Batman-Online.com

If the series never got rebooted and we got Batman: Triumphant, do you think it could have worked? Normally, when a series like this goes off-the-rail, I would assume it was time to take a break and start over but since the Burton/Schumacher series was relatively loose in continuity, with each film being its own separate adventure that doesn't require viewing earlier installments to understand, could Batman: Triumphant simply continue the tone of the Burton films while adding a few elements in from the Schumacher films such as Robin and Batgirl for the sake of continuity or just simply ignore both Forever and Batman & Robin and just continue off Returns or maybe even the first film.

I don't know, do you think it could have worked?

Discuss...

If they had made it more like Batman and less like Schumacher's films, I think so.


I don't even dislike Schumacher's Batman that much, but compared to Burton it's not that good.

Does anyone has a copy of the script to read?

Quote from: arnaud187 on Fri,  3 Oct  2014, 15:28
Does anyone has a copy of the script to read?

I've seen it online before, and quite recently too, but a search provides nothing.  If I find it I'll post the link here.

Sorry I can't be of any more help at the moment.

I didn't think the script was ever released online. I don't think Shumacher is the antichrist the way some folks do but there's no denying he got things wrong. One main problem was casting; he wanted the biggest stars rather than the right actor. Example, the stuido wanted Anthony Hopkins or Patrick Stewart for Mr. Freeze but he pushed for Arnold with Stallone as his fall back. He seemed to be pushing for Howard Stern and Madonna in Triumphant and I doubt neither of them would have saved the film.


It would have been interesting though; Schumachers serious films are decent. A time to kill, phone booth, the flatliners etc. Those films had tones which could have been good.


It's really too bad Burton never got to do a bat film with the Scarecrow, THAT would have been something to see.

Quote from: riddler on Sat,  4 Oct  2014, 12:33
I didn't think the script was ever released online. I don't think Shumacher is the antichrist the way some folks do but there's no denying he got things wrong. One main problem was casting; he wanted the biggest stars rather than the right actor. Example, the stuido wanted Anthony Hopkins or Patrick Stewart for Mr. Freeze but he pushed for Arnold with Stallone as his fall back. He seemed to be pushing for Howard Stern and Madonna in Triumphant and I doubt neither of them would have saved the film.


It would have been interesting though; Schumachers serious films are decent. A time to kill, phone booth, the flatliners etc. Those films had tones which could have been good.


It's really too bad Burton never got to do a bat film with the Scarecrow, THAT would have been something to see.

Maybe the copy I saw was a fake (or maybe I imagined it all), but I honestly recall reading a screenplay called 'Batman Triumphant' apparently written by Mark Protosevich.  What I recall from it was that Harley Quinn was a former circus performer and colleague of the Flying Graysons/friend of teenage Dick Grayson, who was obsessed with The Joker and vowed to kill Batman after the Joker fell to his death (she wasn't the Joker's daughter or former lover as had been rumoured), and the Scarecrow/Jonathan Crane was a college professor much like he is in the comic-books.  Batgirl didn't feature and Bruce didn't have a prominent love-interest (simply a gold-digging bimbo type, not based on any of the comic-book characters, who appears for a scene or two).

As far as casting went I recall reading that Madonna and Jenny McCarthy were linked to Harley Quinn, and Jeff Goldblum as a leading contender for The Scarecrow (as I recall the Howard Stern rumour was effectively a throwaway joke, as 'Private Parts' had recently been released).  Brad Dourif or Mark Lynn-Baker were mentioned in relation to Man-Bat who was also supposed to feature.

It's a good question, and sadly one that we won't have an answer to.

Schumacher was under a lot of pressure from the studio to divert as far from Burton as possible, and the success of Forever only validated the studio's wishes to amp up the goofiness for Batman & Robin. I'd very much like to see how Joel would deliver with more freedom.

The question can partially be answered by Schumacher's cut of Batman Forever, which we've yet to see. The stories may be similar to Burton's, but his artistic vision is the night and day contrast. Burton's doom and gloom against Schumacher's neon lights.

In terms of popularity, I think he's easily capable of bringing things back in the direction of Forever, and possibly further. Batman Forever met the kind of balance where it wasn't too sophisticated for little kids, but was still serious enough to be enjoyed by adults. So yes, I do think a film that does that could bring the Batman series back into step.

Quote from: Slash Man on Sun,  5 Oct  2014, 03:54
It's a good question, and sadly one that we won't have an answer to.

Schumacher was under a lot of pressure from the studio to divert as far from Burton as possible, and the success of Forever only validated the studio's wishes to amp up the goofiness for Batman & Robin. I'd very much like to see how Joel would deliver with more freedom.

The question can partially be answered by Schumacher's cut of Batman Forever, which we've yet to see. The stories may be similar to Burton's, but his artistic vision is the night and day contrast. Burton's doom and gloom against Schumacher's neon lights.

In terms of popularity, I think he's easily capable of bringing things back in the direction of Forever, and possibly further. Batman Forever met the kind of balance where it wasn't too sophisticated for little kids, but was still serious enough to be enjoyed by adults. So yes, I do think a film that does that could bring the Batman series back into step.

I think we pretty much know what the directors cut would be like. The deleted scenes greatly improved the movie. I don't have much doubt that had Shumacher gotten freedom in Forever, it would have been on par with the Burton films.

Now that being said Shumacher isn't without his own faults; without sounding homophobic, the homosexual undertones (constant crotch shots, bat nipples, batmobile design) were his doing and Kane and co begged him to avoid it. As well he does have his misfires. He did okay with Phanton of the Opera but that film could have been a blockbuster and he didn't make it as big as he could have. His last 3 films have been flops, he may never direct a theatrical release again (currently he's relegated to TV).

