Batman-Online.com

Do all you batman fans think

1) batman can exist in our reality   OR


2) batman can only exist in comic books or movies


I'd like to hear your opinions.  I personally think a real 2009, US citizen, batman hero couldn't exist.  The batman in the comics is non realistic.  Bruce Wayne is realistic, but batman is non realistic.  But hey, thats just my opinion.  Any thoughts..........

as long as citizens arrests are allowed yes it could happen. need someone with the money and the desire but yes.

if one pops up, i volunteer to be kidnapped so you guys can come face to face with him :)

what about the technology?

There's very little about Batman that's at all realistic.

A guy like Bruce would likely grow up to be a male version of Paris Hilton.  But even if he became Batman, I'll never be convinced a reality-based Batman could dodge that many bullets per night.  The law of numbers says he'd eventually get made into swiss cheese.

Also, he'd never be able to have any sort of "arrangement" with the police.  He's a criminal himself and he would not long evade police detection, billionaire or not.

Batman is a fantasy character (as his villains demonstrate) and while "realistic" stories might be entertaining as captivating Elseworlds stories, they're simply not good for the character over the long haul.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 00:47
There's very little about Batman that's at all realistic.

A guy like Bruce would likely grow up to be a male version of Paris Hilton.  But even if he became Batman, I'll never be convinced a reality-based Batman could dodge that many bullets per night.  The law of numbers says he'd eventually get made into swiss cheese.

Also, he'd never be able to have any sort of "arrangement" with the police.  He's a criminal himself and he would not long evade police detection, billionaire or not.

Batman is a fantasy character (as his villains demonstrate) and while "realistic" stories might be entertaining as captivating Elseworlds stories, they're simply not good for the character over the long haul.

right. i said it could happen. not that it'd last. lol.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 00:47
There's very little about Batman that's at all realistic.

A guy like Bruce would likely grow up to be a male version of Paris Hilton.  But even if he became Batman, I'll never be convinced a reality-based Batman could dodge that many bullets per night.  The law of numbers says he'd eventually get made into swiss cheese.

Also, he'd never be able to have any sort of "arrangement" with the police.  He's a criminal himself and he would not long evade police detection, billionaire or not.

Batman is a fantasy character (as his villains demonstrate) and while "realistic" stories might be entertaining as captivating Elseworlds stories, they're simply not good for the character over the long haul.

Your right.  And that begs the question of why people even read comic books or watch super hero movies.  I know its alright to watch something thats fiction, but not something that makes out that its real, or could be real.

I'm with colors. Batman is more realistic than others sure, but he's a fantasy character and nothing more. Batman can be dark and terrible, but he's not realistic.

After playing Arkham Asylum today, this is exactly how he and his world should be. Hard hitting violence and dark themes, but set in a world where killer plants can tear buildings apart.  Where regular people can instantly be transformed into muscle bound freaks. Where people are tracked by alcohol vapours and so on.

Also, the look of the environment is semi-realistic. It carries aspects of reality, but it's clearly not reality. The sky is a strange tinge, the buildings are ancient and gothic, right down to the iron fences. It all adds to the experience and vibe. It's called expressionism.

He is realistic but only if you strip away a lot of the core elements.

Take the Batmobile, for example. Even if you could build one without anyone finding out, someone would eventually follow you back home. Interestingly, Bob Kane criticized the Batman movie serials (or at least the first one) because Batman just drove a regular car. But if you really wanted to be discrete, that's what you'd have to do.

Also, being one of the most famous people in the world wouldn't help the whole secret identity thing. He'd have to have a mask that covered his entire face. But even then, his fame would chip away at his privacy--something he would desperately need to keep his guise going.

And then there are the various gadgets which either defy reality or plausibility. I, for one, wouldn't rely on a grappling hook to save me from a 100 story fall. Although it seems to have worked for the finales of '89, '95 and '97.

Also, I think he'd have to carry a gun because every two-bit thug seems to have one of those. I suppose it could be unloaded because the point is just to scare a few guys. Or maybe shoot a few rounds in the air just to scare people and then take them out with fisticuffs.

So there you have it guys: A Batman who shoots people while driving a Chevy pickup. I think we have our next Elseworlds title.

Quote from: phantom stranger on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 05:41
Take the Batmobile, for example. Even if you could build one without anyone finding out, someone would eventually follow you back home.

I've always thought that. Going to and from Wayne Manor in the Batmobile each night really is rolling the dice. No matter how stealthy you may be - or how hard you try, eventually someone is going to follow you back, place a tracer or whatever. It's mostly out of your hands.

It's a big City out there with lots of people in it. People talk and people observe. And you can't tell me after operating in Gotham for years, Batman is rather complacent about the whole thing.

And that's just with people. Technology really would complicate things.

Given his vigilante status, in reality they'd view the entire Gotham area via satellite with heat vision capabilities. He wouldn't even know. You'd have footage of his movements to and from Wayne Manor and it would be all over the news.

Say they had just began the monitoring, and they didn't know where he lived - and Batman was in Gotham and *somehow* aware of this, he's still going nowhere. He'd be driving around all night and all the police would be after him. That really would be it. He's caught. He couldn't drive back to Wayne Manor. And it would eventually be morning.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 07:48

Quote from: phantom stranger on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 05:41
Take the Batmobile, for example. Even if you could build one without anyone finding out, someone would eventually follow you back home.

I've always thought that. Going to and from Wayne Manor in the Batmobile each night really is rolling the dice. No matter how stealthy you may be - or how hard you try, eventually someone is going to follow you back, place a tracer or whatever. It's mostly out of your hands.

It's a big City out there with lots of people in it. People talk and people observe. And you can't tell me after operating in Gotham for years, Batman is rather complacent about the whole thing.

And that's just with people. Technology really would complicate things.

Given his vigilante status, in reality they'd view the entire Gotham area via satellite with heat vision capabilities. He wouldn't even know. You'd have footage of his movements to and from Wayne Manor and it would be all over the news.

Say they had just began the monitoring, and they didn't know where he lived - and Batman was in Gotham and *somehow* aware of this, he's still going nowhere. He'd be driving around all night and all the police would be after him. That really would be it. He's caught. He couldn't drive back to Wayne Manor. And it would eventually be morning.

I'm obviously never going to write Batman comics or movies or anything but this is something I'd develop and explore.  Even in a fantasy setting, you'd have to somehow acknowledge it so I'd tackle it head on.  Basically you could establish that Bruce has (via agents of agents of agents) influenced Gotham City into building elevated trains and eschewing all subways.

The subways are then walled off and closed down -- as far as the city knows -- but each of them empty into various buildings all over Gotham which are owned (via agents of agents of agents) by an alias of Bruce's.  It allows Batman free and instant access to the city ("he appears and disappears at will") while also camoflauging his activities from the authorities.  If anyone ever investigates who owns X building, all they'd find is Bob Smith, who's perpetually out of the country.  Nothing tied directly back to Wayne.

Batman has wealthy and powerful enemies (King Snake, Black Mask and others) who would have the means, motive and opportunity to track his movements so it's on him to muddy the waters a little bit.

QuoteBasically you could establish that Bruce has (via agents of agents of agents) influenced Gotham City into building elevated trains and eschewing all subways.

So that's who built the tunnel in Batman Forever.  ;D

But, in all seriousness, that sounds like a cross between "The Shadow" and the "No Man's Land" storyline in which (if I remember correctly) Batman builds safehouses all around Gotham City. The secret lair in DK kind of reminded me of that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 00:47
There's very little about Batman that's at all realistic.

A guy like Bruce would likely grow up to be a male version of Paris Hilton.  But even if he became Batman, I'll never be convinced a reality-based Batman could dodge that many bullets per night.  The law of numbers says he'd eventually get made into swiss cheese.

Also, he'd never be able to have any sort of "arrangement" with the police.  He's a criminal himself and he would not long evade police detection, billionaire or not.

Batman is a fantasy character (as his villains demonstrate) and while "realistic" stories might be entertaining as captivating Elseworlds stories, they're simply not good for the character over the long haul.

Interesting points Colors, although I wouldn't necessarily imagine Wayne as an idle rich Paris Hilton type, even in the real world since it's obvious that the traumatic murder of his parents meant that he had to grow up a lot earlier than his peers.  It's more probable that he ended up a recluse, or even ended up becoming sectioned at a mental institute or rehab centre for the very rich after drowning his sorrows over his parents' death.

Quote from: phantom stranger on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 09:01But, in all seriousness, that sounds like a cross between "The Shadow" and the "No Man's Land" storyline in which (if I remember correctly) Batman builds safehouses all around Gotham City. The secret lair in DK kind of reminded me of that.

I thought of the Shadow a little bit as I wrote it.  To be honest, Batman has borrowed so much from the Shadow over the years.  What's one more idea?

You know I used to think about this. Whenever I watch Batman I am transported to Gotham City and experience these characters and events taking place. I believe that alot of the stuff that happens in the film is indeed possible, a deranged sociopath, a vigilante, car chases, toxic gas (biological warfare) etc.

Wouldn't it be cool if someone could come up with a theme park based on Gotham City (the '89 version).  ;) ;D

Quote from: Grissom on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 17:59
Wouldn't it be cool if someone could come up with a theme park based on Gotham City (the '89 version).  ;) ;D

Definitely, but I'd prefer a theme park based on the Returns Gotham, or at least a blend between the two films.

