SpideySense

@DarthShap said:

I really was not saying it was bad because of it. I think it is a great movie. However, I really do not understand how so many people keep saying how the characters were spot on. I would say that Jim Gordon, Lucius Fox and Alfred are pretty much the same (because being rather regular folks, they did not need to go through Nolan's realistic filter) but everything else is quite different.

Batman certainly was not just "tweaked a bit". The character from the comics is nothing like Nolan's character. The "real" Batman is truly tragic and literally went from normal happy little kid to some sort of "incarnation of the spirit of vengeance" in a second. Nolan probably thought that no one would buy that scene so in the movie, Bruce kinds of evolves through different phases but never really becomes Batman. After the death of his parents, he became a whiny kid obsessed with the death of one man only, then his revenge gets stolen from him and he really has no meaning to his life until Ra's starts teaching him and then...he does not want to kill so...he becomes a superhero in order to fix Gotham.

Also, in the comics, Batman is supposed to be a complete nut. He is paranoid, obsessed, suicidal, schizophrenic, self-centered, antisocial, he cannot enjoy anything because he never got over the death of his parents, never having mourned them. The greatest Batman stories actually describe his pscyche rather well : TDKR, Year One, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, RIP, Absolution,Ego...

Nolan's Batman is pretty much Bruce in a costume, very relatable when the character from the comics pretty much never is -and never should be- and not that different from other DC characters like Oliver Queen or Ted Kord who fight crime as superheroes because it gives meaning to their life and they feel needed. In Nolan's Dark Knight, the death of Bruce's parents is not even mentioned when it is supposed to always be on his mind and his decision to retire does not include them in the very least. He is not "tweaked a bit", he is unrecognizable at that point.

Now, Nolan was going for a more realistic, more relatable Batman and the result is great but in the end, it is nothing like the comic book.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. But I think I have an answer as to why people keep saying that the characters were spot on. Well, if people aren't really Batman enthusiasts, or have read only some issues here and there, or entirely non-comic readers, they wouldn't really delve deep into his persona. Most people's inkling of Batman's character is that he's tale is on a serious tone, a little dark if you will. But that's it. That's why when Nolan's film adaptation came out dark, the general public immediately dubbed it as 'spot on'. I will say, honestly, I didn't know most about his psyche until you explained it (thanks, btw) because I haven't read a lot of Batman comics (I plan to remedy that).

Anyway, in that aspect, you are right. But I also think that what's great about Nolan's adaptation was that it gave a more realistic phasing (basing on your explanation). In a way that it contributes to the overall artistic value of the film and to the sake of the general public who are not likely to buy Batman's complete nut persona as you explained as well. However, what I can say at this point (and what you just said) is that comic book spot on or just Nolan interpretation spot on, it is a great superhero film, probably one that will be considered as one of the best for a very long time.

Spidey out!

@DarthShap said:

It is realistic all right but in no way faithful to the comic book. No because of the actors but because the script was trying way too hard to be realistic.

Batman is not even close to "in character", he only becomes Batman because of the death of Joe Chill in his twenties while in the comics, the significant change happens in Crime Alley that fateful night. Nolan's Batman is even ready to retire so he can spend more time with his girlfriend in TDK when in the comics, he would never even think about it for one second.

Same for the villains. I guess Ra's is OK but without Talia, he sorts of loses half of what made him interesting. The Joker is a completely different character with only superficial similarities to the one from the comic book. In the comic book, he is not about chaos and anarchy. He is not a a post-9/11 terrorist (who only makes one joke during the entire movie), just a creepy egocentric and psychotic clown.

I can agree with you saying that it's not really faithful to the comic book. But then again the way Nolan gave/added the characters' attitude and personality that could rival that of the original is pretty awesome. Maybe it did not really follow the comic book to the letter, but who did? However they adapted Batman's persona is part of the artistic value of the film. Other writers also add/deduct from the comic books, but that doesn't really reduce the fact that it's still essentially the superhero playing (in this case, Batman), just maybe tweaked a bit. And hey, Nolan tweaked Batman wonderfully! :D So I guess, what I'm saying is that it's not really a contest of how they follow the comic that I was hoping to talk about, but more of the components of what would make a great movie, just narrowed down to the superhero variation. But hey, you've got some good points there!

Spidey out!

Sheez..this forum is now crawling with horrifying movie clips. Maybe we can make a poll. That would be fun. What movie traumatized you the most? Howard the Duck would be on the top of my list for sure. Browse a page back and you'll see what I mean. Jeez...but whatever, it's still fun knowing all you people! Seeing as I'm quite new here, I'm glad that this topic has been a source of fun (or trauma) in nostalgically reminiscing older movies. Ooohh...and I'm repeating this, I (we) am (are) now accepting donations for therapy sessions.

Again, it's nice knowing you guys! (I wanted to say 'from you're friendly neighborhood Spider-man' but nah, only Spidey can say that)

Spidey out!

Captain America. He's mere presence demands respect for him. He has the skills for battle (like strategy and planning). He is a symbol. And that, I think, is one of the qualities that cannot just be picked up by anyone. Stark is pretty cool, but he doesn't have what it takes to be a leader compared to Captain America. People have to respect you and believe you. Stark can step up sometimes, but in a more permanent basis, it's always Captain America.

I don't know, but whenever I see the Avengers, I just picture Captain America in the front and center. Not anyone else. Kind of like Superman in JLA, just way less boring.

I think there is a God. Either that or everything that happened millions and billions of years ago were pure coincidences and we're just all doomed to nothingness after we die.

But religions? Nope. Each one sounds as noble as the other, but when you get inside, everything is just as messy as the next one. That's just my opinion, though.

a big flop

But luckily this

will destroy the

@ssejllenrad said:

There are tons of duckfaces surrounding the net today. It may be weird and gross but it certainly happened and they got millions of children.

Gee...I want that imagery erased from my mind. I am now accepting donations for my therapy sessions.

Spidey out!

@Gambit1024 said:

Did anyone else see that stupid Man-Thing movie?

Were you referring to that 2005 movie? If yes, I'm raising my hand. I'm one of the unfortunates to see that movie. And yeah, it was pretty stupid.