It should be noted that Schumacher is the biggest comic fan of the 3 film directors. I think he got the material and figured that given WB's constraints, basing a film on the 60's was the most likely way to delivery.

Quote from: riddler on Sun,  5 Oct  2014, 16:49
I think we pretty much know what the directors cut would be like. The deleted scenes greatly improved the movie. I don't have much doubt that had Shumacher gotten freedom in Forever, it would have been on par with the Burton films.

Agreed.

Quote from: riddler on Sun,  5 Oct  2014, 16:49As well he does have his misfires. He did okay with Phanton of the Opera but that film could have been a blockbuster and he didn't make it as big as he could have. His last 3 films have been flops, he may never direct a theatrical release again (currently he's relegated to TV).

His filmography is very hit and miss. I thought St. Elmo's Fire (1985) was pretty bad. It's competently made on a technical level, but it has one of the most unlikeable groups of protagonists in the history of cinema. At first I thought that was the point – that it was a critique of overprivileged eighties bourgeois yuppie culture and that we were meant to hate these guys. But by the end of the movie I realised we were supposed to like and identify with them. That was definitely one of his duds. However The Lost Boys (1987) and Falling Down (1993) are both excellent films. Flatliners (1990), The Client (1994) and Phone Booth (2002) are also good. It's a pity the negativity surrounding his Batman films has overshadowed his other accomplishments.

It's harsh how certain directors can make a bunch of good movies, only to end up being remembered for the bad ones. A similar thing happened with Sidney J Furie, director of The Young Ones (1961), The Leather Boys (1964), The Ipcress File (1965), The Lady Sings the Blues (1971), The Boys in Company C (1978) and The Entity (1981). Despite making some genuine classics, everyone now remembers him as the guy who directed Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987). :(

Quote from: riddler on Sun,  5 Oct  2014, 16:49It should be noted that Schumacher is the biggest comic fan of the 3 film directors. I think he got the material and figured that given WB's constraints, basing a film on the 60's was the most likely way to delivery.

I'm glad someone mentioned this. Burton and Nolan have both admitted they weren't familiar with the comics before embarking on their Batman film projects. Hence why they needed Sam Hamm and David Goyer respectively to help them adhere to the source material. But Schumacher's the one director who genuinely grew up on the comics. I've always suspected Sam in the Lost Boys to be a reflection of Joel's adolescent self; a creative comic book fan with a flamboyant fashion sense and a wild imagination.

Ultimately his take on the source material was just as valid as Nolan's or Burton's. His may not have been the best Batman films, but I've grown to like them for what they are. In answer to the thread title, I think Batman Triumphant would have been a big improvement over Batman and Robin. Schumacher had something to prove with his third Batman film. It was a chance for him to redeem himself, and all the indicators point towards it being a darker, more Burtonesque movie that would have restored the series to its 1989 roots.

Quote from: riddler on Sun,  5 Oct  2014, 16:49
Now that being said Shumacher isn't without his own faults; without sounding homophobic, the homosexual undertones (constant crotch shots, bat nipples, batmobile design) were his doing and Kane and co begged him to avoid it.

I recall that Furst and Burton joked about the first Batmobile being phallic  ;) Jokes aside, I can see what you mean. The nipples were something that (IMO) was blown out of proportion, but the ass shots were something that was in your face and didn't really serve a purpose. That and a few other things just kinda made you scratch your head.

Also, when it comes to saving the Batman series post-1997, what about just bringing Burton back? Think about it, everyone would win in that case, and audiences would be assured of a return to roots just at the mention of Burton's name. Maybe he'd pick things up from Returns, maybe he'd continue the series (I highly doubt a complete remake at that point, though). Either way, I'd love to see it.

Brad Dourif in a Batman movie????? What an INCREDIBLE idea. And just why in hell has the man yet to appear in a Batman film to this day? The perfect Man-Bat.
Triumphant sounds utterly mad. And that's not a put down at all. It's a melting pot of wacky ideas and cast choices and I personally would have LOVED to have seen this get made. To have had this instead of the Dark Knight films? Oh sure, yes f***ing please! lol

I guess fans breathe a huge sigh of relief that this project never happened. But you never know how cool it may have been. Lessons may have been learned from Batman and Robin. Any idea how far this project actually got? Did it get to the point where actors were contacted?

Jeff Goldblum is the best Scarecrow we never had. I am a child of the 90's so wacky choices for Batman films is perfectly fine by me. These were the wonderful days when a director tried to cast actors who truly looked like the characters they were going to play. And things were always certainly helped further by their sure to be amazing Bob Ringwood wardrobe (no Lindy Hemming back then boys and girls, THANKFULLY!).

Bringing Jack Nicholson back would have been a huge step in the right direction and I think the concept they had for it sounded reasonably cool and just a bit creepy. I'm not sure however if he would have suited George Clooney but it would have been undeniably cool seeing him cross swords with Chris O' Donnell's Robin and such. The clashing of entirely different era's and all that. Always exciting stuff.

The Madonna rumor always makes me smile. I wouldn't have had a problem personally (though I know a lot of people sure would!) with the lady being in a Batman film as that would be a whole other level of cool to me. I think I wrote once about her Harley Quinn potential in relation to another film she did and she may not have been as crap a choice as you might first think. And let's face it she'd certainly have fun with the wardrobe department. As I'm sure we know she's also a very close friend of Debi Mazar (Spice) who appears in Batman Forever. So I would have thought may we also have seen a return of Two-Face's girlfriends in the movie had things worked out? They did survive the explosion of Nygmatech.

So a movie that returns some old favorites and ushers in a whole slew of new, unique characters played by major names? Sounds like a crazy, exciting event to me.

Madonna does kind of remind me of harley quinn, I can picture it.

Brad Dourif would have been awesome, no dispute there.


