatent offensiveness of your comment, it is worth something too. Try to have some respect for others. It'll help you out a lot in life.

Online
Posted by Jonny_Anonymous

All your problems you have with the films stem from the fact you are a comic book fan

Online
Posted by entropy_aegis

@Lvenger said:

After seeing the latest Dark Knight Rises Trailer, I thought it would be appropriate to share my thoughts on Nolan's Batman films. Obviously I do think they are good but unlike the majority of fans, I don't think they're the best thing since sliced bread. In other words, they aren't the ground breaking comic book movie adaption trilogy in my eyes. Anyway on to my possibly controversial viewpoint. Let's start with the pros:

  • The three notable supporting cast members of the 3 films have brilliant actors bringing them to life. Michael Caine acts as a wonderful father figure and steadfast ally to Bruce throughout the two films. There are few other actors who can play Alfred in the way Caine can. Also, Gary Oldman plays an excellent James Gordon. He nails Gordon's dedication to justice and reproduces the relationship between Batman and Gordon of the comics in a believable manner. And finally Morgan Freeman was born to play Lucius Fox. In terms of looks and the manner he has about him, Freeman makes Fox an intriguing character as well as a valuable ally in Batman's war on crime.
  • Another aspect Nolan has nailed is Batman's rogues gallery. The antagonists of the previous films have stolen the show in these films. Liam Neeson played the enigmatic Ra'as Al Ghul in a manner which befitted the legendary Batman villain and made him an integral part of the first film in Bruce's training. Heath Ledger (may he rest in peace) gave a performance of a lifetime as the Joker, playing upon the deranged serial killer aspect of the character and making his performance a career defining one. And Tom Hardy looks set to be a brutal and cunning Bane. I really like the terrorist aspect to Bane in this film as it logically leads into the various acts of destruction Bane will commit throughout the film.
  • Arguably Nolan's greatest success is the gritty realism of his films. Gotham feels like a real city, filled with corruption, greed and crime running rampant. The characters have real motives, personalities and relationships with one another that other comic book adaptions have failed to match. And the story paces itself as a hard hitting action thriller which can appeal to many people's tastes. Nolan has made these films seem like a distinct reality, that there could be an outlaw vigilante dressed like a bat dealing with crime in a city and bringing those who deserve it to justice. This realism extends to the gadgets as well. The batarangs are hand crafted shuriken, the Batsuit is a discarded military project as is the Batmobile or 'Tumbler' as it's known as in the film. As such, the grittiness serves the film immensely and acts as its greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness (I'll deal with that part later)
  • Nolan wisely chose not to include the extensive Bat family in his films. Given that the introduction of Robin in the previous Bat films saw an unparalleled downward spiral in their quality and ratings, it's for the best that Nolan's vision for the film focuses on a Batman who strikes fear into the hearts of criminals alone without involving children in his crusade. Though Nolan does seem to be doing the next best thing by making Catwoman a possible ally for Batman in TDKR.