It definetely would be a "dangerous" theme park!  I actually am going to change my opinion.  I think everything that happened in batman 89 is realistic.  From batman to the batmobile to the bat plane.  Nothing seems unkosher to me.  The comics I think are a little off on the other hand.

Batman is about verisimilitude, not realism. It's a no-brainer really, I agree with the points above, what happens in Gotham can happen only with the help of movie magic. The comic book Batman I always enjoyed the most was the one with long ears and a huge vampiric-like frame that seemed to float in certain panels (something the French filmmakers that did the "Ashes to Ashes" fanfilm pulled off quite nicely). Unrealistic, yeah, but so is Iron-Man, James Bond, Snake Plissken or other "mortal" heroes that do what they do with the help of push-ups and/or gadgets.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri, 11 Dec  2009, 21:26
I think everything that happened in batman 89 is realistic.

Joker's body in one piece at the foot of the cathedral isn't realistic. They couldn't get away with rivers of blood, but you get the idea. Everything that happened in the film was not realistic. Some of it obviously is. But this is a comic book film we are talking about.

Offhand, what about:

Quickly frying a person to soot via a hand buzzer? Acid shooting flowers that melt steel in seconds?

People laughing to death with via Smylex poisoning - with their corpse leaving a perfect large frozen smile?

A man being chemically bleached perfectly in one tone all over his body and wearing a peeled back frozen smile and green hair?

This stuff is ripped straight from the comics. As it should be. This is how these characters and their world are. You cannot escape that. If you want to do them properly, it's just how it is. Batman does not equal realism. In fact, the more real you try to go with it, the more absurd it becomes.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Dec  2009, 01:56
Joker's body in one piece at the foot of the cathedral isn't realistic. They couldn't get away with rivers of blood, but you get the idea. Everything that happened in the film was not realistic. Some of it obviously is. But this is a comic book film we are talking about.

This and your subsequent examples are all exactly right.  Burton crafted a world that was believable, yes, but certainly unlike reality as I know it.

QuoteThis stuff is ripped straight from the comics. As it should be. This is how these characters and their world are. You cannot escape that. If you want to do them properly, it's just how it is. Batman does not equal realism. In fact, the more real you try to go with it, the more absurd it becomes.

I don't mind bringing bits of the real world into Batman.  But bringing Batman into the real world serves only to underscore how other worldly the character and his world really are.  Clayface, the Joker, Bane, the villains virtually ooze unreality (don't know if it would be accurate to use either "fantasy" or "sci-fi" as labels here).

The key is making the conflicts believable.  Audiences obviously had no trouble accepting the Joker as he was (an acid-scarred freak) but they believed in the conflict between him and Batman.  They don't need to be realistic, they just need to be believable.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 12 Dec  2009, 07:30
They don't need to be realistic, they just need to be believable.

Yes, that is exactly it. It?s how you connect to their struggle and their emotions. They just have to be solid characters worth getting behind, or worth hating ? in a good way of course. The way we connect to them makes them real. Their appearance and origin behind it means absolutey zero.

Clay shapeshifters and men in ice suits are obviously unreal, but we buy into that world where that stuff is possible. There is not an elephant in the room, because they blend into it.

By the way, here?s a good read I found. It's a four page article about Batman and reality.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-knight-shift-why-bat

My question- why read about batman or watch movies about batman if there is no way he could be real.  What is the point?  I mean, its fine to watch fiction but thats because you want to escape from reality.  Batman is supposed to be real.  Otherwise they would've given him super human bat powers or something like that.  You can't just watch something and then say, "Thats a good movie  but none of that could'ved happen."  Again, what is the point?  Either you watch or read something because it gets you away from reality, or it is something cool in reality.  Batman is the second.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 12 Dec  2009, 18:23
My question- why read about batman or watch movies about batman if there is no way he could be real.  What is the point?  I mean, its fine to watch fiction but thats because you want to escape from reality.  Batman is supposed to be real.  Otherwise they would've given him super human bat powers or something like that.  You can't just watch something and then say, "Thats a good movie  but none of that could'ved happen."  Again, what is the point?  Either you watch or read something because it gets you away from reality, or it is something cool in reality.  Batman is the second.

Tons of movies depict utterly unreal subject matter.  And the unreality of them certainly didn't hurt their success.  The Matrix trilogy, whatever you may think of it, wasn't harmed by sci-fi nature of the visuals and story.  It's completely unrealistic with all the bullet time effects, super kung fu fights, Neo's powers, etc.

Star Wars is filled to overflowing with extreme environments, alien characters, super powered Buddhist monks, evil wizards, etc.  There's yet to be a Star Wars film that wasn't a smash success.

Those are just two examples from the past ten years.

History shows us that realism isn't not a pre-req for success.

As to Burton's films, again, there's very little reality to it.  Adults don't dress up in costumes, run out into the night and beat up criminals.  People don't fall into vats of acid and come out with looking like clowns.  The list goes on.

Bringing Batman into anything resembling a real world raises more problems than it could ever solve.  It is impossible that one man could dodge that many bullets per night.  Eventually he'd get the Alex Murphy treatment.  It's also impossible that a police force, no matter how corrupt, would ever partner with a vigilante (which is what Batman is).  Even if there was a short term partnership, the police would turn on him the minute things improved in the city.

Etc etc etc.

Batman's a fictional character and his world does and should adhere to a different set of rules than our real world does.  It's perfectly fine to have believeable conflicts for audiences to invest themselves in but bringing him strictly into the real world has thus far been a mixed blessing at best.

Matrix is meant to be real.  The dodging of the bullets is due to the matrix.  Didn't you see the movie?

Star Wars is set way in the future.  Of course there are aliens and different planets. 

Both of these movies provide plausible possibilities according to science.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 12 Dec  2009, 18:23
My question- why read about batman or watch movies about batman if there is no way he could be real.  What is the point?  I mean, its fine to watch fiction but thats because you want to escape from reality.  Batman is supposed to be real.  Otherwise they would've given him super human bat powers or something like that.  You can't just watch something and then say, "Thats a good movie  but none of that could'ved happen."  Again, what is the point?  Either you watch or read something because it gets you away from reality, or it is something cool in reality.  Batman is the second.

I bet you don?t watch much of anything at the cinemas or on television, then. Not much material out there is real - so what's the point in watching it?!

Why watch the masterful Lord of the Rings trilogy when it?s based on a fictional book? Hell, why not burn the DVDs in disgust of the fantastical goings on?!

Because they are well made forms of entertainment. If people want to criticize the flying nazgul and such, go for it. Me? Not so much. I find it to be a pointless exercise that by and large misses the point.

But then again, everything is real to you. You'd interpret it some other way to make it real.

Batman is really no different to Superman. Batman is not meant to be real because he is not. Sure, he?s not an invulnerable alien endowed with super powers, but he, his villains and world are just as unrealistic.

It is universally known. He is a comic book character. Even when thrown into a realistic setting, you cannot escape that notion. Batman is escapist entertainment. Nothing more. Free your mind from the constraints of reality. That?s the biggest charm of this world and the characters that roam in it. Imagination has no boundaries. Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream.

If you don?t like that, well, Batman and every other costumed hero is not for you.

It seems to me that your head is stuck in the sand. To you, everything is real. Even The Matrix and Star Wars. (!)

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 03:32
Matrix is meant to be real.  The dodging of the bullets is due to the matrix.  Didn't you see the movie?

Star Wars is set way in the future.  Of course there are aliens and different planets.  

Both of these movies provide plausible possibilities according to science.

I am on the floor laughing at this one. I seriously hope you are joking.  

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 03:32
Matrix is meant to be real.  The dodging of the bullets is due to the matrix.  Didn't you see the movie?

I... almost don't know where to start with this.

The Matrix flicks are about a world completely overtaken by machines with humans trapped in fields and fields of pods by Terminator-like overseers who harness their bodily energy for fuel who, in turn, have the humans plugged into a neural interactive simulation of pre-machine society which is policed by shapeshifting Blues Brothers who, among other things, hunt down phase-shifting albino assassins and men who can fly.

Unless I've missed a metric crapton of memos, that ain't reality.

QuoteStar Wars is set way in the future.  Of course there are aliens and different planets.

It's set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away populated by telekinetic Buddhist monks with laser swords and evil wizards imprisoned in iron lungs.

Unless I've missed a metric crapton of memos, that ain't reality either.  There is no mystical energy field created by all living things which surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the universe together that certain of us can manipulate to obtain visions of the future or telekinetically manipulate inanimate objects.

These things are not realistic.  They're not intended to be.  They're meant to take place in a very stylized world where up isn't always necessarily up and down isn't always necessarily down.

Realism is perfectly fine for certain subjects.  But not for everything, and certainly not always for comic book superheroes.

A strong sense of verisimilitude (a mode of telling a story; making the conflicts, narrative and characters relateable to an audience) works for a lot of stories but placing a given story strictly in the real world does not always best serve the subject matter.

If Star Wars was absolutely realistic, there would be no sound effects in space and even travelling at light speed wouldn't affect the rapid system of transportation that we see in the Star Wars films.  In all likelihood, years (or decades) would pass in the real world while the characters traversed the stars.  It's not realistic but we accept it because the film is itself already a fantasy.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 03:41
I am on the floor laughing at this one. I seriously hope you are joking. 