The one area Schumacher badly misfired is the casting;

Two face was likely Tommy Lee Jones worst role. There wasn't a lot to like about that character; badly acted and badly written as a joker type. I don't know if it's bad casting but he was on fire at that time.

Jim Carrey is an interesting one; 1993 the only people who'd heard of him were fans of In Living Colour. in 1994 though he reeled off the mask, dumb and dumber, and Ace Ventura. I wonder at what stage Schumacher got him for the riddler.

Chris O Donnell seemed to do okay as Robin but the runner up was Leo Dicaprio who clearly ended up being the better actor.


The studio wanted Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins for Mr Freeze, Schumacher pushed for Schwarzenegger.Supposedly with the fifth film, there was a similar debate for the Scarecrow of Jeff Goldblum vs Howard Stern.

Which means we would have gotten Howard Stern, since that's the pattern. Ug.

Patrick Stewart could have made a perfect Mr. Freeze if we go by the animated version of him (that everyone seems to love). Guess we'll never know. Thanks Joel.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 15 Nov  2014, 00:45
Which means we would have gotten Howard Stern, since that's the pattern. Ug.

Patrick Stewart could have made a perfect Mr. Freeze if we go by the animated version of him (that everyone seems to love). Guess we'll never know. Thanks Joel.

Yeah or Anthony Hopkins. Pardon the pun but I prefer Two face and Mr Freeze to be cold, dark villains instead of joker ripoffs.

Even the scenes with Mr. Freeze that they almost got right, Schumacher screwed up with his desire to be funny; the one where he was watching videos of his wedding which could have been emotional but we had the silly tear freezing and line 'I hate when people talk during the movie' and the last batman scene (the only one Clooney came off well in the cowl) convincing Freeze to give a life and again they gave the goofy 'take two of these' line.



Don't get me wrong, the shucmacher films can be fun popcorn films but both could have been so much better. While Schumacher had some successful films, none of them were his big budget flicks, it seemed like every time they gave him money, he didn't know how to use it. The main casting problem is he got the most popular actors as opposed to the right ones.

The subject matter of Freeze clashed with what the story movie was trying to tell.

The way I see it, Batman & Robin could be improved by one of two things: making it wholly serious, or wholly... not serious. Things like Nora's condition and the Ivy love triangle are kind of embarrassing to watch.

Burton and Schumacher both love to make castings that people would never guess. Though Burton tends to see something that no one else does, while Schumacher ends up dealing with miscast characters.

Quote from: Slash Man on Sun, 16 Nov  2014, 06:28
The subject matter of Freeze clashed with what the story movie was trying to tell.

The way I see it, Batman & Robin could be improved by one of two things: making it wholly serious, or wholly... not serious. Things like Nora's condition and the Ivy love triangle are kind of embarrassing to watch.

Burton and Schumacher both love to make castings that people would never guess. Though Burton tends to see something that no one else does, while Schumacher ends up dealing with miscast characters.

I don't think Schwarzenegger was the problem.  He and Vendela, the supermodel who played his wife Nora, made a believable suitably (in view of the name 'Freeze') Nordic-looking couple.

The problem was the writing and direction which didn't maintain a consistent tone.  Sadly, the bare bones of Victor Fries' tragic backstory, adapted from the acclaimed animated series origin, is all there.  But the execution loses the courage of its conviction, and almost touching moments like Freeze watching a video of his wife during happier times are entirely undermined by silly lines like "I hate it when people interrupt the movie".  >:(

Schwarzenegger could have played it straight with the script, I have no doubts about that, but I believe that there could have been other actors more effective at conveying such an emotional role. The studio actually saw much more obvious choices that might've worked, though it's not fair to compare given the final script we got.

I love Schwartzenegger's movies, but never understood what Schumacher saw in him that made him think of Victor Fries. The thing he did best was deliver one-liners, but that wasn't really one of the positive aspects of Freeze in the movie.

Quote from: Slash Man on Sun, 16 Nov  2014, 06:58
Schwarzenegger could have played it straight with the script, I have no doubts about that, but I believe that there could have been other actors more effective at conveying such an emotional role. The studio actually saw much more obvious choices that might've worked, though it's not fair to compare given the final script we got.

I love Schwartzenegger's movies, but never understood what Schumacher saw in him that made him think of Victor Fries. The thing he did best was deliver one-liners, but that wasn't really one of the positive aspects of Freeze in the movie.

Schumacher wanted Freeze to be big, strong and imposing like a glacier hence the casting of Schwarzenegger.

Like I said, if he had been directed properly this could have been Arnold's one chance to prove he was more than a monosyllabic action hero.

Yes, I see the potential in Arnold's Freeze too. He could've been a much better villain.

One last thing to note (although this is more nitpicky), Freeze was pretty much a guy of average build; it was the suit that made him seem more colossal. Though they did that when it came to Bane, but to an extreme; he's a tiny guy that gets super jacked. When before, he was already a massive man that just got larger.

I think Patrick Stewart or Anthony Hopkins would've been better as Mr. Freeze than Arnold. Both are much better actors too and more suited to playing emotionally deep characters. Arnold's talent as I see it is as an action star.

I think a fifth film in the series could've redeemed it if it went back to the great work Tim Burton did with the first two films. Ideally Michael Keaton as Batman would've been best. But if Keaton wouldn't be Batman again then I would've preferred Kilmer over Clooney in the role. I think Madonna as Harley Quinn would've been a very good choice. I'd rather see Jeff Goldblum as Scarecrow than Howard Stern.

