Batman: Rebooted!

They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!

@Starflier

This was my gripe with Nolan keeping it so isolated and stuck in "realism". If they'd slipped in slightly more fantastical things with each movie, then it'd be a natural progression for when he moved up to the Justice League.

And I actually thought that was what they were doing; moving from the visually "safe" villain of Ra's al Ghul to the more fantastical Joker and Two-Face. Of course then Nolan informed us that we could kiss any hopes of seeing villains like Poison Ivy goodbye since they were just too silly for his grown-up Bat movies.

Then Rocksteady Studios said: Screw that, we'll do Ultra-Gritty Batman AND have all that supernatural stuff!

Agreed

And how awesome was THAT!!

Take note, Mr. Nolan!


And here's an idea. Don't reboot Batman, just jump forward in time. Since Begins, Dark Knight, and the third movie happened at the beginning of Batman's career, maybe the other heroes weren't mentioned simply because it wasn't a widespread thing just yet.

It would be assumed that during the time in between, there was a bit of a superhero-boom and the movie could focus on how Batman has learned to deal with that. It would also let us bring in Oracle, Nightwing, and Robin; and would even let them skip over Robin's "Boy Wonder" phase if they still don't want to do that, and have him already be in his late teens.

Batman and Superman are pretty much guaranteed to draw in the crowds and the money as they are characters for all ages.

The Demon Etrigan: this is a character that like the Ghost Rider, is not quite fit for all ages. Such a movie should be rated R.

I'd like to see DC wake up and start realizing that despite all the legal troubles they have with the Superman rights, that they have a great alternative....a young kid by the name of Billy Batson and his magic word....SHAZAM! Captain Marvel/Shazam is a good character for all ages that could draw in crowds and the money.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Why? His "Batman" is a complete joke. He has a weak will, no inner strength, and couldn't solve a mystery if the answer were tatooed to his forehead. Worse yet, they took two actual leading men and attempted to make them subservient to him, only to make it crystal clear how pathetic Bale is in the part.

He grunts a lot. Last I knew, that wasn't Batman. A good Batman has to make you believe he is a superhero, not by lifting cars over his head but by having such an inner drive that he can seemingly accomplish anything. Instead, this version of the franchise pounds it into your head over and over again that he's just a dude in a funny suit with a couple of fancy kicks. He has neither the inner strength, the intelligence, nor the crime solving capabilities to play any version of Batman.


I agree. I like both movies, as long as I pretend they are something other than Batman movies.

I have but one counter to this.



The thing is, Batman goes beyond what you describe. You have, and I'm going to be very blunt, a bloody limited view of what Batman Is.

So far the Nolan Franchise has dealt with a real batman in a real world. It has treated the franchise as something that could happen "now".

That does not make Christian Bale's Batman any less of a Batman than the Adam West Batman, the George Clooney Batman, the Val Kilmer Batman, the Michael Keaton Batman, or any of the comic or cartoon versions of Batman.

It makes the Christian Bale Batman DIFFERENT.

Is that Wrong? No

Are you wrong in what you think? Well, it's your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

Limited? I can describe nearly any version of the character with the GENERIC descriptions I wrote. I didn't state they were the sole characteristics, but they are indeed general characteristics of the Batman character.

What makes Batman, "Batman" in your opinion? What core characteristics defines the character? I listed a few that apply, whether we're talking the Golden Age, Silver Age, or through current incarnations. They pertain to his origin, and his uniqueness. They explain how he can be treated as a superhero, even though he has no extra-ordinary powers. They also explain how Bale's interpretation doesn't fit.

What is your definition and how does Bale's portrayal apply? The entire argument is whether or not Bale is a convincing Batman, ergo, you must supply a definition of what that means to be Batman. Define how he is a believable superhero, in the context of the universe created in the movie. Define how his portrayal is merely a spin on the core of the character.

It's not coincidence that every time I have ever discussed this with someone they go right to the fact the movie pounds into their heads "reality" but sidestep the fact that this is supposed to be someone one could believe to be a superhero in that environment. In part because they are so over the top in trying to convince the audience how things must occur to maintain this marketing angle for their version of the franchise, they remove the believability that this guy, as a character, is capable of being more than any normal human. It's a shallow and superficial performance by Bale, and therefore not immersible in the specific world it tries to create. Bale lacks the intelligence and intangibles to portray that necessary side of the character, and doesn't have those classic leading man characteristics to carry the part, the way his supposed servants do. He, therefore, cannot convince the audience that he is a superhero in this otherwise "normal" environment.