Honestly?  I kind of am too.

 1) Your right.  The lord of the rings isn't meant to be real.  We watch it for the action and fantasy escapism.  Star Wars is meant to be action and futuristic fantasy escapism.  Batman is supposed to be about a regular crime fighter (no super powers) who stops bad guys in Gotham.  Nothing fantasy about that.

2)  The Matrix is realistic.  Ever heard of artificial intelligence?  The movie is set way in the future so it is plausible.  And the only reason Neo can dodge bullets is because he is IN THE MATRIX which is again scientifically plausible.

3) Explain to me Nolan's realistic Batman.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 19:11
1) Your right.  The lord of the rings isn't meant to be real.  We watch it for the action and fantasy escapism.  Star Wars is meant to be action and futuristic fantasy escapism.  Batman is supposed to be about a regular crime fighter (no super powers) who stops bad guys in Gotham.  Nothing fantasy about that.

2)  The Matrix is realistic.  Ever heard of artificial intelligence?  The movie is set way in the future so it is plausible.  And the only reason Neo can dodge bullets is because he is IN THE MATRIX which is again scientifically plausible.

I don't know where to start here. I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

Star Wars and The Matrix are no different to The Lord of the Rings. We watch that for escapist entertainment as well. It is not plausible and not meant to be real. Everybody gets that, except you. They do not need a disclaimer before the start of the film stating what follows is entirely fictional. It would be a massive insult to everyone's intelligence and it would be stating the blindingly obvious.

Yes, we buy into the world presented to us, but we don't buy it as reality. Especially with films such as The Matrix and Star Wars. As you say, bullet time and such can only be achieved in the simulation that is the Matrix. That's the reasoning provided by the film so those antics can be performed. The Matrix does not exist. It's never going to. Maybe in another trillion years or whatever. Just because it is explained, does not make it real. You buy into what the film maker says way too much.

Artificial intelligence does not exist. Nobody knows if it ever will. I'm doubtful. And if it does, I doubt machines are going to plug is into a simulated reality that is presented in the film. Nobody knows what the future holds, but come on.

The Matrix is not a documentary pondering what the future holds. It is a movie designed for entertainment. They could put a giant yellow monster in a film, and you'd buy that as real because it's set in the future. That's your logic.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 19:11
3) Explain to me Nolan's realistic Batman.

It is semi-realism and it can only go so far. There is no way they can do Clayface, Mr Freeze, Killer Croc and those types to their full unalterted potential in such a setting. They cannot be ripped straight from the page to the screen. Because if these things were walking around in Nolan's Batman, well, it would be flat out impossible. Because in reality, these types of things do not exist.

The Joker can be done, and has been done very well. Even then his origin had to be altered from his source material - but his core being was retained. His alterations are not as radical as the other villains would be.

Nolan's Batman is more real, but it's still the world of comic book. We've got black tanks flying across rooftops, microwave emitters, sonar cell phone devices, taking fingerprints off shattered bullets..(!) - and so on. When it all comes down to it, you've still got a grown man running around at night dressed up as a bat, dodging gunfire.

And to tell you the truth, realism can get dull. Sooner or later, people will tire of it and will want a different take on Batman. It's restricting.

TDK, it's all you.  I can't take any more of this.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 06:30

Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 13 Dec  2009, 03:32
Matrix is meant to be real.  The dodging of the bullets is due to the matrix.  Didn't you see the movie?

I... almost don't know where to start with this.

The Matrix flicks are about a world completely overtaken by machines with humans trapped in fields and fields of pods by Terminator-like overseers who harness their bodily energy for fuel who, in turn, have the humans plugged into a neural interactive simulation of pre-machine society which is policed by shapeshifting Blues Brothers who, among other things, hunt down phase-shifting albino assassins and men who can fly.

Unless I've missed a metric crapton of memos, that ain't reality.

No, no, Colors it IS real...REAL....the truth is out there colors....truth lives...

the Matrix has you....

As realistic as it gets:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj198%2Fbluetexan22%2Frealworldsbatman.jpg&hash=70d0df64df6743e5c0ac8e2cffcb55ca524d388a)

LOL phantom stranger

I remember a quote from V for Vendetta "artists use lies to tell the truth" or something along those lines. Some movies use ultra-fantasy and sci-fi to comment on the human condition, psychology, society and stuff, other movies use realistic imagery for propaganda. Much of sci-fi like Terminator, Robocop, The Matrix etc. was never meant to be taken literally.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 14 Dec  2009, 15:41
No, no, Colors it IS real...REAL....the truth is out there colors....truth lives...

the Matrix has you....

I'm oddly very amused by this.  Good one. :)

Batman is "realistic" about as much as the Phantom of the Opera or the Hunchback of Notre Dame are: theoretically, it could happen, but it won't.

But theoretically, it could happen, right?  As opposed to superman or spiderman, who are completely preposterous.

It probably won't happen.  But just the fact that it could gives it all the creedence in the world in my opinion.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 21:17But theoretically, it could happen, right?  As opposed to superman or spiderman, who are completely preposterous.

It probably won't happen.  But just the fact that it could gives it all the creedence in the world in my opinion.

omg, NO IT CAN'T AND NO IT DOESN'T!  How possible is Clayface?  Two Face?  The Joker?  Mr. Freeze?  Bane?

Batman is not.  Realistic.  At all.

The villains aren't realistic.  (Except for penguin- he's just a regular guy).  But Batman is.  Theirs nothing fantastic about him except that he wears a big costume and has big muscles.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 23:57
The villains aren't realistic.  (Except for penguin- he's just a regular guy).  But Batman is.  Theirs nothing fantastic about him except that he wears a big costume and has big muscles.

A regular guy with an absurdly pointy nose, who talks in anachronistic hyperbole and is obsessed with umbrellas...I don't think so.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 23:57
The villains aren't realistic.  (Except for penguin- he's just a regular guy).  But Batman is.  Theirs nothing fantastic about him except that he wears a big costume and has big muscles.

And is an American billionaire with a conscience. And is able to keep up a double life without collapsing from lack of sleep. And avoids certain death on a nightly basis. And has a butler capable of doing just about anything. And had just the right set of tragic circumstances in his past to drive him to do this. And regularly comes into contact with superpowered and supernatural creatures.

Again, it's like the figures in Gothic fiction: they're ordinary human beings by birth, so they *could* exist. They never will.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 23:57
Theirs nothing fantastic about him except that he wears a big costume and has big muscles.

This is a very simplistic view.

I remember a line from Neil Gaiman's Whatever happened to the Caped Crusader. The Joker (or Harley Quinn) says something like "He should get killed from the first moment he tried to jump off a rooftop", or something along those lines (can't remember the exact quote). I think this line was Gaiman having fun with the idea of what would happen to a "real" Batman.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 17 Dec  2009, 00:48

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 16 Dec  2009, 23:57
The villains aren't realistic.  (Except for penguin- he's just a regular guy).  But Batman is.  Theirs nothing fantastic about him except that he wears a big costume and has big muscles.

A regular guy with an absurdly pointy nose, who talks in anachronistic hyperbole and is obsessed with umbrellas...I don't think so.

Not a Hitchcock fan, I take it?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj198%2Fbluetexan22%2Fhitchcockumbrella.gif&hash=2144a15556be8c3a1cb8ebdac856bc6bb162a2fd)

LOL

Seriously though, I love Hitchcock movies.  Vertigo and Rear Window are my favourites.

I think when you make comic book films super real and so forth, you lose the essence and very point of the source material, no matter how spiritually faithful to them you may be.

This is a very interesting topic that I want to give my two cents on. I think out of all the comic book characters out there, Batman is the most realistic in the sense of the stories that can be written about him and the concept. However I think that is where it should end. He will always be a comic book character and that is that, when you start to make him too realistic then I think you dilute him and his world greatly. There are fans out there who just like him as super realistic in a world without superheroes and really not fanstical at all. And that is fine but to me that?s boring, seeing Batman in the JLA and outside his element with people stronger than he is,  adds to his character not subtract it. I think there should always be a balance and the best example I can think of is the way Batman was portrayed in the video game Arkham Asylum. There he was gritty, dark, and his world felt comic book esque. 

I read an article about a guy who did a research project on Batman and his groundings in reality and such. I can't remember exactly, but the guy basically came to the conclusion that in order to be capable of the life and actions that Batman lives, you would need approximately 20 years of rigorous training just to be able to consider the idea of being a "Batman". So if you started in your late teens or early 20s and kept in good shape your whole life, after training I think you could get a solid 20 years of crime-fighting under your belt.

Quote from: Batmoney on Sun, 20 Dec  2009, 22:22
I read an article about a guy who did a research project on Batman and his groundings in reality and such. I can't remember exactly, but the guy basically came to the conclusion that in order to be capable of the life and actions that Batman lives, you would need approximately 20 years of rigorous training just to be able to consider the idea of being a "Batman". So if you started in your late teens or early 20s and kept in good shape your whole life, after training I think you could get a solid 20 years of crime-fighting under your belt.

Yep, I posted the link to that article earlier in this thread.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 12 Dec  2009, 09:21By the way, here?s a good read I found. It's a four page article about Batman and reality.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-knight-shift-why-bat

Somewhat addressing the topic broadly, this is obviously my primary gripe about Chris Nolan (as it is basically his calling card in the franchise; big duh).