If the fifth film was to be the last in the series then I'd like to see the characters of Bruce, Dick, Barbara and Alfred have a happy ending and perhaps see Batman retire and Dick take over as Nightwing. I'd like to see the plot be connected to that of the first movie in the series as well. Using Harley Quinn and making her Joker's daughter seeking revenge on Batman for her father's death would've been a good choice. Batman seeing the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) in a hallucination caused by Scarecrow would've been brilliant. I would've liked to see Bruce forgive Joker and find peace over what happened to his parents. Maybe we could've even seen Bruce express remorse for killing the Joker, his henchmen, the fire breather and the strong man.

What if Arnie had been Bane and someone else could have been Freeze? I know there would have been bitching about him being Austrian instead of South American lol but he could have done good with that. Could have been the cunning, brilliant Bane.

Arnold as Bane could have been brilliant if Bane had been written better.

The problem with Bane was that he wasn't written as Bane. Arnold playing Bane in a story specifically written for Bane? He could rival Tom Hardy (though for some, that's easier than I make it sound). If Bane was simply some super powered henchman, it would've sit a lot better with comic fans watching it (though this is still the best live action Bane appearance-wise). I think the best change would be making Bane one of Ivy's plant monsters instead. Would've saved a lot of trouble at the cost of omitting one-too-many major Batman villains.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Mon, 17 Nov  2014, 00:27
If the fifth film was to be the last in the series then I'd like to see the characters of Bruce, Dick, Barbara and Alfred have a happy ending and perhaps see Batman retire and Dick take over as Nightwing. I'd like to see the plot be connected to that of the first movie in the series as well. Using Harley Quinn and making her Joker's daughter seeking revenge on Batman for her father's death would've been a good choice. Batman seeing the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) in a hallucination caused by Scarecrow would've been brilliant. I would've liked to see Bruce forgive Joker and find peace over what happened to his parents. Maybe we could've even seen Bruce express remorse for killing the Joker, his henchmen, the fire breather and the strong man.

I like that idea. Bruce in Batman Forever has a very different mindset from Keaton, when he strictly denounces killing when Dick is faced with a comparable situation to Bruce when faced with the killer of their parents. Though remorse for killing the henchmen? I'm not seeing that. Each one was dangerous and had the intent to kill Batman. Joker was the only thing close to cold-blooded. Batman intended to kill him when he was defenseless by knocking him off the Cathedral (though that didn't happen). Afterwards, Joker's death was pretty much an accident, as Batman only tried to restrain him from getting away. It's a tough call on that one.

Though I do like the idea of capping off the series. I guess Batman & Robin did give us some kind of happy ending, though at the same time, it looked like they left room for a sequel (they did).

Thank you for the kind words. Those aren't my ideas though. I've read that there were ideas about Harley Quinn being in a fifth Batman movie, that she was going to be Joker's daughter seeking revenge on Batman for the death of her father, and about Jack Nicholson appearing as the Joker in a hallucination Batman experiences thanks to the Scarecrow.

As for Joker's henchmen, well, some argue that it wasn't necessary for Batman to kill them. To be honest I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the people Batman killed in the two Burton Batman movies though.

The one issue of Arnold playing Bane is that they would need to expand the role and that film already had too many characters.

I love Arnolds old school action films but let's call a spade a spade; he's not a good actor. Hopkins and Stewart would have been infinitely better. Schumacher wanted the biggest names as opposed to the best actors.

Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character. I would have loved Jeff Goldblum as the Scarecrow, he could have made a strong climactic villain, and Cage would have been OK but Stern probably pretty bad and too (trying to be) reminiscent of Carrey as the Riddler.

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 07:29
Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

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

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 07:29
I would have loved Jeff Goldblum as the Scarecrow, he could have made a strong climactic villain, and Cage would have been OK but Stern probably pretty bad and too (trying to be) reminiscent of Carrey as the Riddler.

Even though I think it's for the better this film was never made, 90s Jeff Goldblum as the Scarecrow in a Schumacher Batman movie would be one of the villains people would still include in their top-10 lists.

Quote from: Azrael on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 20:42

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 07:29
Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

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

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

Quote from: mrrockey on Wed,  1 Oct  2014, 08:51If the series never got rebooted and we got Batman: Triumphant, do you think it could have worked?

I don't see what it could've hurt. Obviously WB wanted to protect the brand overall but, honestly, Batman films were a joke for years after B&R.

Schumacher has intimated many times that he never really had creative freedom on either of his movies, least of all B&R. Apparently his taste would've been taking Batman in a not-so-Dayglo direction. The way it's been described, Batman Triumphant would've been a tonal cross between B89 and The Lost Boys, probably done low budget to give it a grittier feel.

We can't know what would've happened. All we know is what did happen. But I don't think Triumphant would've harmed the character any extraordinary degree.

The really weird thing is how well Schumacher's existing Batman movies have aged. Change the title character to somebody from Marvel and those movies would probably make at least $500 mill each worldwide.

We live in strange times.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 23:06

Quote from: Azrael on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 20:42

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 07:29
Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it comes down to taste and personal preference.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:01Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

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

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

Maybe it comes down to taste and personal preference.

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

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:01
Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines.

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

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

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:01
Then there's Penguin and Catwoman in BR - which I love - and which were both reinvented for the movie.

Now this I definitely agree. I'd have to be a liar to say otherwise.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:31
I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

You'd be surprised how some people are passionate about Doomsday. I had an argument with somebody the other day on YouTube who wished that BvS could've been split into two parts, so Doomsday could be the main villain in part two. I told them that makes no sense and completely unreasonable as Doomsday doesn't have any character depth to be the main villain for a feature film. Waste of time though, my reasoning only fell on deaf ears.

But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10
I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

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

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10
Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

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

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:31
I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

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

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

This actually made me laugh.

Quote from: Andrew on Sun, 21 Jan  2018, 07:29
Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:01Yeah, but is this much different than Bane being a deformed lackey of Talia al Ghul, or Doomsday being a Zod Zombie resurrected by Dr. Lutherstein?  :P

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 12:01Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

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

All of the movie villains listed in this thread had some basis in the comics. None of them were 100% comic accurate, but not of them were 100% detached from the source material either.