    However, there are many flaws with Nolans Batman films as well:
  • In case you haven't noticed, I haven't mentioned Batman in the pro section. That's because Nolan doesn't get Batman or Bruce Wayne right at all. Admittedly Bruce's journey and initial motivation is adapted well by Nolan. But as soon as he gets to Gotham and becomes Batman, Christian Bale becomes someone who from my perspective is not the Batman I know. Let's start with the voice. I know he has to hide his identity but how can anyone make out that unintelligible growling that is considered speech in this film? Yes I do immensely love Kevin Conroy as Batman so you may think me biased but the real problem is that I can barely make out what Bale is saying in these films. Secondly, Nolan does nothing to display Batman's intellect or deductive abilities. He beats the stuffing out of criminals like the Batman I know but there's far more to Batman than that. He's trained his mind as well as his body to the peak condition and there's no showcase of Batman's intellect in any of these films. That's a disappointing failure on Nolan's part.
  • Now onto Bruce Wayne. He's a terrible moaner in these films, particularly the Dark Knight. Here, he contemplates giving up being Batman. I'm afraid that to me, that is a major mistake. Bruce is supposed to become obsessed with his war on crime. He is meant to be so consumed with his mission that he doesn't really care about his life as Bruce Wayne or finding love. But in the Dark Knight, he almost ditches his crusade to try and persuade Rachel to be with him. Am I supposed to believe that this is Batman? He's acting more like Peter Parker in the Dark Knight and not respecting the character's uniqueness is a disadvantage which for the most part is overlooked.
  • I fail to see why Nolan felt the need to create a love interest for the films when there are plenty to pick from in the comics. Unlike Superman, Batman has had many love interests so any one of those would do. But no, Nolan gives us Rachel Dawes, a mediocre attempt to give Bruce a meaningful childhood friend and eventual love interest who shares his devotion to justice etc. Her character just doesn't interest me and given the fact Batman has had far more meaningful relationships with other women in the comic books, I don't see why Nolan felt the need to disregard them in favour of his take on who Batman should be in love with. At least there's Catwoman and the rumour of Talia Al Ghul in TDKR.
  • As I said earlier, the grittiness of Nolan's films is its greatest strength and weakness. It's an unfortunate double edged sword. Whilst that realism makes Nolan's films so successful, it also sets Batman apart from the DC Universe in general. Batman is confined to the closest possible definition of a fictional real world when he's supposed to deal with gritty noir crime problems as well as work with aliens, an amazon, a man who can run faster than light and a guy with a ring who can create anything he imagines to face incredible threats. It's unfortunate that the Batman, Superman and Green Lantern films have all been isolated from one another whilst the Marvel films (with the exception of Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four) all share the same universe and are now co-existing with one another in one big team film that is the result of years of setting up and tieing together. Batman's isolation means that it's impossible to do a recognizable Justice League movie or a World's Finest movie as the gritty realistic Batman doesn't fit with the fantasy of the other superpowered pantheon of DC characters. This is where Nolan's films fall the most.

Like I said earlier, I don't dislike Nolan's films. I just don't think in the scheme of things that they are the greatest comic book adaptions. In the time I'm writing this during a superhero blockbuster year, I'm looking forward to the Avengers most then the Amazing Spider-Man before the Dark Knight Rises. And this is coming from someone whose second favourite superhero is Batman. Anyway what are your thoughts on Nolan's Batman films? Do you like them or loathe them? Agree or disagree with me? Feel free to comment and remember everyone is entitled to their opinion so keep things clean!

I agree with all the pros but disagree with the last 2 cons,I think Nolan will wash away Rachel with Catwoman and Miranda/Talia and it would be rather fitting seeing it's his last movie.

As pointed out by Icon you cant hold the shared universe concept against Nolan.He started his work on Batman back in 2003/2004.

Finally the first 2 cons, I think those are matter of opinion,just like some people prefer Morrisons Batman while others prefer Snyders.

Posted by FadeToBlackBolt

I constantly hear the same complaints, and they're never worth anything.  
 
You're lucky I'm on stronger meds, or I'd have torn you a new one.  
 
Seriously, if you care that much about a significant media personality disguising their voice as much as possible to avoid detection, you are just thick. 

Posted by Deadcool

@Lvenger: I am agree with the Pros and Cons...

Posted by Lvenger

@ReVamp:

1. Fair enough. Each to their own I guess.

2. I like reimaginings as well. But I don't like deviations from integral characteristics that are defining features of the protagonist.

3. Admittedly it would be copying Burton's first Batman film but Vale trying to discover Batman's identity whilst dating Bruce Wayne was what made the love interest in that film so good. The one in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight fell flat immediately. Nolan didn't make a good decision creating a new love interest in this instance IMO.

4. Batman is supposed to be a character who encounters gritty realistic crimes in Gotham City whilst teaming up with Superman and the Justice League. A World's Finest Movie would be a great response from DC to counter the threat of the Avengers as it wouldn't be copying Marvel and would involve DC's two biggest characters meeting each other for the first time. That would attract comic book fans and casual superhero movie goers alike. Unfortunately, DC's policy of isolating Superman, Batman and Green Lantern from one another hasn't been a good move IMO for the reasons I've just said.

I have to say it's nice to have a reasonable discussion about this instead of bickering with friends who do think Nolan's Batman films are undauntedly flawless and won't listen to any other viewpoint.

@Icon: Thank for sharing your incredibly interesting thoughts. You've come to this blog with a viewpoint I hadn't considered before. Perhaps the lack of hindsight of the popularity of an Avengers film was something that couldn't be helped.

@Mekboy: There were instances of H2H displays in these films. Definitely the first one, we never see just how good he is. Hopefully Bane will demonstrate the extent of Batman's H2H abilities.