I've noticed a tendency in Hollywood to be almost allergic about wholesale embracing comics, both as a genre and also as a storytelling style.  Thus far, of any director of any superhero-oriented adaptation, Burton is the only one who's really gotten it exactly right.  One might be tempted to nominate Schumacher, except that he had a way of looking down his nose at the material.  "Remember everyone, we're making a cartoon!"  He couldn't believe in the material and he didn't expect audiences to.

That's that stuff.  Nothing new 'round these parts.

And honestly, when filmmakers feel that way, I think it sucks but I also kind of understand.  They're not of the comics world and I'm beginning to believe that outsiders can't be expected to fully understand.  More and more, I'm starting to think of comics fandom as sort of like pro wrestling; you either get it or you don't.  Not to stray even further from topic, but I never understood wrestling.  I make no pretense of it.  I've always been kinda reluctant to criticize things like WWE, though, because everyone involved (from "producers" to participants to spectators) all seem to recognize the fiction of it all.  In some sense, you could kind of consider it a different brand of theater, or perhaps opera.

And, in ways, the same could be said of comics.

So when filmmakers don't get that, hey, I've got no argument for them.

But when comics pros and/or comics fans miss that point, well, I've got issues there.

As it pertains to Batman, if you process Bruce Wayne as a real, thinking, feeling, breathing person with ideas, emotions, hopes, goals, fears, dreams, etc, you eventually have to conclude that the guy is bat$#!+ crazy for doing what he does (a la the occasional Frank Miller model).  Or else he really is an idealist (as per Denny O'Neil)... who's going to hit rock bottom after five years when crime in the city has arguably only gotten worse.  Defeated and beaten down, he would eventually retire, having concluded that he's done more harm than good, and his was always a fool's errand.  There are other outcomes as well for a "real" Batman.

And all of these likely overlook the fact that the cops would find and subsequently arrest and try Bruce Wayne after just a few weeks.

And if he beat up a few cops along the way, I wouldn't bet on him even making it to trial in a town like Gotham.

Bottomline, bringing Batman into anything even halfway beginning to faintly resemble a real world brings real world baggage into the equation.  Batman (an icon; NOT a character) simply isn't up to the task of carrying the weight of reality.

Aside from villains like the Joker, Mr. Freeze, Bane, Clayface and others from the sci-fi milieu (which should be argument enough unto themselves), Batman is now and will always be a fictional character.  Maybe he's hardcore sci-fi (All-Star Batman & Robin), maybe it's total fantasy (basically anything drawn by Kelley Jones), maybe it's hardboiled crime/detective drama (basically anything written by Chuck Dixon), maybe it's something else, but it's not real.

Not now, not ever.

EDIT- And just so's we're clear, this isn't me bagging on Nolan yet again.  I dislike BB but I greatly enjoy TDK.  It's not about Burton vs. Nolan pissing matches, it's about stylistic preferences of my own.  I think Burton's conceptualization of Batman serves the character, his world, his supporting cast, etc, better than any other Batman director and, indeed, any other filmmaker to tackle superhero cinema.  If you disagree with me, hey, more power to you.

That took as long to read as ral's Dave Lea article - but it's equally brilliant. Good post.

excellent post colors.

From what I gather, everybody thinks batman is non realistic.

Somebody should give Christopher Nolan the memo.   ;)

your eloquent posts always make for a great read, colors.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 21 Dec  2009, 15:22
From what I gather, everybody thinks batman is non realistic.

Somebody should give Christopher Nolan the memo.   ;)

Nolan doesn?t need any memo. Nolan is going to do what he he?s going to do. After TDK, they?re going to let Nolan do his own thing. Basically whatever he wants. He?s sure deserves that right.

The more realistic Batman universe usually isn?t really my ideal cup of tea ? though when I?m in the mood for that kind of thing, to tell you the truth, I do like it quite a bit. I got swept up in the hype big time, as you would recall.

Batman is a broad church. There is room for Burton?s take as there is room for Nolan?s take. It's like the weather in Gotham. If you wait long enough, it's going to change to something more to your liking.

To me, Nolan's Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are realistic.  If anyone has any objections, please enlighten me.


As far as a realistic vs. a non realistic batman co-existing, thats just plain stupid.  I mean, Gotham is a real city.  There are real criminals.  Bruce Wayne is a normal person who wears a real bat costume/suit.  He has big muscles.  And he's rich.  And he has a heart for humanity.  All of those things are needed for batman.  Which is why there is only one batman.  None of those things seem supernatural.  Theres no room for an unrealistic batman.  Superman and spiderman are great fun because they have unrealistic, yet cool powers.  Batman is something totally different.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 21 Dec  2009, 19:34
To me, Nolan's Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are realistic.  If anyone has any objections, please enlighten me.

I think it's all been said by others and myself quite a bit. Not sure if I want to go into it again.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 21 Dec  2009, 19:34
As far as a realistic vs. a non realistic batman co-existing, thats just plain stupid. 

No, it's not. They are seperate universes of continuity.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 21 Dec  2009, 19:34
Theres no room for an unrealistic batman.

There is. That would mean there is no room for Burton's two Batman films. Batman since inception has been unrealistic. Nolan's world is more real than others, but that's as far as things go. I just don't get your logic on this one.

You're right.  There is no room for burton.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 22 Dec  2009, 13:34
You're right.  There is no room for burton.

?!

?! too!

i think burtongenius is confusing realism with verisimilitude

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 21 Dec  2009, 19:34
Superman and spiderman are great fun because they have unrealistic, yet cool powers.  Batman is something totally different.

Have to disagree on all counts. The allure of Superman and Spidey, to me at least, is that these character's vast powers are often constrained within the limits of their respective personalities. Independently, their life experiences, at their apex, often mirror real life, and that is why I think we find them so fascinating. The familiarity of their humanity is realistic, even if the adventures they partake in are not. That is why I think they are, as you say, great fun; the allowance for the human condition, but with room for a separate universe where amazing things are possible. Batman, I feel, is no different, save for the depths to with his condition is taken. Like Spidey, a loved one/s is/are taken from him, which breaths life into a crime fighting career, but the after effects that chalk the outline of his life from then are more unsettling, and in a way, singularly realistic in a sense. However, the world he lives in cannot be seen as a complete mirror, nor can Spidey?s/Marvel?s New York or the gilded Metropolis of Superman. Our society, for the most part, has not degenerated into the disorder that requires a Batman or a Spidey. Take it however you want; a social commentary foretelling the things that will happen if these shadows of the now remain unaltered, or a step into wild askew entertainment that allows real world problems to chip away at modern myths. What I?m trying to say is, the people themselves, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Kal El of Krypton, are tangible?real, the depression, the pain, the elation, the roller coaster of emotion is our own and thus realistic, but the world, the powers, the possibilities, and the rules that revolve around them are fanciful, unrealistic realizations of the world we see everyday. So, is Batman realistic. Yes. And no. (Yay! A cop out answer!)

That?s my psuedo philosophical take on the matter. At face value, I can only reiterate that yeah, all the different bits of batman as a person/character are real, the writers pull it from themselves and real people, but the world is a fantasy. He has a rogue gallery rampant with unrealistic deformities, but the fact that it?s mostly made up of the physically deformed is a look at our ?rogue gallery,? which often manifests as damaged people whose scars we cannot always see, which is one of the staples of the modern Batman.

^
^
QFT

In response to ral.

By fun, I meant the supernatural super powers of superman and spiderman.  You're right, the human condition, the personality strugges are the same, but the powers are unrealistic.  Thats why batman is different.  He is realistic.  He's just a regular guy (well, not average but you know what I mean).  Thats why batman is so different and appreciated from other heroes (though their is nothing "out there" about an Iron Man existing but....)

I don't think burton should've done batman (please don't stone me).  Burton is not a very realistic director (not that directors have to be- its just that batman is a realistic character and therefore deserves a director that will carry out the realism).

I can see the villains in batman being a fantasy but I dont see any fantasy in a city with criminals.  The writers just got carried away with some of the villains (again, I still think the Penguin is realistic- not the devito version- more like the animated series version- one without webbed hands).

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 22 Dec  2009, 19:15
In response to ral.

By fun, I meant the supernatural super powers of superman and spiderman.  You're right, the human condition, the personality strugges are the same, but the powers are unrealistic.  Thats why batman is different.  He is realistic.  He's just a regular guy (well, not average but you know what I mean).  Thats why batman is so different and appreciated from other heroes (though their is nothing "out there" about an Iron Man existing but....)

I don't think burton should've done batman (please don't stone me).  Burton is not a very realistic director (not that directors have to be- its just that batman is a realistic character and therefore deserves a director that will carry out the realism).

I can see the villains in batman being a fantasy but I dont see any fantasy about a city with criminals.  The writers just got carried away with some of the villains (again, I still think the Penguin is realistic- not the devito version- more like the animated series version- one without webbed hands).

The reason people watch batman is because he is the guy that stops crime because he just wants to (and he's rich but....).  Thats it.  And thats why people like him so much.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 22 Dec  2009, 19:15
In response to ral.

By fun, I meant the supernatural super powers of superman and spiderman.  You're right, the human condition, the personality strugges are the same, but the powers are unrealistic.  Thats why batman is different.  He is realistic.  He's just a regular guy (well, not average but you know what I mean).

