ElGUitarist's forum posts

  • 28 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

Why would JGL be Nightwing when he's ment to be Batman post-TDKR in that "universe"?
If you ment a movie outside of the Nolan-verse, having JGL as Nightwing would confuse audiences into thinking it was the Nolan-verse.

It's hard to argue, because JGL is awesome.

#2 Edited by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, as if Spiderman3 would ever be better than TDKR.

TDKR was a great film, on par with BB but below TDK. It wasn't plot holes so much as people complaining that redundant/unimportant things weren't shown obviously on screen (why did Bane have to take him there personally? omg, how did he get back into the city??)

Right now, it comes down to Nolan's Batman and Ironman. Which one is best comes down to personal preference (ex: good quality fun vs. serious story tone).

#3 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

@Stormbox: I understand that, but it seems like a lot of people are.

I don't agree with looking down on anyone for not "truly" loving a character (when really, they are very capable of loving them without having as in depth history with them as a comic reader).

But I also don't agree with the radical fanaticism that leads to one getting a Hulk tattoo without knowing who Bruce Banner is (as mentioned in this thread).

I suppose my post was more to do with stopping the bashing and hating just because someone outside of you community also happens to like the same character you do - that just isn't mature; it's possessive (in a negative way).

#4 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

God forbid someone hasn't read a specific story arc to know who Thomas Jr. is ... cuz that obviously means they aren't "real" fans, and is proof that they don't really like/love the character.

For the sake of humanity, grow up.

To like or love a character should not have the prerequisite of having been entertained by said character in their debuting medium.

I understand that the comic medium is close to you; the community is relatively small, not everyone can understand or appreciate it, you feel a connection to other people in this community because you are in the minority in this shared passion. But this does not give you the right to be possessive about the characters who started out in that medium, nor the right to quantify people's enjoyment of the character outside of the community and medium - the characters do not belong to you, nor do they any longer belong to that one medium.

#5 Edited by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

@Durakken said:

@ElGUitarist said:

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

Based on 70+ years of Bruce being a big bad feared figure with a sidekick has worked as evidenced by the fact that you think that is his character.

I think that's his character because that is what Bruce wants and tries for the Batman character, and that is what's portrayed in his solo adventures (which really, most of the best batman stories are sans Robin as a sidekick).

If anything, the Bat family works best. They don't go out as a team, but they are connected, and work together when shit gets as real as it ever will (most recent example being Night of the Owls. Perfect example of utilizing allies/the family aspect without being campy with sidekicks. Allies>sidekicks).

It's kinda sad to think that not liking Robin or thinking it doesn't fit is a "misunderstanding". Yeah, keep thinking that. There is no misunderstandings/understandings. Just preference and opinion on what works. I don't think Robin works for the Batman character, but Dick Greyson/Jason/Tim work for the Bruce Wayne character and that whole "keep him grounded and away from the darkness because they're similar" thing. So bite me if you don't think I understand Batman :/

: again, it's about working within the universe that is established. In that universe, a guy in yellow spandex can be accepted as the ultimate hunter. That does not mean anything else ridiculous is fair game. An ultimate hunter having a sidekick still does not work in that universe, apparently.

it's the same thing when people complained that Superman was hit hard by a bus being thrown at him in Superman II. "You don't like that because it doesn't make sense, yet a guy in blue spandex with superpowers makes sense? lol" No. In that universe we accept that Superman is possible and blue spandex is aceptable. What is wrong is that the in the universe, it is accepted that he can lift a tectonic plate to stop an earthquake... so how can he be knocked hard by a bus? That is inconsistent.

#6 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

@Durakken said:

1) Batman was only with out a Robin for 1 year. To say that Robin doesn't work with Batman's character is a total lack of understanding of the Batman character. To say it's not realistic is to not know history, biology, psychology, or any other of other things that would make it not only possible but likely if someone like Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson ever were real people.

2) Not to mention who gives a shit if it isn't "realistic." Superman, nor Batman is realistic to our real world standard and yet you never hear "You shouldn't make a Batman movie cuz it's not realistic" Newsflash, Comics, Movies, games, books... they're all fantasy.

1) cool story bro. Just cuz it was written, doesn't mean it makes sense.

2) There has to be consistency in an established universe. I don't expect to see a superman character in a StarTrek movie.. but traveling faster than the speed of light and most aliens being humanoids isn't realistic either. So why not mutants like the X-Men in that universe? Don't they both make no realistic sense? It does not make sense to see mutants in those movies because it is not "realistic" in the universe established in that piece of fiction.

What is established is that Bruce wants a big bad feared figure. That doesn't work with a sidekick.

#7 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

@r3d_rob1n said:

@ElGUitarist said:

: yeah, it makes sense for Bruce to take in Dick or any other of those characters. But to use them as sidekicks to his Batman? Not so much to me. To train them to eventually become their own heros independent of Batman? That works.

The only problem I have with the not using them as Robins and sidekicks to Batman is that there are too many unpredictable situations. These future replacements need on-the-job training, so to speak, so that they get the true knack for being a hero. Without it they could end up freezing up at the wrong moments. It doesn't matter so much to me whether they use "Robin" as a training identity or not (as a former poster suggested). There is also the fact that he trains more than 1 Robin, they can't all be meant to only take over as Batman one day. They are important to him handling the crime in Gotham, and the only way I see them being effective is with some sort of training time in the real world.