@Deranged Midget: Agreed lol. Nolan's films kind of remind me of Stan Lee's take on Batman where one guy dresses up as Batman and has the physical capabilities to fight crime whilst another man acts as the intel operative from base.

@The Stegman: Have to agree with Deranged Midget on this one I'm afraid.

Online
Posted by Mekboy

I don't think his H2H capabilities are really shown in the movies.

Edited by Icon

Since Nolan's Batman films were never intended to be a part of a Justice League film series I can't hold it against them that they aren't part of one. That's just not a con. These films should be judged on their own merits, rather than on something they were never intended to be. These films are obviously designed to be set in their own unique world and it was accomplished quite well (although I agree there are flaws, but that is true of every film). Point is it's not a failing that these films wouldn't fit a shared film universe since none was thought of at the time. These movies started coming out several years before any of the independent Marvel Studios Avengers films. It is only in hindsight, after seeing how well Marvel executed their 'Road to the Avengers' film series that we as fans can lament DC/WB not having the foresight to attempt something similar (also, DC Entertainment was only just created 2 years ago, well after each of Nolan's Batman films).

I know there have been attempts to make a Justice League film, or a World's Finest film, but these have both been met with huge skepticism and at times fan backlash (as was the case with George Miller's Justice League). It wasn't until Marvel paved the way with their Avengers films that the folks at WB really understood how to do it, so we can't judge older films made by someone outside of that decision process (Nolan) for not doing it too.

When the Batman films are eventually rebooted, who knows? Maybe we'll get a shared film universe like the one of the comics. But when older Batman films were made that was never the intention of the filmmakers, so it's not their fault it didn't happen back then.

Posted by Deranged Midget

@The Stegman: Dude... she was so out of place and we both know it.

Moderator
Posted by The Stegman
@Deranged Midget: Well..she wasn't.../terrible/ just...mediocre, like key lime pie
Posted by Deranged Midget

@The Stegman said:

@Deranged Midget:

@The Stegman said:

@Deranged Midget:


I just thinks she lacks the caliber and acting chops to be in a film like this. She's a decent actress but she's never done anything worthwhile that I've ever seen

Heath Ledger never really did anything super impressive prior to The Dark Knight (minus Brokeback Mountain) yet we saw what he could do as the Joker, I say don't knock her until we see the movie.

True, but from the multiple trailers, we could clearly estimate what kind of performance he was going to dish out. Anne, not so much.

Exactly, she could be dreadful...although to be honest, no one in Nolan's movies has been horrible as of yet, or she could be awesome, I say wait and see young one.

*cough* Katie Holmes *cough*

Moderator
Posted by The Stegman
@Deranged Midget:  
 


@The Stegman said:

@Deranged Midget:


I just thinks she lacks the caliber and acting chops to be in a film like this. She's a decent actress but she's never done anything worthwhile that I've ever seen

Heath Ledger never really did anything super impressive prior to The Dark Knight (minus Brokeback Mountain) yet we saw what he could do as the Joker, I say don't knock her until we see the movie.

True, but from the multiple trailers, we could clearly estimate what kind of performance he was going to dish out. Anne, not so much. 

Exactly, she could be dreadful...although to be honest, no one in Nolan's movies has been horrible as of yet, or she could be awesome, I say wait and see young one.
Posted by ReVamp

@Lvenger

  1. I see you point and I simply put, disagree. Its a matter of opinion, really.
  2. The thing is, that type of inner turmoil becomes interesting in the movie and while it isn't true to his personality, to me personally, that isn't a negative thing. Then again, I absolutely love re imaginings of characters.
  3. Vicki Vale would've been a horrible choice (I don't think I have to add "imo" at the end of every sentence) because she doesn't know about Batman's identity. If she tried to discover it, then it would add a whole different angle to the movie and then we'd be arguing about "why didn't Nolan do this story as oppsoed to this" which wouldn't make sense.
  4. But why does it have to be related? The realism works well for these movies, so I don't think its a con for these movies. The fourth point would only be a con if we were talking about this character in a Justice League movie. If a movie was done, this characterization of Batman wouldn't be necessary.

:)

Posted by Deranged Midget

@The Stegman said:

@Deranged Midget:


I just thinks she lacks the caliber and acting chops to be in a film like this. She's a decent actress but she's never done anything worthwhile that I've ever seen

Heath Ledger never really did anything super impressive prior to The Dark Knight (minus Brokeback Mountain) yet we saw what he could do as the Joker, I say don't knock her until we see the movie.