My point was, to put in simple terms, that they are all 'real guys,' no matter what powers they have hence their success and our fascination with them.

What real guys do you know that can shoot web from their arms or can burn people with their eyes?  Like I said, the personal struggles are there, but the character as a whole is unrealistic- the power side not the personal side.

So the question isn't whether they are real guys, it is whether they are real heroes.  Superman and Spiderman aren't.  Batman is.

The personal struggles are what makes them real in the first place...

People do appreciate Batman because he wills himself to fight crime without the aid of super-powers, that is correct. But the lack of super-powers does not instantly make him realistic. Your view is a very simplistic one.

You are so fixated on this realism nonsense that you no longer value Burton?s Batman? You don?t think Burton should have directed the Batman films?

That was a massive turnaround. Praising Burton to the skies and then dropping him in a flash. Sounds to me your username should read ?nolangenius? as you seem to value a director that ?will carry out the realism?.

I am absolutely sick of people being so concerned with realism in this day and age. What happened to simply sitting back, enjoying a film and being absorbed by it?

Am I correct in saying that if a future Batman film was declared the best ever, yet was tinged in fantasy, you would despise it because it?s not realistic?

The writers did not get carried away with any of the villains. This is a comic book environment. Burton presented that world to us perfectly. These characters are not going to be seen down the street any time soon, or ever. The fact that Batman is a regular human taking these guys on merely makes us connect to his struggle further.

I am certain people watch Batman for a lot more reasons other than he?s a guy stopping crime. Dressed as a bat, mind you. Speak for yourself. I know for one, I watch Batman for the whole extravaganza of villains, environments, intricate plots, the vehicles ? so on. And mostly, for the whole point that it?s not real, and I let my imagination run wild for a few hours.

Superman and Spider-Man are real heroes. Batman is a self made hero ? but as we know, he?s not exactly a hero. They got there in different ways, but the end result of what they are and what they do is by and large exactly the same.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 22 Dec  2009, 19:15
By fun, I meant the supernatural super powers of superman and spiderman.

Neither of them have supernatural powers.  Superman's powers are superhuman.  Spider-Man's are, I guess, mutagenic (ie, the spider caused a mutation).

QuoteI don't think burton should've done batman (please don't stone me).  Burton is not a very realistic director (not that directors have to be- its just that batman is a realistic character and therefore deserves a director that will carry out the realism).

You've been one of Burton's strongest advocates since you joined up here (which puts you in good company with many of us, don't get me wrong).  And now you're saying he shouldn't have directed the movies because he doesn't have a realistic style?!

That's... crazy.

Realism always depends upon one's perspective.   

No mutation (except in fantasy) can cause web spinning from a persons arm.  Like gamma rays can't cause a person to turn into the hulk.  Like if there was alien life, it wouldn't look exactly like a human.  They put realistic things in unrealistic perspectives.  Thats what makes them super natural.  Once a person "gets" powers, they aren't really human at all.  Because people can't get powers.  It just exists in comic books.  Except for batman.

I understand confusion on bailing burton.  I still think that burton made the most realistic batman out of everything.  But for arguments sake I rallied for nolan since most people think burtons movies are weird and nolans are realistic.  I still think burton should stick to imaginative stuff.  But I also think he did a real good job on batman.  But for arguments sake, whatever movie is realistic, all the other unrealistic ones should be tossed out.  Because people watch batman because they want a hero to stop bad guys.  And they want to watch this particular hero because he dresses up like a bat and is a regular, possible realistic hero.  All other comic book heroes have no possibility whatsoever of being real.  All comic book heroes struggles and personality flaws are realistic, but as I said before, the character hero as a whole is unrealistic.  By that I mean, clark kent is realistic.  Superman isn't.  Peter Parker is realistic.  Spiderman isn't.

Burtongenius, your posts just confuse me.  Sorry.  One moment Burton made the best Batman films and you're slagging off Nolan, the next you're singing Nolan's praises and suggesting that Burton should never have made his Batman films.   ::)

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 23 Dec  2009, 23:38
I understand confusion on bailing burton.  I still think that burton made the most realistic batman out of everything.

Then in that case, if realism means everything to you, why don?t you side with Burton?!

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 23 Dec  2009, 23:38
But for arguments sake I rallied for nolan since most people think burtons movies are weird and nolans are realistic.

Ah, that?s why you don?t side with Burton. Let?s all side with the apparent popular majority. What an absolutely stupid reason for siding with another set of films. Make up your own damn mind. Don?t be a sheep. You either like something over the other, or you don?t.

Quote from: burtongenius on Wed, 23 Dec  2009, 23:38
But for arguments sake, whatever movie is realistic, all the other unrealistic ones should be tossed out.

Excuse me?! What are you smoking?! Is this a joke account?

In any case, keep talking. You're just digging a deeper grave and causing yourself further embarrassment.

TDK, this thread stopped making sense a few pages ago.  I'm sure you can agree with that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 24 Dec  2009, 05:55
TDK, this thread stopped making sense a few pages ago.  I'm sure you can agree with that.

Yep.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 23 Dec  2009, 02:03

That was a massive turnaround. Praising Burton to the skies and then dropping him in a flash. Sounds to me your username should read ?nolangenius? as you seem to value a director that ?will carry out the realism?.

Or Bat-troll. I wonder if it's the same with "KeatonFan".

This whole topic is pretty simple.  Is it possible for a man to dress up in a costume and fight crime?  Yes.  If it sounds simplistic its because batman is simplistic.  People make his psychy way too complicated.  Those are the people who read too much comic books.

As far as which batman movie is the most realistic, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that people should get a realistic batman instead of a fun, fantasy film.  If you want that, watch spiderman or power rangers.  Batman is a realistic character and therefore should have media that protrays that.  Its not fair to batman to put him in a not real scenario. 

And just because somethings improbable, it doesn't make it any less realistic.  Will an asteroid hit us tomorrow?  Probably not.  But that doesn't make it any less realistic.  No matter how improbable people think bruce waynes life is, it doesn't make it any less realistic.

If this has been a ploy all along to get people on the site to agree with you and pronounce Nolan the best Batman director over Burton, I'm sorry to tell you it hasn't worked Jet...sorry, I meant 'Burtongenius'.

Mmmm, I hope this site doesn't become infested with folks who will do anything to bring down the Burton films, or is it too late?  :(

I don't care who made the most realistic batman.  This topic isn't about who made the most realistic batman.  Its about if batman itself is realistic or not.  And if batman is realistic, the most realistic batman incarnation is the best batman.  End of story. 

Plus, I'm still waiting for the George Miller Justice League Movie with Arnie (if it hasn't been trashed yet).  Now that would be a good batman.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03
People make his psychy way too complicated.  Those are the people who read too much comic books.

Considering that is the source material and those people are the target audience for a Batman film then that arguement doesn't make sense.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03As far as which batman movie is the most realistic, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that people should get a realistic batman instead of a fun, fantasy film.

Batman is fantasy. Fantasy doesn't have to be fun - it can be serious.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03If you want that, watch spiderman or power rangers

Such a narrow view - are you suggesting Batman films should be their own genre?

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03Batman is a realistic character and therefore should have media that protrays that.  Its not fair to batman to put him in a not real scenario.

Unlike the source material has?

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03And just because somethings improbable, it doesn't make it any less realistic.  Will an asteroid hit us tomorrow?  Probably not.  But that doesn't make it any less realistic.  No matter how improbable people think bruce waynes life is, it doesn't make it any less realistic.

:o
There is more chance of someone dressing up as Batman and tackling crime in a major city that an asteriod hitting us tomorrow?
In fairness the probably of earth being impacted by an asteriod is probable. Why? Because it has happened in the past and continues to happen throughout the universe.  I have yet to see a Batman-like figure on the evening news.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:39
I don't care who made the most realistic batman.  This topic isn't about who made the most realistic batman.  Its about if batman itself is realistic or not.  And if batman is realistic, the most realistic batman incarnation is the best batman.  End of story.

I'm sorry, but it does seem like you care who made the most realistic Batman. That statement is bordering on infringing one of the site's rules
http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.msg4915#msg4915

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:39Plus, I'm still waiting for the George Miller Justice League Movie with Arnie (if it hasn't been trashed yet).  Now that would be a good batman.

Whether intentional or not - you are starting to sound like a troll.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:39
I don't care who made the most realistic batman.  This topic isn't about who made the most realistic batman.  Its about if batman itself is realistic or not.  And if batman is realistic, the most realistic batman incarnation is the best batman.  End of story. 

Are you being purposefully dumb?  Firstly you state that you don't care who made the most realistic Batman.  Good.  But then you contradict yourself by stating that the most realistic Batman is ergo the best Batman.  Make your mind up.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 18:45
Are you being purposefully dumb?  Firstly you state that you don't care who made the most realistic Batman.  Good.  But then you contradict yourself by stating that the most realistic Batman is ergo the best Batman.  Make your mind up.

Indeed. He doesn't make sense at all. It is clear to me we are dealing with a troll.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 18:45


Are you being purposefully dumb?  Firstly you state that you don't care who made the most realistic Batman.  Good.  But then you contradict yourself by stating that the most realistic Batman is ergo the best Batman.  Make your mind up.

