Messages

Sure, it's something I've been talking about for many years. I loved what Nolan did in BB, but after that, his Gotham felt a bit too pristine. I used to live in Chicago for 5 years, and I thought it was a pretty clean looking city for the most part, but Nolan somehow made it look even cleaner than it already was. Which is the opposite of what I think of when I picture Gotham in my head. It doesn't need to be too dramatic, like what we saw with Burton, but it doesn't need to be a cleaner version of an established city. I heard the TV show Gotham looks good, although, I've only seen the first 3 episodes, and I stopped watching, so I never got a feel for it. But I've heard it has a pretty good atmosphere to it.

But overall, I agree. I do hope that we get back to Gotham having an atmosphere to it, that feels original, and not too realistic.

That's the best thing about it. The atmosphere, the mixed-era (there's CRT TVs and audio casettes co-existing with modern mobile phones) and the actors. The writing is all over the place, even if judging the writing is not one's expertise (it's not mine anyway), but what holds it together are some very strong performances by the leads (esp. Gordon, Bullock, The Penguin, The Riddler) and the visuals. In places it's almost like a tribute to Burton's two films and Batman Forever. It's no wonder they used the same exterior location from Batman Forever as Wayne manor, they did a direct reference to Selina's fall, or they cast Paul Reubens as the Penguin's father.

Now this might seem very silly considering the current situation and status of the DCEU, but well...

The thing I will really hate about the new Batman movie will be for it to be visually boring, and Gotham without atmosphere. I don't have any special preference about what the plot should be, which villain(s) Batman has to fight, or if it needs a strong detective element. Just have a good story and a good villain with clever casting. I'm all about visuals and atmosphere. The lack of these is what I really hate about the Nolaniad.

I think there can be a balance between Burton's stylized (but stage-looking) city and what the wider public seems to prefer (judging by the success of the Nolaniad) i.e. something that feels more "real" (mundane, BORING). The Arkham games have a good balance - the Arkham building looks like a steampunk chateau, the city looks appropriately Gothic and Art Deco, but it still feels like a city and not a stage. I'd love to see something like that in live action.

If the "keep it real" mentality persists and Gotham is just some locations in an American or Canadian city the filmakers found convenient and overall the movie looks like a standard action/crime movie, well... all the best, auf wiedersehen.

Saw some of these a few days ago in deviantart. Solid stuff.

True, as we know. B&R's Bane wears a comic accurate mask and uses Venom. But apart from that I don't think he has much merit. Do we believe this guy could think strategically? He can't even string a sentence together. Hardy's Bane has a soft spot for Talia, but is he completely useless and her slave, walking by her side at all times? No. She does her thing (infiltrating Wayne Enterprises) and he does his thing. He carries out the plan and is successful in doing so. He still sees her as the young girl he protected down in the pit, and for that reason, he isn't going to disrespect her. It's a departure from the comics, but I guess it gives this beast a dose of emotional complexity, given he's snapping necks and blowing people up quite a lot.

Not her slave, her agent. All he does, this "plan", everything, it's for her. He's not the leader, he's basically the highest ranking officer under her orders.

But then, this is what they've always been doing when they grouped villains together. Two Face acts as muscle to the Riddler. Poison Ivy falls for Mr. Freeze. The Scarecrow is on Ra's payroll. Two Face is manipulated by the Joker. It's just that Bane, despite this silly Mexican wrestler attire (which is the only thing Team Schumacher saw in him, obviously), was maybe the smartest, the strongest and the most dangerous of them all, acting for his own ends.

Or 'Bruce Wayne'. Even if he wasn't a physical match to the comics Wayne, he had the attitude. It's not just nostalgia, though, there's many other things I loved as a kid at the time I loved the 1989-92 films, things which I consider silly right now. Burton's Batman stayed with me. There are things about them which are timeless.

Agreed about Affleck, he has the potential to be the best Batman in live action. I say 'has the potential' because we got only glimpses of him doing Batman things in an urban Gotham setting. I hope he's still around for the first solo Bat-film. Him and Irons, the best Wayne/Alfred duo ever.

Agreed.

I think it comes down to how visually unique it is - you see a random still from the film, without any of the main characters in the frame, you immediately know it's Batman Returns.

Not so much with most of Marvel's movies. After a while they feel a bit like episodes of a cinema-budgeted TV series.

This is what the animated Killing Joke should have looked like.

Great comparison. Something like this would've been perfect. It strongly evokes the original version of TKJ.

QFT, agreed.

Interesting to know you take such an issue with Bane in Rises. If you don't mind me asking, what is your biggest criticism about this take?

Sure, I know he doesn't have the Venom, and he's ultimately just a glorified lackey like in B&R, but I honestly don't see him any more radical from the comics than any of the villains in that series. After all, it's not like Ra's al Ghul and Henri Ducard were always the same man, nor Joker was a Glasgow smiling goth (other than possibly that Gotham Noir Elseworlds story). Come to think of it, the only characters that were done any justice were Gordon and Alfred in BB.

I just don't.

I've never been one of the "if it deviates from the comics it's not good" audience (the opposite, I always loved the villains in Batman Returns), but having recently re-read Knightfall and re-watched The Dark Knight Rises - the latter version comes off like a weak shadow.

I've read the comic-to-screen analysis features from the day they were published in 2012, I've also read the posts by Silver Nemesis and The Dark Knight in this very same page of this thread about Nolan's Bane (I've always been more of a reader than a commenter anyway), I can see and respect the points, but to me it's not just a different character renamed as Bane - the entire plot of that film, his plan, and yes his comical dialogue, are just weak and not very good.

But, yes, it's maybe subjective and a matter of preference, as I said in my first mini-rant

I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

Can't disagree with that, he's a secondary villain with the prime purpose to make the toxin Ra's Al Ghul needs (oh yeah, and make cameos in the sequels), but I don't think he's that off compared to what they did with Bane, who is the main villain in the movie he appears.

Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

Again, I can't disagree. His story was rushed, his brief crime spree is almost an epilogue after the movie is done. Two Face was worthy of an entire film, and his appearance is almost like a demo of what might have been. I didn't say his story was satisfactory, just that he was not as off as Bane.

I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

The thing with Doomsday was the mystery. The "force of nature" comment people have made about the Joker, this is what Doomsday was in his first appearance. What? Where from? Why? This is what I was thinking when I was reading the Death storyline as a kid, this is what made him interesting.

It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics.

This actually made me laugh.

Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

Yeah, but is this much different than Bane being a deformed lackey of Talia al Ghul, or Doomsday being a Zod Zombie resurrected by Dr. Lutherstein? 

Fair point. You could say the same thing about Bane being a lackey to Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow being a lackey to the League of Assassins and Two-Face becoming the Joker's protege, more or less.

Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

Of all Batman movie villains, "Bane" in TDKRises and "Doomsday" in BvS are those who pretty much make an In-Name-Only appearance.

Then there's Penguin and Catwoman in BR - which I love - and which were both reinvented for the movie.

Maybe it comes down to taste and personal preference.