I already wrote an extensive analysis of how the Michelle Pfeiffer Catwoman was adapted from the printed page. I won't bother repeating all that now, but here's the link in case anyone's curious:
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/5/29/comic-analysis-michelle-pfeiffer-catwoman
Bottom line, she was a perfectly acceptable fusion of several different versions of the character that had existed in the comics up to that point.

The Batman Returns Penguin is certainly a departure from the version that existed in the comics in 1992, though many of his more outlandish characteristics have been referenced in subsequent comics (that subject warrants its own thread). But I would argue the fundamental core of the character – an odd-looking misfit who tries to compensate for his physical peculiarities with excessive posturing – is still at least partially represented. He behaves most like the comic book Penguin during the central act of the film when he's running for office. During the first and final acts, he's a completely different beast. But once again, many of those aberrant qualities were later worked into the comics anyway. Is he the comic book Penguin? No. But he's also not completely removed from the source material.

As for Bane being Ivy's slave... Eh, I made a stab at justifying that in the Batman & Robin comic analysis feature:
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2011/4/3/comic-influences-on-schumacher-batman-robin-1997/4#sthash.OO3sILyN.dpbs

Harley Quinn being the Joker's daughter is a throwback to the original Duela Dent Harlequin that debuted in the Bronze Age comics. This character predated the better known Harleen Quinzel version by over 15 years and was ultimately revealed to be the daughter of the Earth-3 Joker (the Jokester). So there is a precedent in the comics for this too.

I've always thought Doomsday was more of a plot device than a fully rounded character. And his function in the plot is to kill Superman, which is precisely what he did in both the comics and the movie. His back story in both Superman/Doomsday: Hunter/Prey (1994) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is that he's a genetically engineered monster cloned from dead matter. I don't think there's much else to say about the character.

I don't see why Scarecrow working for the League is a problem. Crane is never shown to be a full member of the League in Batman Begins, nor to be a disciple of their underlying ideology. He works with them so he can acquire the chemical components needed to make his fear toxin. After the League is defeated, Scarecrow continues trying to spread his hallucinogens on the streets of Gotham via drug dealers, as depicted in the opening scenes of The Dark Knight. He's still a psycho fixated on fear. That's the essence of the character in the comics and Nolan didn't change that for the movies. Scarecrow has allied himself with numerous other villains in the comics over the years, ranging from Carmine Falcone to the Joker. Just so long as he gets to spread fear and panic, he's only too happy to assist in someone else's agenda.

I also don't see a problem with Bane working for the League of Shadows. Bane's original motivation in the comics was to establish his superiority by breaking Batman, and that's exactly what he did in the first half of The Dark Knight Rises. It's just that in the film his motives served a broader agenda. He didn't have venom, his origin story was transferred to Talia, and Hardy – despite giving a good performance IMO – was physically miscast in the role. But otherwise, it was a legitimate representation of the character along the same lines as the DeVito Penguin. It's not the comic book Bane, but it's an effective reinterpretation. His creator Chuck Dixon said as much himself:

Quote"I am beyond glad that Nolan had the juice in Hollywood to stick to his guns," he added. "From interviews I've seen, it's clear he understands the character and he gets what we were going for. It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20120720_Chuck_Dixon_and_the_essence_of_Bane.html

Returning to the subject of him being Talia's henchman, that does have a precedent in the comics in the form of Ubu. Ubu has always been depicted as the League's top muscle and the right-hand man to whomever was leading it at the time, whether it was Ra's or his daughter.


The very first Ra's al Ghul story – 'Daughter of the Demon' (Batman Vol 1 #232, June 1971) – saw a masked Ubu presenting himself as the leader of the League. The big plot twist came when it was revealed that Ra's was the true leader and Ubu merely a decoy. Nolan used the same plot twist in both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.


But Ubu and Bane aren't the same character, are they? Well, yes and no. Ubu is actually a title that's passed from one warrior to another. It's an honorary status given to the bodyguard and champion of the League's true leader. And Bane himself did indeed become Ubu during the Bane of Demon (March-June 1998) storyline. In that comic he was also portrayed as having a romantic relationship with Talia, similar to the emotional dynamic suggested in the movie.


So Bane's subservient relationship with Talia does have a precedent in the comics.

Moving on to Nolan's Two-Face, the Eckhart incarnation certainly has a different psychological profile from the comic book version. He doesn't display two distinct personalities and he isn't fixated on a binary motif when it comes to his crimes. But the basic concept of a hero-turned-villain, who flips a coin to allow fate to decide his victims' fate, remains intact. As to the Joker's role in his creation, that has its basis in Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers' Batman: Dark Detective II (July-September 2005). Nolan basically amalgamated Dent's traditional back story from the comics with that of Evan Gregory. I don't want to go into too much depth on this subject at the moment, as I'm hoping to write an extensive feature on The Dark Knight's comic book influences later in the year. But for now I'll quickly outline some of the basic parallels between this particular comic and the film.

Dent and Gregory are both heroic figures running for public office in Gotham City. While Dent runs for the position of D.A., Gregory is running to become Governor. Both men are in long-term relationships with one of Bruce's former girlfriends (Silver St. Cloud/Rachel). In both cases the love interest is aware that Bruce is Batman. And although Bruce admires Dent/Gregory, there nevertheless remains some tension between them.


The Joker tries to sabotage the campaigns of both men and both stories feature a scene where the Joker crashes a fundraiser for Gregory/Dent. Bruce and Silver/Rachel are also present at the party.


Bruce slips away and changes into his batsuit, then returns to do battle with the Joker in front of the other guests.