I don't understand you.  I didn't contradict myself.  I care if the movie is realistic.  What I'm saying is that I don't care who made it.  By that I mean that that is not what this topic is about.  Its not about who created the most realistic batman, its whether batman is realistic and if it is realistic then the realistic batman would be the best batman.  Telling which batman media incarnation is the most realistic is a whole other topic and definetely up to opinion.

And in response to ral, I said I didn't care who made the "best batman".  I don't think thats picking sides to me.  But hey, what do I know. ;D

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 01:39I don't understand you.  I didn't contradict myself.

I don?t understand you.

First you say this:

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03
As far as which batman movie is the most realistic, it doesn't matter.

And then you say this:

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03
What matters is that people should get a realistic batman instead of a fun, fantasy film.  If you want that, watch spiderman or power rangers.  Batman is a realistic character and therefore should have media that protrays that.  Its not fair to batman to put him in a not real scenario.

Where I'm from, being planet Earth, that is a contradiction.

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03Its not about who created the most realistic batman, its whether batman is realistic and if it is realistic then the realistic batman would be the best batman

Is that so? I don't understand that logic.

This realism nonsense has driven you insane. Or you have an agenda. I think the latter.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 01:53

First you say this:

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03
As far as which batman movie is the most realistic, it doesn't matter.

And then you say this:

Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 28 Dec  2009, 17:03
What matters is that people should get a realistic batman instead of a fun, fantasy film.  If you want that, watch spiderman or power rangers.  Batman is a realistic character and therefore should have media that protrays that.  Its not fair to batman to put him in a not real scenario.

Where I'm from, being planet Earth, that is a contradiction.

I understand your confusion (or maybe you just didn't understand me).  What I meant was is that it doesn't matter which batman you consider (nolan or burton)realistic.  Not for this topic anyways.  All that matters is that you think the best batman is the most realistic batman.  Thats what I'm trying to push.   And its not as dramatic as an "agenda."  This is just a topic after all.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 02:01
I understand your confusion (or maybe you just didn't understand me).

It's not just me. I don't know anyone on this site who does understand you.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 02:01
All that matters is that you think the best batman is the most realistic batman.  Thats what I'm trying to push.  

I don't care one inch for realism. It doesn't make me like a film more or less. You can push that all you want, but nobody around here is going to buy it. 

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 02:01
And its not as dramatic as an "agenda."

Well, to me, your posts are putting red flags up everywhere.

Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 29 Dec  2009, 02:01This is just a topic after all.

That's stating the obvious. Your point, exactly?

I guess everybody likes the fantasy batman.  And nobody thinks batman is realistic.  Hopefully burton will make more batmans for you guys.  :)

I personally think batman is realistic and can't wait for nolan's next batman movie.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 21:04
I guess everybody likes the fantasy batman.  And nobody thinks batman is realistic.  Hopefully burton will make more batmans for you guys.  :)

I personally think batman is realistic and can't wait for nolan's next batman movie.

If that's how you feel, why are you called Burtongenius?   ::)

Burton is a genius for his other movies.  I don't think his batman movies were the best.  They were definetely "out there" and left an impression on me, but I think batman should be left to less of an "artist" shall we say.  

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 22:07
Burton is a genius for his other movies.  I don't think his batman movies were the best.  They were definetely "out there" and left an impression on me, but I think batman should be left to less of an "artist" shall we say.  

Then this is probably not the site for you.

then why is there a nolan section?  (thats probably where I should be)

I thought the site couldn't pick sides between burton and nolan? ;D

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 21:04
I guess everybody likes the fantasy batman.

Here we do. This site covers all the films, but we mainly appreciate Burton?s Batman. That's why we are here. Nothing to be surprised about, it?s a given.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 21:04
And nobody thinks batman is realistic.  Hopefully burton will make more batmans for you guys.  :)

Batman is not realistic. Neither Burton nor Nolan. The more real Nolan tries to be, the more he appears ashamed of the comic roots. Most of the things that make Batman the comic character he is and larger than life are ironed out because Nolan views them as ?unrealistic?. Well, sorry, but that?s how comics are. Personally, realism removes the fun and replaces it with plodding dullness. No imagination to be sparked here. It?s all got to be explained and shown in great detail. What?s wrong with suspending our disbelief?

Using suspension of disbelief for anything that would lead to escapist and over the top fun is forbidden, but for anything that makes the movie a more incoherent, jumbled and illogical mess, then it?s okay to accept the unbelievable. That?s the foolishness of it all.

You cannot translate what is on the comic page directly into Nolan's world. You cannot have villains such as Mr Freeze, Clayface, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat and so on exactly as they are in his series.  His Batman universe can only go so far, and it cannot cover all areas. And absurdly, you cannot have a permawhite Joker, but you can have a ridiculous sonar cell phone mapping system which sticks out like a beaten down thumb.  What sense does it make if you are going to practice selective realism?

Once you accept Nolan?s idea that this is meant to be realistic, intellectual and adult and start judging it by those standards, that means you have to start taking it to task for the limitless ways it fails in plot mechanics, characterization, motivations and logic under those higher standards. Yet when those are pointed out, people say ?It?s a comic book movie?.

With Burton, he had the power to adapt anything in the comics. I don?t apply the same severe levels of judgment to him, because he was unafraid to embrace the outlandish aspects of the comics. Nolan does not. Nolan tries to have his cake and eat it too.

It is extremely unlikely that Burton will make another, and to tell you the truth, I?m perfectly content with what he gave us.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 22:07
I don't think his batman movies were the best.  They were definetely "out there" and left an impression on me, but I think batman should be left to less of an "artist" shall we say.

A short while ago you would not shut up about how brilliant Burton?s Batman was. I am of the opinion that Tim Burton is the best director of Batman yet. An artist such as Burton is perfect for Batman, as he builds worlds from the ground up. He realizes the world visually with tons of atmosphere that Nolan could not match on his best day. Your comment is absurd. And Burton is a genius for every single film made in his career, except for his two Batman films? Please.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 01:24
then why is there a nolan section?

There is also a Schumacher section. And an Animated Series Section. And so on. This site covers all the films. But we love Burton the most. The slant is obvious.

Again, for the 500th time.  I know most of the batman villains are unrealistic.  I know that.  I really do.  But Nolan made a batman on the big screen that was realistic.  And thats all that matters. 

As far as the cellphone thing- waynes rich, morgan freemans a science researcher for a humongous company, there is nothing outrageously outlandish about the cellphone thing.  Their are obviously things out their in science that us little people don't know about.  Its sort of naive to thing otherwise.  Of course their wouldn't be more than one of them.  Its a big deal, don't get me wrong.  But theirs nothing "unbelievable" about it.  Same with the microwave emitter.  And wasn't the cellphones thing private?

Another principle.  Its alright to have fantasy.  But if you have the same thing in a realistic protrayal, why would you want the fantasy?  I mean, theirs nothing wrong with powdered milk.  But why would you want powdered milk when you can get the real thing (barring money of course).  Sort of like B westerns.  People loved them.  They were the top motion picture back in the day.  Until A- quality westerns came out.  Then people went crazy over them.  Nothing wrong with B westerns.  They obviously weren't the best choice.

Now what you're saying is that fantasy vs. realism is a personality choice.  What I'm saying is what reasonable person is going to pick fantasy over realism, assuming realism is an option?  With stuff that is just fantasy, fantasy is the obviously best way to go.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 05:14
But Nolan made a batman on the big screen that was realistic.  And thats all that matters.

I'm never going to agree with that. Realism is "all that matters"?!

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 05:14
As far as the cellphone thing- waynes rich, morgan freemans a science researcher for a humongous company, there is nothing outrageously outlandish about the cellphone thing.

?

It's even more absurd than the microwave emitter if you ask me.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 05:14
But if you have the same thing in a realistic protrayal, why would you want the fantasy?

Because absurdly unrealisic things like sonar cell phones and microwaves emitters break the realistic atmosphere. They would not be out of place in the comics, or in Burton's Batman, but in Nolan's environment, they are. If you're going to do realism, go the whole way with it.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 05:14What I'm saying is what reasonable person is going to pick fantasy over realism, assuming realism is an option?  

Me. And everybody on this site. This is one of the stupidest questions I have read in a long time. Quite bizarre you simply cannot comprehend people liking fantasy over realism.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 05:14
With stuff that is just fantasy, fantasy is the obviously best way to go.

Yeah, well, Batman is fantasy.

As Burton says in the Batman Returns official movie book, "If Batman Returns takes you to another place, another plane with its own reality, then I think we accomplished what we set out to do." Burton twisted reality until it came into alignment with his own vision.

This topic has got me thinking: What is so realistic about Nolan's version of the Batman character?

Sure, he wears a suit of armor, instead of spandex.   He has no superpowers and relies instead on his intelligence, gadgets, and fighting skills.  So do all the other versions of Batman.

The comic book Bruce Wayne sought mentors around the world to train him in various forms of martial arts.  
Nolan's Bruce learned to fight after he landed in a prison that just happened to be in the vicinity of a secret ninja terrorist organization in the Himalayas who were able to dupe him in five minutes into joining up with them, despite giving little to no explanation on what exactly they do.  
Is that really more realistic than the comic version?