True, but from the multiple trailers, we could clearly estimate what kind of performance he was going to dish out. Anne, not so much.

Moderator
Posted by The Stegman
@Deranged Midget:  
 

 I just thinks she lacks the caliber and acting chops to be in a film like this. She's a decent actress but she's never done anything worthwhile that I've ever seen 

Heath Ledger never really did anything super impressive prior to The Dark Knight (minus Brokeback Mountain) yet we saw what he could do as the Joker, I say don't knock her until we see the movie.
Posted by Deranged Midget

@Lvenger: Honestly, I don't mind Anne Hathaway, I just thinks she lacks the caliber and acting chops to be in a film like this. She's a decent actress but she's never done anything worthwhile that I've ever seen. I guess Riddler wouldn't make sense since nothing in Nolan's films shows Bruce to be above average intelligence considering Lucius does everything for him.

Moderator
Posted by Lvenger

@Deranged Midget: I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I'm not judging Anne Hathaway's performance as Catwoman as of yet but my mum who's seen more films with Anne Hathaway in than I have says that she doesn't think Hathaway will make a good Catwoman. It's a shame that Riddler isn't the last villain as he would test Batman mentally which is something that hasn't happened in the last two films but Bane looks like he will be a great physical and mental challenge for Batman. Though not in the intellectual way admittedly.

Online
Posted by Deranged Midget

Hmm, I'm glad to see I'm not the only who believes the Nolan Bat films aren't a gift from the heavens. I completely agree with your first three pro's. Michael Caine completely steals the show when he's on screen as do Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman. I find that the supporting cast in Nolan's film are always far superior to the main cast, with the exception of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. About the rouge's gallery, Nolan couldn't have chosen better. Considering his darker, grittier and more realistic universe, it wouldn't make much sense to throw in Mr. Freeze, Clayface or Poison Ivy. Although I wouldn't have minded seeing the Riddler as the closing villain for the trilogy.

Moderator
Posted by Lvenger

@CaioTrubat: I felt nothing as well. I had no empathy for Rachel when she died which is a shame but the character just didn't appeal to me. If there's a love interest, I want her to be interesting and for her to have a meaningful purpose. She may not be as bad as Kristen Stewart but Rachel Dawes was never a good choice for Nolan.

Online
Posted by Lvenger

@ReVamp:

1. The deductive element of Batman's character is an integral piece of who Batman is to me. In Burton's Batman films there were more instances of Batman using his detective skills. It's not as good as Nolan's films but it still was true to the source material in that respect. Batman is a major player when it comes to superheroes because of his brain not because of his ability to beat up and interrogate thugs. I don't see why Nolan couldn't mix the two.

2. I'm not expecting for Nolan to get everything right but Bruce shouldn't bail out of his mission just because he wants to. And the fact he wants to is off to me. Batman is supposed to prioritize his mission above all else. Including getting some. Which may be unrealistic but the total consumption with his war on crime is supposed to be a driving factor in Batman's story.

3. Vicki Vale would've been a great choice. Nolan sped things up too quickly with Rachel in the first movie so the relationship between Bruce and Rachel fell flat in the Dark Knight. I'm not opposed to new love interests, just interesting love interests. And Rachel Dawes does not make an interesting love interest.

4. Like I said it's a double edged sword. The realism is the most successful aspect of these films but it does mean a Justice League movie or a World's Finest movie is out of the works. And DC could score big on those two films.

Glad we agree on the pros and thank you for commenting! I'm glad I'm chatting with an esteemed forum debater on my blog post.

Online
Posted by Inverno

I agree with all your cons, mostly the love interest issue. Rachel is a really shallow love interest and had no need to be in the movie. She was so flat I felt nothing when the character died.

Posted by ReVamp

For the cons:

1&2: They are interpretations of the character that make sense in the medium that it was used in. The idea that something has to be completely like it was in comics when its translated in the movie doesn't make sense to me.

3. Because its common for movies to have love interests. Why not introduce other women? Because most of them are superficial, like Vicky Vale (ie she doesn't know about his secret, classically) and Catwomen and Talia would be far too prominent in the movies. He didn't want to take that direction.

4: Its necessary IMO. Everyone knows this interpertation of Batman wouldn't work with the JLA, but to neither would a gritty Batman from his more Noir like stories. The character is somewhat adjusted when he's in the JLA.

Agreed on the pros though.