Despite Batman's efforts, the Joker makes a clean getaway. Silver/Rachel is worried about Gregory/Dent, but the latter remains unfazed by the Joker's antics and assures his beloved he has faith in the Batman to protect him.


Two-Face plays a prominent role in Dark Detective II, and Englehart goes to considerable lengths to emphasise parallels between Gregory and Dent's former incarnation as heroic D.A. Two-Face himself strongly identifies with Gregory's plight and threatens the Joker to back off in his campaign against him.


Old tensions are renewed between Bruce and Silver/Rachel. The main love interest is torn between the two men in her life and tries to decide which of them needs her support the most.


In the comic Silver chooses Bruce, while in the movie Rachel chooses Dent. But in the comic Silver eventually ends up with Gregory anyway.

A subplot in Dark Detective II sees Two-Face acquiring an undamaged clone of Harvey Dent. He quickly develops a strong emotional bond with this clone and sees him as a way of restoring his former identity to its untainted glory. But the clone falls foul of a trap set by the Joker and is blown to smithereens. Two-Face, who was standing just outside the building when it blew up, is also injured by the blast.


The Dent clone is killed and has half his face burned off by the Joker's explosion. The loss has a devastating impact on Two-Face.


Silver tells Gregory she chooses to be with Bruce. This foreshadows the letter Rachel writers Bruce in the movie telling him she chooses to be with Dent. In both cases her plans go awry due to the intervention of the Joker.


Batman visits Two-Face in hospital where he is recovering from the Joker's bomb blast.


There's a scene in Dark Detective II where the hospitalised Two-Face flips his coin to decide whether or not to betray the Joker to Batman. Two-Face also flipped his coin for the Joker in 'Threat of the Two-Headed Coin!' (Batman Vol 1 #258, October 1974).


Returning to Dark Detective II, the Joker kidnaps Silver. Gregory and Bruce both go frantic trying to search for her.


Batman takes to the streets and starts roughing up suspects in alleyways trying to track down the Joker.


Eventually Batman manages to recue Silver, while in the movie Rachel is killed. It is during the sequence where Batman saves Silver in Dark Detective II that Gregory falls prey to another of the Joker's traps and ends up being crippled down one side of his body.

Interestingly, Englehart wrote a script for Dark Detective III which would have served as a continuation of this story. But owing to the unfortunate passing of Marshall Rogers, the comic was never produced. However Englehart, while openly acknowledging the influence of Dark Detective II on The Dark Knight, has also alleged that his unproduced sequel was referenced in Nolan's film. In particular he highlights the scene where the Joker visits Dent in hospital as having been adapted from his script. Only in Englehart's original script, it was Two-Face who visited Gregory in hospital and persuaded him to take a turn to the dark side. Regardless, the Joker's role in provoking Dent in Nolan's film does have an earlier precedent in the comics.

There's a lot more to comment on regarding the comic influences on The Dark Knight. But like I say, I'll try and come back to this subject in more depth later this year.

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming any of the movie villains I've discussed here are 100% faithful to the comics, because clearly they're not. I'm just refuting the allegation that some of them are entirely removed the source material.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 14:38

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10
I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

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

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10
Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

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

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

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

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 21:20

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 13:10But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

Interstingly, apart from the deity connotations throughout that film, the original idea was Lex thought he could control Doomsday. There was a behind the scenes footage of Eisenberg yelling "Ancient Kryptonian deformity. Obeys only me! And born to destroy you!". Of course, the final cut has the second part of that sentence saying "Blood of my blood".

It adds another dimension how Lex abuses his own power even further and gets an even bigger ego trip by thinking he could manipulate a monster he had created. Curious to see for all his hate of the concept of God, he had no problems playing one himself.

Anyway...

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 14:38
Can't disagree with that, he's a secondary villain with the prime purpose to make the toxin Ra's Al Ghul needs (oh yeah, and make cameos in the sequels), but I don't think he's that off compared to what they did with Bane, who is the main villain in the movie he appears.

The original Knightfall version of Bane is still king, and I've made criticisms about Nolan's Bane in the past. But now I've come to terms with the overall product for three reasons. 1. Comic book villains in recent times (especially Marvel films) have been underdeveloped and underwhelming. 2, Nolan gave Bane plenty of screen time, and 3, he developed his threat level in a big way. Do aspects of his plan make sense? I'd say no, but for those three key reasons I've softened my stance. Each incarnation of a character is going to have differences of some sort, but key traits remain. Nolan's Bane is physically strong, wears a mask and uses military vehicles and equipment to facilitate his mission. He lets criminals out of prison and breaks Batman's back. The voice isn't everyone's cup of tea, but you can't deny it's distinctive.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 21:20
It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

And it works on another level given Superman is resurrected with the Mother Box. There's a fear that when he wakes up, he'll become a rampaging monster like Doomsday. This isn't explored in any serious depth but the connection is there. And I like it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 21:20And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

Now that's an interesting idea.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 22 Jan  2018, 23:03


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

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

I just don't.

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

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

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

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 06:45
I've never been one of the "if it deviates from the comics it's not good" audience (the opposite, I always loved the villains in Batman Returns), but having recently re-read Knightfall and re-watched The Dark Knight Rises - the latter version comes off like a weak shadow.

I know where you're coming from. Nolan's Bane doesn't escape from prison himself (this action is instead transferred to Talia). He discovers the truth about Dent by luck, and presumably Batman's identity from second hand information. Nolan's Bane does tick most of the boxes but feels somewhat castrated from the source.

That's why I think the original Knightfall incarnation is still the best. But indeed, he still manages to break Batman, let prisoners loose on the city, have Gotham cut off from the mainland and hold everyone for ransom with a nuclear bomb. His threat level never decreased against Batman either, because in his last moments he had a shotgun to his face.