The comic book Bruce gained his extensive knowledge through attending many colleges.  He's extremely well educated, but allows him to use his knowledge when fighting crime.
Nolan's Bruce is a college dropout who went around the world living as a bum for about seven years of his adult life...but still manages to identify the effects of a psychotropic hallucinogen (using that exact term), lift a fingerprint off of a bullet casing through a complex science experiment, and, in only a matter of days or weeks, secretly create his own sonar device that taps into all of Gotham's phones.  
Is Nolan's take still more realistic?

The comic book Bruce is also an inventor who builds his own bat equipment.  
Nolan's Bruce meets a brilliant inventor, Lucius Fox, who just happens to be in need of something to do and is willing to hand over dangerous military equipment, with no questions asked, to a stranger he just met (even though this stranger gives a very vague and suspicious reason for needing it)
(Note: Said inventor has no problem handing over a monstrous tank car with an escape pod bike with machine guns and explosives, but, when it comes to invading people's privacy just to stop a psychotic terrorist for one night, he refuses to help.)  
Is the latter case easier to swallow?  Really?

The comic book Batman is often wounded.  It's not uncommon to see his suit torn up and Bruce bleeding from his wounds.  Or his villains using his wounds against him in the fight.  He gets his bones broken.  He blacks out.  He's very much human.

Nolan's Batman manages to fight Arkham inmates, League ninjas, and Ra's Al Ghul on a speeding train without much of a physical problem...despite the fact that he was bleeding from a stab wound on his side, had a concussion for at least five minutes, and breathed in a ton of fumes from his burning house...probably less than an hour ago.

Not to mention, in The Dark Knight, how he manages to survive a free fall from Wayne Tower and (after unveiling only part of his glider) land on the hard surface of a car without breaking a single bone in his body (or, more unbelievably, without breaking or injuring the woman he's rescuing, who is not wearing any protection whatsoever).  Sure, he has body armor.  People who wear it still get hurt.  Cops who survive shots thanks to their bulletproof vests still fall back and have severe bruising.

Repeat scenario when he survives the same fall that kills Two-Face at the end. 

So, compare the comic book Bruce and Nolan's Bruce again: Who seems more superhuman now?

To me, the "realism" that Nolan brings to his Batman series is aesthetic, but under the surface, you really do have to believe in the unbelievable and buy into the stretches in logic.

Sure, his Gotham looks like Chicago, rather than an imaginary city.  It also had a league of ninjas infiltrating it without notice and breaking out the criminally insane from a mental hospital that just happened to be located in the worst, rundown neighborhood of the city.

Yeah, his suit in The Dark Knight looks more like SWAT or military armor.  That doesn't change the fact that Lucius Fox was conveniently able to make the whole thing in less than a few days after Bruce Wayne requested it, just in time for Bruce's next mission.

And I know his Batmobile looks like a military-designed tank.  It doesn't forgive the fact that it magically didn't kill or severely harm the cops who were chasing him.  
Nor does it cover up for the further stretch that none of the cops endangered by said car had a problem with the GCPD putting up a Bat Signal on top of the roof and working with the man who nearly killed them.

Of course, even with the villains seem to be more realistic- The Joker wears makeup, instead of suffering from a chemical bath, and uses everyday weapons as knives, machine guns, and explosives.  
Still- no one managed to notice a suspicious man with obvious scars on his face wearing a police uniform during the entire parade for Commissioner Loeb's funeral.  
Or that the Joker magically managed to load two ferries full of explosives without the heavy presence of the National Guard noticing.

My opinion: The "realism" of Nolan's Batman is an aesthetic illusion.

It's a pity that 'Burtongenius' has got us descending to the level of squabbling over who is best, Burton or Nolan.  I thought Ral had made it very clear, that's not what this site is meant to be about.

Thanks 'Burtongenius'!   ::)  >:(

Okay, first off this topic isn't about nolan or burton or anyone.  Its about whether a batman could possibly exist in the 2010 United States of America.

Batmanangelus-
You have some good arguments but I think you may be nit picking a tiny bit.
Bruce was in a bad place.  Alghul got him out of there and helped him resolve his inner demons.  When he found out about them being bad, he got out.

Wayne did attend princeton for a little while.  But thats not the point.  I don't think any college could prepare anyone to be batman.  For a person to be batman, they would have to be smart.

Lucius fox had to give bruce his own stuff.  And the car isn't meant to be dangerous.  Its not like an airplane after all.  Its only in sticky situations that things with the car get hairy (like when the police force first saw it)  Ever since then he did it in secret (or at least inconspicuously) (after all, gotham city is humongous).  And in situationns when that was impossible, he used the bat bike.

When the dogs attack batman right in the beginning, he seems pretty vulnerable.  Whats more vulnerable than a dog?  Plus, when he dropped that guy and broke his legs.  I don't think there were any super physics there.

I understand what you're saying.  You're saying that nolan gives the premise of reality but doesn't follow through.  That he shows reality and tweaks any hairy details to make the flow of plot nice and smooth.  I don't think so.  But thats just my opinion.

I know that batmans origins may seem improbable.  But I also say that there is only one batman.  Therefore, the person who is batman has to go through certain channels.  Suffering, pain, training, rich.  Thats the only way batman could exist. 

Also, improbability doesn't equal unrealistic.  Probability has nothing to do with it.  Its whether its possible.  And I think its possible in a big city like gotham.  It has to be a big city or everything falls apart.

And who knows.  Maybe somebody in the future will make the batman that really clicks.  I was hoping that George Miller would make Justice League Mortal.  I don't think thats going to happen.  But Arnie Miller would've been batman.  Arnie Miller is going to star in the movie "Billy Graham".  I don't know when its coming out but it definetely will be good.  He even tried on the suit and batarangs.  And I heard a rumor of Hayden Christiansen being superman.  But I am definetely not sure about that.

All I know is is that batman is the only comic book incarnation that could possibly be real.  And maybe the real batman couldn't totally be like the comic book batman.  But it would be a batman and he would fight crime.  I have great respect for Bob Kane.  And Stan Lee.  I think thats why everyone loves batman.  Because he's just like us with a few breaks to help him out.

Quote from: burtongenius on Sat,  2 Jan  2010, 00:00
Batmanangelus-
You have some good arguments but I think you may be nit picking a tiny bit.

Thanks, but the nitpicking was part of the point.  
I can enjoy the Nolan films despite all of these aspects because I don't buy for a second that it's all meant to be realistic.

Nolan's world is far fetched- full of coincidences and people doing extraordinary things.  But it's fiction- we can forgive it sometimes and just enjoy it.  It's the same with the comic world.

QuoteBruce was in a bad place.  Alghul got him out of there and helped him resolve his inner demons.  When he found out about them being bad, he got out.

That still doesn't negate anything that I was pointing out: the unbelievable coincidence of him landing in such a convenient location near the League of Shadows, the very existence of a top secret ninja terrorist organization in the Himalayas whose leader comes down to recruit an imprisoned vengeful billionaire, and Bruce's initial decision to make a lifethreatening trek up the Himalayas for a flower after a brief conversation that informed him very little about the League of Shadows...when he could've just moved onto elsewhere after getting out of jail.

QuoteWayne did attend princeton for a little while.  But thats not the point.  I don't think any college could prepare anyone to be batman.  For a person to be batman, they would have to be smart.

College or not, Bruce needed to learn the skills in science and technology in order to do what he does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  Where he learns these skills is never covered (despite the fact that Nolan spent half the movie covering Bruce training to become Batman).  One can be talented and smart, but one does not attain skills and knowledge without any training.  
His training for science and invention is never covered in the Nolan films and is something we are supposed to accept, despite the fact that there is nothing in his background that supports it.

QuoteLucius fox had to give bruce his own stuff.

Sure, for the plot's sake.  That doesn't shoot down anything I said about how completely far fetched the situation was.  
Was there a strong motivation for Lucius to do this?  Bruce didn't tell him clearly what he was going to do with it.  Lucius knew almost nothing about Bruce personally, so there's no way he would know that Bruce was going to use it in his war on crime.  
For the sake of the plot...he just gives it to him without a fuss.  Which I don't find believable or realistic.  Lucius Fox in general is a plot device more than a character.

QuoteAnd the car isn't meant to be dangerous.  Its not like an airplane after all.  Its only in sticky situations that things with the car get hairy (like when the police force first saw it)  Ever since then he did it in secret (or at least inconspicuously) (after all, gotham city is humongous).  And in situationns when that was impossible, he used the bat bike.

The car is a military tank with guns and the ability to crash through walls without harm.  You don't just give that out to anybody.  The fact that Lucius Fox was willing to give it to Bruce on his second meeting without question is, once again, something I find unrealistic.
Just like I find it unrealistic that Batman was able to use that behemoth inconspicuously on his way to Arkham to save Rachel and wasn't noticed using it until his trip afterwards.

QuoteWhen the dogs attack batman right in the beginning, he seems pretty vulnerable.  Whats more vulnerable than a dog?  Plus, when he dropped that guy and broke his legs.  I don't think there were any super physics there.

I'm not criticizing Nolan's use of physics or Batman's vulnerability in other scenes.  I'm specifically pointing out Nolan's Batman's ability to survive two major free falls without any serious injury.

Just because Nolan follows through by having Maroni break his legs in one scene doesn't negate the fact that Batman gets away with no injury in two other scenes (and one where he survives an even bigger fall than Maroni fell, without injury).
If anything the inconsistency ends up making Nolan's world seem more unrealistic.