I had the same problem with Blake in the Nolan movie (I refuse to think of him as Robin, he was more like Terry than anyone). He was handed the Batman mantle by Bruce with absolutely no training. He basically handed the keys of a tank over to a hot-headed cop that was tired of the restrictions of the law. It sounds a bit too much like the Punisher to me, and the two characters are actually quite different.

On an unrelated note... is there a post limit? I saw you mention it at one point.

The "one the site" training works. Although I have to refer to Batman not having that same on-site training with someone who was already a crusader.

No, they wouldn't all be meant for the mantle. Like I said, they would be meant to be their own individual heros, independent of Batman or even Gotham. But when they day Bruce can't do it anymore, yeah, one of them should be the next Batman.

I'm still fine with the Blake situation. He's had more training dealing with criminals than Bruce did. Bruce was trained the LoS, having only dealt with criminals by being one of them. Blake was a detective. Sure he won't be the ultimate martial artist that Bruce was, but he will be a much better detective/tactician than Bruce was.

Yeah, these forums have kept me from posting more than 5 posts per day. Says that it's because I have a low post count, and will be able to post more than 5 a day when I eventually get to an unspecified post count.

#8 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

: In case you didn't catch my edit (damn only 5 posts per day):

It's also kinda insulting assuming that since I like what Nolan did, I must not know Batman beforehand. I grew up with TAS when I came home from school when it first aired. I'm just not a fanboyish type to think the movie has to be exactly like the comics. Batman was not trained by the League of Assassins, but why would I be upset about that in the Nolan films (just an example)? Nolan got the essence and ideal of Batman across leaps and bounds beyond any live-action interpretation so far. And being a music guy with a BMus degree, I'm a sucker for the score. Watching TAS as a kid, Robin didn't make sense to me then for the same reasons I've been mentioning. But it was a cartoon, so it was something you have to put aside... like a no-superpower Batman leaping across rooftops as if his superpower was super jumps.

Nolan happened to think what I've thought since I was a kid - Robin doesn't work IRL interpretations. So, he made him into a cop/detective that acts as a behind the scenes help to Batman (a la Gordon and Fox). To me, Nolan has come very close to portraying the idea of Batman I've had since I was 8years old. So, I like it.

--it's part of the "legend", but I still think it's a mistake/contradiction. of course he needs someone to continue the legacy/Batman mantle. Doesn't mean he needs a sidekick. Dick could be worked as to take the mantle when Bruce gets too old cuz Bruce has been training him to become a hero... but why as a sidekick? Why not be in Bruce's care and guidance, but independent of Batman, then take the mantle when the time should come?

#9 Edited by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

you're clearly not understanding my point that I've spent quite a few points clarifying. It isn't about an audience believing a 10 year old beating up criminals (which is damn ridiculous, but that's besides the point).

The point is BATMAN HAVING A SIDEKICK, PERIOD. Kid or adult, a sidekick does not suit the Batman persona Bruce tried/is trying/has created. This inconsistency/contradiction flies in the comics and cartoons, but not as well for live action adaptations.

It's also kinda insulting assuming that since I like what Nolan did, I must not know Batman beforehand. I grew up with TAS when I came home from school when it first aired. I'm just not a fanboyish type to think the movie has to be exactly like the comics. Batman was not trained by the League of Assassins, but why would I be upset about that in the Nolan films (just an example)? Nolan got the essence and ideal of Batman across leaps and bounds beyond any live-action interpretation so far. And being a music guy with a BMus degree, I'm a sucker for the score. Watching TAS as a kid, Robin didn't make sense to me then for the same reasons I've been mentioning. But it was a cartoon, so it was something you have to put aside... like a no-superpower Batman leaping across rooftops as if his superpower was super jumps.

Nolan happened to think what I've thought since I was a kid - Robin doesn't work IRL interpretations. So, he made him into a cop/detective that acts as a behind the scenes help to Batman (a la Gordon and Fox). To me, Nolan has come very close to portraying the idea of Batman I've had since I was 8years old. So, I like it.

: yeah, it makes sense for Bruce to take in Dick or any other of those characters. But to use them as sidekicks to his Batman? Not so much to me. To train them to eventually become their own heros independent of Batman? That works.

Batman could be partnered with the Punisher... it's the fact that Batman wouldn't come across as the inhuman demon figure Bruce created for the Batman if he had a partner on scene. All my favourite arcs have been solo Batman (at most with Robin(s) in the background for a few scenes, and/or Bats working with Gordon and shit).

#10 Posted by ElGUitarist (29 posts) - - Show Bio

Or do you neglect to read the parts that I say the character of Robin only passes (and IMO only JUST passes) within a comic/cartoon as a sidekick to a character like Batman.

Everyone continues to misunderstand... it is not about the "dark" tone of the movie/series/cartoon... it's about a character who is played out to be a dark avenger of the night having a sidekick. Bruce made the Batman persona to "strike fear into the hearts of criminals" and all that other hype. That hype is killed once you see that he has a sidekick - sure everything can still be dark and gritty, but not the persona. That's why I liked Alfred, Gordon, Fox (and Blake in TDKR)... no one knows these people are helping this terrifying knight; all anyone sees is one terrifying bat-man-thing doing superhuman type of things.

  • 28 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3