Nolan's Bane is medicated with gas to soothe pain, purely to remain stable. When the gas is cut off he begins to lash out like a superhuman. Knightfall's Bane uses Venom to give himself an advantage. I find that contrast rather interesting because it serves a similar but different purpose. Hitting his mask is the equivalent of hitting the comic version's Venom tubes.

His costumes are markedly different to what he wears in the comics. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 06:45
I just don't.

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

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

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

That's fair enough Azrael. Personally, I found the unintentionally comical dialogue and Bane's goofy demeanor made him a bit more tolerable, but as you suggest, to each their own.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 07:18
Nolan's Bane is medicated with gas to soothe pain, purely to remain stable. When the gas is cut off he begins to lash out like a superhuman. Knightfall's Bane uses Venom to give himself an advantage. I find that contrast rather interesting because it serves a similar but different purpose. Hitting his mask is the equivalent of hitting the comic version's Venom tubes.

My issue with that is the mask doesn't appear to be feeding him much oxygen anywhere else, other than by itself. For all the talk about "realism" and overexplaining how Batman can get his equipment, I was unimpressed with Bane's mask. It felt as if there wasn't much thought about how it actually works. At least in the comics, the Venom is hooked into a cable which automatically injects the substance into his bloodstream to make him stronger.

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 12:00

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

Back to the topic at hand, a fifth film probably wouldn't have hurt the character but it could have- if Schumacher went dark and failed, WB would have concluded that the character is no longer marketable and likely nix anything further for a long time.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 12:00Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 29 Jan  2018, 18:44Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 30 Jan  2018, 07:12

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 23 Jan  2018, 12:00Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 29 Jan  2018, 18:44Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

If the Joker wasn't capable of overpowering cops, there'd be no need for Batman. And if he couldn't overpower his fellow criminals, he wouldn't be the Clown Prince of Crime.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant

It's extremely relevant to the subject of comic accuracy.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors.

True.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

I suppose there is an argument to be made, but I don't think it's a strong one. The Schumacher Bane has Venom and is visually closer to the comic version. But other than that, the Hardy Bane more accurately reflects what Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan intended the character to be.

Chuck Dixon:

Quote"It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman/news/a394758/dark-knight-rises-bane-creator-pleased-with-tom-hardy-portrayal/

Graham Nolan:

Quote"I loved Tom Hardy as Bane. He captured the intelligence and menace of the character."

http://www.buffalospree.com/Blogs/Consuming-Passions/Annual-2012/A-Conversation-with-Graham-Nolan/

Quote"I am thrilled with Bane's portrayal by Tom Hardy in "The Dark Knight Rises". He steals every scene he is in with his swagger and imposing presence."

http://www.filmdumpster.com/film-dumpster-exclusive-q-a-with-bane-co-creator-graham-nolan/

Graham Nolan on Schumacher's Bane:

Quote"It's so monumentally bad, I won't waste my time. And the character in there...is NOT the Bane we created."

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman/bane-co-creator-graham-nolan-discusses-the-dark-knight-rises-version-of-the-a56821

The essence of Bane, according to Dixon and Nolan, is to be Batman's physical and intellectual equal. The Hardy Bane, while not 100% true to the comics, embodies that concept better in the context of Nolan's universe than the Schumacher Bane does in the context of his universe. If people like the Schumacher Bane better, that's absolutely fine. But when the men who originally conceived the character, and who are still creating his stories in 2018 (see Bane: Conquest), state that one interpretation is truer to their concept than another, then that decisively concludes the debate regarding which interpretation best reflects the creators' intent.

But once again, if people enjoy the Schumacher Bane more, and if that incarnation better suits their personal view of what they think the character ought to be, then that's fine. Nobody's preferences need be dictated by comic accuracy, or lack thereof.

Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

Quote
They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

I don't think he's displayed as invincible (he just has the resources), but even if he was, I think that's a different issue than what I was addressing in mu post. Every version is going to be different certainly and while as far as bell and whistles go, Bane is more accurate, but the bells and whistles aren't the character, much like Dinah Drake, Black Siren and Sara Lance on Arrow not being BC just because of fighting skills and a canary cry. As far as Bane, the movie did a version of what the comics do. Instead of super-steroid, it was a drug for pain. It's not a huge change as far as alterations go. Not that I'm hugely offended by B&R's version or anything.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

To me, the Joker is much like Han Solo. He a human being without any powers but he makes the impossible possible. He flies by the seat of his pants and find a way to make things happen. Landing the Falcon after coming out of light speed, and staying low to avoid radar? No problem, we'll work it out. Taking off from inside a freighter at light speed? I don't know if it'll work and if I'll survive, but I have to get out of here now. These actions can be viewed as reckless, but through their fearlessness and self-confidence they create their own luck.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 31 Jan  2018, 22:05The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart.

You're right, of course, but the concept of Venom is still there - it just serves a different purpose. We still see Bane lashing out like a madman, but not because he wants to. The gassed up Bane is shown to be strong and intimidating without the need for steroids. Honestly, there's no point even comparing Jeep Swenson's version to Hardy. I think Clooney hits Bane on the head with an object and that's enough to put him down. Hardy's Bane is shown to be a monster in combat. Without the mask weakness, I'm sure he would've beaten Batman a second time.

I want to clarify my last point. I am not saying that Jeep Swenson's Bane was the more accurate portrayal to Hardy's, I was only stating the argument could be made. I definitely think Nolan got the character more accurately than Schumacher did but Nolan's work is not beyond criticism.