Chuck Connors could walk into a saloon and you knew he was not to be messed with. He didn't need exotic six shooters. He didn't need to talk with a deep voice to sound tough. He had those leading man qualities. Bale doesn't have those qualities, and that's an enormous shortcoming, especially in such an environment where such a limitation can not be covered up with fancy technology. You don't need that with someone like the Flash, because it is so easily explained with his powers. Batman can't be done that way, especially if you want to be so focused on that aspect. The actor has to carry that part of it on his own. Every time Bale is in a scene with Caine or Freeman, they completely show him up, and that facade crumbles. They have those leading man qualities that he so sorely lacks. In the end, his lack of ability to carry the role in this regard is a downfall to the reality the movie tries to create, because he needs to be propped up to ever hope of convincing anyone.

The great irony is that many of the stories that inspired this interpretation are in contrast with it in the regard of Batman's core character. "The Long Halloween", for instance, is a great story. It's not some other wordly tale where he's fighting super powered aliens. It's something that could have been easily portrayed in a 'real life' environment. However, it's at its heart a detective story. It's a murder mystery. The two Bale movies take scenes from it, but they don't take the heart of it. They don't take the spirit of it. They take the shallow details like names, but like Bale's portrayal, they miss the point of it all. They miss what makes Batman, however different in that book than he is in other books, the same core character despite the changes.

"The Long Halloween" is a good story, and I have no problems with a version of the character that is gritty, in such a world. But the character has to be believable, both in the context of the character being portrayed (Batman) and in the role he's attempting to portray in that specific universe. I was disappointed in Batman Begins, but was hoping the lack therein was simply to set a contrast with the growth Batman in the second film, but when it again failed in this regard, it only made both films, as Batman films, feel horribly disappointing (they do have many qualities as a whole that I find admirable). They spent so much time attempting to convince people that they weren't their predecessors that they failed to sell the character they were supposed to be portraying.

He's different. He's just not Batman.

Pretty much...I enjoyed all the Batman's although Clooney bothered me a tad...he seemed to bob is head alot when talking...I kept thinking is he gettin early on set parkensin's?

It's 106 miles to Grandville, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing faceless helmets

... Hit it ...

Actually, if we CAN have alternate visions of Batman, I'd be on-board for a Shumacher made Batman ala the Adam West series. If you took Batman and Robin, stripped out the pathetic attempts at drama and marketed it as a straight-up campy spoof, it really was a pretty decent West-Batman movie adaptation.

The silly villains, the pun-laden dialog, the mounds and mounds of camp... I'd be all for it. Of course, the responsibility of having two seperate movie Bat-verses would probably be too complicated for the mainstream movie-going audience to handle. Not to mention way too much responsibility for the Hollywood execs.

I honestly agree with Nolan's assessment of Batman. There's two properties that both make the most sense when kept seperate from the rest of their respective universes. For Marvel Xmen , as having a bunch of non mutant supers that the public doesn't hate just makes their plight seem stupid. (civil war honestly was best take on marvel giving a real reaction toward super powered being. If they d have fear it would be against them all as fear and hate isn't selective.)

For DC it's Batman, as most of his best stories are when he is no where near justice league. For a rich guy who can just buy his way into being super, it makes absolutely no sense for him to deal with criminals with this bare bones low gear, especially since high level metas seem to occasionally waltz into his stomping grounds.(I picture somethnig along the lines of batman beyond as if you exist in a world of super tech why wouldn't you buy it? Oh makes him too much like ironman or that's not MY BATMAN...oh can it fan boys.) When you do what Nolan has done, his character makes more sense as he's using the best toys the real world has to offer in non-lethal gear and super powers don't exist to try give them to yourself.

Otherwise as George on Seinfeld said, it's like driving around in a wheel chair for the fun of it. Given how many times Jimmy Olsen has been given super powers I fail see how Batman couldn't find some means of going beyond a guy with a rope and boomerangs to fight crime other than that's what his character is locked into. He's a relic of the mystery men era whom was never allowed to evolve beyond that. (granted there's plenty of glaring examples of why doesnt someone just do X to solve their problem in comics...but Bruce's situation is one of the more glaring ones. )

It doesn't help that since batman is such a gimp package (what does he bring to the table for the justice league? That makes as much sense as putting Silver surfer in a comic Daredevil which they beat up low powered criminals together. Everyone steps on his toes and makes him superflueous.) in order make him seem important then they have write everyone else at half speed and dumb as nails to give him a point. Batman is just on the justice league because it's hey let's put all most popular characters on a single team not because makes much sense on paper. (especially given it contradicts his MO. For a guy who wants use fear against people and be an urban legend being seen in public with the entire league just flies in the face of that.)

I'm sure alot of people will disagree, but they probably won't fire back with anything other than I don't like that. The oh it's comics and doesn't have to make any sense at all is not a good comeback. That's the Joe Q school of writing that gets us crap like Brand new day. Everything happens for a reason, even in comics.