QuoteBut Arnie Miller would've been batman.  Arnie Miller is going to star in the movie "Billy Graham".  I don't know when its coming out but it definetely will be good.  He even tried on the suit and batarangs.

His name was Armie Hammer.

What I don't get is that Burtongenius wants a 'realistic' Batman, and yet he states that this would have best been achieved with a JLA movie (which would also have featured a flying alien superhero and an amazonian with an invisible plane, amongst other characters)...

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 23:31
My opinion: The "realism" of Nolan's Batman is an aesthetic illusion.

I share your opinion.

And I completely agree with your statement:

QuoteOnce you accept Nolan?s idea that this is meant to be realistic, intellectual and adult and start judging it by those standards, that means you have to start taking it to task for the limitless ways it fails in plot mechanics, characterization, motivations and logic under those higher standards. Yet when those are pointed out, people say ?It?s a comic book movie?.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  2 Jan  2010, 00:53
What I don't get is that Burtongenius wants a 'realistic' Batman, and yet he states that this would have best been achieved with a JLA movie (which would also have featured a flying alien superhero and an amazonian with an invisible plane, amongst other characters)...

The roster also included a shapeshifting Martian, the king of an underwater kingdom, an intergalactic policeman, and two other characters with superspeed going up against a man with mind control powers, the daughter of an immortal leader of a terrorist organization, and a group of artificial intelligence who inhabit humans' bodies and hunt down people with superpowers thanks to a supercomputer satellite...

You guys are definetely shooting down my arguments.  You're most likely right.  Batman probably isn't realistic.  Can't wait for nolans next movie.  And who knows, maybe burton will make a comeback?  I don't thing JLA mortal is ever going to happen but I hoped.

Common Consensus-  Batman is just a comic book character/movie character and nothing more.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 04:01
Once you accept Nolan?s idea that this is meant to be realistic, intellectual and adult and start judging it by those standards, that means you have to start taking it to task for the limitless ways it fails in plot mechanics, characterization, motivations and logic under those higher standards. Yet when those are pointed out, people say ?It?s a comic book movie?.

Agreed, agreed and agreed again.  The Nolan films want to be treated like high brow cinema but when evaluated on those terms, they cannot pass muster.

They do, however, hold up rather nicely (TDK moreso than BB) when viewed strictly as big, dumb popcorn cinema.

QuoteWith Burton, he had the power to adapt anything in the comics. I don?t apply the same severe levels of judgment to him, because he was unafraid to embrace the outlandish aspects of the comics. Nolan does not. Nolan tries to have his cake and eat it too.

Burton never tried to make high brow cinema out of his films.  There's some stuff there to analyze and you can have a good time with that but Burton knew what vocabulary he wanted to make the Batman films in and stuck to it.

In all honesty, I can't immediately think of anything from the comics that you wouldn't be able to bring in to Burton's movies, except maybe some Alan Grant characters like Ventriloquist/Scarface, Anarky and some others.  I love Alan Grant as much as if not more than the next guy but those are hardly essential to the Batman mythos.

QuoteIt is extremely unlikely that Burton will make another, and to tell you the truth, I?m perfectly content with what he gave us.

On the one hand, I agree.

But on the other... I dunno, the hypothetical of Burton coming back for more is extremely interesting.

But, um, on the other hand, one wonders if a new Batman movie from him would meet the standards set up by his other two.  Maybe it would.  Maybe it would be everything we've ever wanted from Burton as a Batman filmmaker.

But... maybe it wouldn't.  Maybe it just wouldn't be very good at all.  Maybe I've set up B89 and BR on such a high pedestal that nothing else Burton makes will ever be able to touch them.

Quote from: burtongenius on Thu, 31 Dec  2009, 22:07
A short while ago you would not shut up about how brilliant Burton?s Batman was. I am of the opinion that Tim Burton is the best director of Batman yet. An artist such as Burton is perfect for Batman, as he builds worlds from the ground up.

I think one of Burton's strengths as a filmmaker is that he believes in the world as it is.  You compare that to Schumacher, who could only process the comics as an absurdist cartoon filtered through the 1966 West show or even Sandy Collora's Dead End, which, imho, brought a little too much grit, shadow and nastiness to the proceedings, and I think it's clear that Burton has had the best overall tack on the character.  Nothing against the other directors who have handled the material over the years, as they definitely have their own strengths and talents as storytellers, but Burton made everything jibe and harmonize such that killer clowns and crazed cat women seemed like they fit perfectly in the world he'd established.

Honestly, I've been trying to go easier on Nolan lately.  He's a man, he has feelings and, honestly, while his Batman films haven't been my cup of tea up to this point, I haven't seen a non-Batman movie from him that wasn't unspeakably cool.  Another Nolan bashfest is probably not what I should do right now.

Quote from: burtongenius on Fri,  1 Jan  2010, 01:24
then why is there a nolan section?

There is also a Schumacher section. And an Animated Series Section. And so on. This site covers all the films. But we love Burton the most. The slant is obvious.[/quote]
Yep, and to me that truth in advertising sets this forum quite apart from another Batman forum I could name.  One which claims to be for the fans but really is intended to be a shrine unto a certain filmmaker's take on Batman, with all others being marginalized.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  2 Jan  2010, 19:39
Yep, and to me that truth in advertising sets this forum quite apart from another Batman forum I could name.  One which claims to be for the fans but really is intended to be a shrine unto a certain filmmaker's take on Batman, with all others being marginalized.

Agreed, and dare one say it the other site you refer to is a shrine to its owner's ego in which any kind of dissent from the Nolan's films are great/Burton's films suck mantra is completely shot down with little room for discussion.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  2 Jan  2010, 20:08Agreed, and dare one say it the other site you refer to is a shrine to its owner's ego in which any kind of dissent from the Nolan's films are great/Burton's films suck mantra is completely shot down with little room for discussion.

People have been banned for such a thing.  Actually, they were banned for not falling into line and changing their opinion but, eh, it comes to the same.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  3 Jan  2010, 03:34
People have been banned for such a thing.  Actually, they were banned for not falling into line and changing their opinion but, eh, it comes to the same.

I can't access that site's forum anymore, even though I never posted there to begin with, so screw it.  I'm gonna be as rude about that particular site as I like (without actually mentioning its name of course - I don't want to get in trouble with this site's moderator).

That site sucks. It really does. The owner has done more damage in this Burton/Nolan war thing than anyone else.

The guy has an inflated opinion of himself. He is ignorant and too easily dismissive of Burton?s Batman. It should be called ?Nolan on Film?. His personal bias is obvious and shameless. He will cover Nolan?s upcoming film Inception, for example, but not Burton?s upcoming Alice in Wonderland. Sure, he has a preference, but he has a clear agenda and is not open minded as he claims. It is not balanced as such a site claiming to be "Batman on Film" should be.

If you have a different preference to him, e.g. Burton, you better change that preference and opinions to get in line with his. Otherwise you are out of there. No doubt about it. It is Nolan territory through and through. If you chant how excellent Nolan is and so forth, he will take you under his wing and claim you as a good poster.

I don?t care what people say, that is the way it is. You should not have to ?fight your corner?. I simply do not get that logic. People should be able to celebrate and discuss their favourite Batman films.

Burton praise is shot down immediately and dispelled as historically un-true, stupidity like that. You cannot level any form of criticism at their beloved Nolan at all. Then he steps in and escalates things, treating you like a fool and even leveling claims of trolling. It is absolutely ridiculous.

agreed

Batman sites........ are hard.  Take any superhero.  A Flash site.  A Green Lantern site.  If they were made into movies, their would be no artistry, it would be the comics onto the big screen.  And therefore, nobody would be mad at the movie and would have common ground for conversation.  But since batman is a more complicated hero (no powers), batman sites really have to be batman movie sites.  But I think this one has balanced everyones views nicely.

Of course, recent incarnations of green lantern have him black and flash to be a jokester but........ :D

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Jan  2010, 05:18
That site sucks. It really does. The owner has done more damage in this Burton/Nolan war thing than anyone else.

To me, that's the real tragedy right there.  Ya know?  It doesn't have to be that way.  To me, Burton's films are tops and may never be equaled (nevermind exceeded) by any other Batman movie.  But ya know what?  There's a metric crapton of awesome Batman stuff out there to talk about.  You've got the comics, BTAS, the West show and the Nolan movies themselves.  Again, I prefer Burton's movies but that doesn't mean other interpretations such as the Nolan movies don't have any entertainment value.

In BB, Batman beats the crap out of a lot of people.  The Nolan movies have a supercool bat signal and some awesome car chases.  TDK has an unspeakably awesome sequence where Batman goes to Hong Kong, beats up even more guys, kidnaps Lao and drags him kicking and screaming back to the States.  Batman probably beats the crap out of more people in TDK than he did in BB.  As juvenile as it is, I could watch a movie consisting of nothing except Batman kicking the crapola out of everybody and feel like I got my money's worth.  When it comes to ass-kickings, the Nolan movies bring home the bacon and then some!  There are things to admire in Nolan's films, no matter if you're hardcore Burton, comics, BTAS or whatever else.

But those are threads that are never going to take place.  At least, I won't be participating in them and, from the sounds of it, neither will a lot of other people.