TheBatman's forum posts
I'm a big fan of Nolan's Batman films but yeah, I agree that they are not a totally accurate depiction of Batman, merely an interpretation. The thought of a re-boot though... I mean, after the TDK RISES Hmm, gets me nervous.
I liked the fact that Nolan's universe was so grounded in reality. I mean, look at all the Batman films prior to Nolan. Show a modern audience those films and they'll just laugh. I think they only way to go about presenting characters like Croc or Ivy, etc to a moderrn audience is through a different media.
For example, the Rocksteady 'Arkham' games. They're gritty and they feel somewhat REALISTIC even though, obviously giant plants aren't gonna come outta the ground and try kill us anytime soon =P It's much easier to push the boundries of reality with the video game media, but film, not so.
Batman is a character that wants to be taken seriously. More so nowadays than ever before. I think a reboot would still wouldn't allow for characters like Croc of Ivy, any of those characters that are somewhat... Let's say a little TOO imaginative =P
The trend in cinema today is to make everything darker and more gritty. THE MAN OF STEEL movie for example, taking a character like Superman and making him a little more... believable. The new AMAZING SPIDERMAN film is following the same trend!
But then again, who knows! If they can make films about a man from outta space, who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, I'm sure a film about a man with croc gens isn't totally outta the picture yet! =P
I wanna see him team up with Rob Rodriguez for a Sin City sequel.
I loved his Sin City books! As far as his OTHER works go, they well all kinda... meh =P
His All-Star Batman was... well, simply put, REALLY REALLY bad! At least I think so! XP
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!
Why the new look anyway?
I mean, Clark wears his glasses and does his hair a little and peeps don't say "WHOA! IT'S SUPERMAN!" XP
This new image is, well, in my mind, totally unnecessary! =P
I don't mind heroes winning the 'WAR' (so to speak) the majority of the time BUT, for them to win all the 'battles' they face, nah, just it's unrealistic and uninteresting. It's the conflict that makes a story great. No great conflict, not real threat? No point. If I villian can't stand up against a hero and deal some damage in his own right... Pfft, LAME! XP