That's great that the character's portrayal was well received by the creator but that doesn't mean he was sincere. Bob Kane stated his favourite Batman movie was Batman and Robin, likely because that was the last one made before his death. Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee spoke highly of the 2003 Hulk film at the time before the 2008 film was deemed the more accurate portrayal of the character. Some creators are just happy seeing their work brought to life and will take any incarnation.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  2 Feb  2018, 23:07
That's great that the character's portrayal was well received by the creator but that doesn't mean he was sincere. Bob Kane stated his favourite Batman movie was Batman and Robin, likely because that was the last one made before his death. Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee spoke highly of the 2003 Hulk film at the time before the 2008 film was deemed the more accurate portrayal of the character. Some creators are just happy seeing their work brought to life and will take any incarnation.

That's exactly right. Even if a creator approves something adapted on screen, it doesn't mean you must like it. For example, Suicide Squad creator John Ostrander went on record to approve the David Ayer adaptation:

Quote
I really liked the film. Not perfect by a long shot, but a really good time in the movie theater. And for me a lot of it was just amazing. The look, the detail, the feel of the film is not something I've seen in superhero movies before.

Source: https://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/john-ostrander-reviews-the-suicide-squad/

Now of course, if you genuinely thought Suicide Squad was a bad film, then you have the right to have that opinion, and nothing that Ostrander or any other creator say should change your mind. You can still respect his opinion and disagree with it, just as others here have listened, respected and disagreed with other creators' thoughts on other adaptations. It works both ways.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  2 Feb  2018, 23:07
I want to clarify my last point. I am not saying that Jeep Swenson's Bane was the more accurate portrayal to Hardy's, I was only stating the argument could be made. I definitely think Nolan got the character more accurately than Schumacher did but Nolan's work is not beyond criticism.

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

The problem with Bane in live action is that he's not as grounded as villains such as Catwoman, the Riddler, Penguin, etc. but he's not as far fetched as the likes of Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, or Solomon Grundy. For that reason I don't think he fits Schumacher's unrealistic Gotham or Nolan's ultra realistic Gotham. Nolan took the character too seriously, Schumacher wasn't serious enough.

Again if you think Nolan's version is the definitive version and can't be topped, good for you. But personally I think Nolan dialed the character back from what he was supposed to be because he was afraid to put anything in a Batman movie that you wouldn't see in a James Bond film. 

Quote from: riddler on Sat,  3 Feb  2018, 20:10
Again if you think Nolan's version is the definitive version and can't be topped, good for you. But personally I think Nolan dialed the character back from what he was supposed to be because he was afraid to put anything in a Batman movie that you wouldn't see in a James Bond film.

I don't think Hardy's Bane is definitive. The Knightfall version is the best, with Arkham Origins coming in second place. But at the end of the day, I think Nolan's incarnation honors the spirit of the character. He simply tailored aspects to suit his world, just as Burton did for Penguin or Snyder did for Doomsday.

I think the treatment on Bane really demonstrated Schumacher's detachment to comic book lore and certainly played ( I believe) the biggest part in fans hating this movie. Seeing such a iconic villain reduced to a lowly henchman was hard to swallow and I think Schumacher's comments on DVD probably did more harm to the reputation of the film than anything else.

He had a very flip attitude about these characters and spoke about comics with honestly a great degree of disrespect. I don't think he had the slightest notion what hive of wasps he was breaking open, but he seem to go to great lengths to demean and otherwise insult the intelligence of the average Batman fan. I think he certainly had it in him to make a compelling Batman film. His films tend to carry a darker tone and I understand the studio played a big role in how B&R came out. But I highly doubt audiences of that day would have been as forgiving had Warner Bros moved forward with Triumphant.

You have to remember comic book movies were not embraced by Hollywood as a viable trove of stories for blockbusters as it is today. WB nearly wanted to mothball the franchise after BR got some tough commentary from critics and less returns than what they wanted. So studios in those days were not all that prideful about making these movies and seemed almost paranoid to dump them if there was any deviation in the response, even if they were successful.

The flip side to that is comic fans had a huge degree of insecurity attached to these films because this was still a very small market in the movie industry. Fans of this subject matter carried allot of angst from under-produced and generic (if not hollow) versions of their heroes on television and even direct to video features (like Captain America). This was a genre dying for validation in an industry where there were still allot of people who saw this material as juvenile. Professionals who loved comics were just starting to infiltrate the industry and it would be several more years before anything of real relevance (like Spider-man) began to take hold and get the attention of the industry. Yes, I know the X-men to some degree broke the ice, but that film also illustrated technology still needed to catch up to the needs of this kind of story telling and it began to do just that.

So I think even with the fix in, Triumphant likely would have paid for the sins of B&R at the box office. I don't think fans wanted to see Clooney again and likely would have rejected him in this film. I'm not even sure he had the acting chops at that point to really do a dark Batman of the caliber needed to right this ship. It's easy to think audiences would have been forgiving with the right treatment, but that just wasn't reality for that day. I think both the industry and fans felt Batman needed to be mothballed because to keep it going, especially with the same cast, would have hurt the push being made to make more comic book movies. Subsequently that could have stymied the movies we did get to see like X-Men and Spider-man. Both the industry and fans were looking for engaging stories involving characters the audience could embrace and relate with. Schumacher's treatment reminded everyone of what they had been fighting against (for decades) and didn't want to see again.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Feb  2018, 02:54

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

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

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

Quote from: Wayne49 on Sun,  4 Feb  2018, 12:29The flip side to that is comic fans had a huge degree of insecurity attached to these films because this was still a very small market in the movie industry. Fans of this subject matter carried allot of angst from under-produced and generic (if not hollow) versions of their heroes on television and even direct to video features (like Captain America). This was a genre dying for validation in an industry where there were still allot of people who saw this material as juvenile. Professionals who loved comics were just starting to infiltrate the industry and it would be several more years before anything of real relevance (like Spider-man) began to take hold and get the attention of the industry. Yes, I know the X-men to some degree broke the ice, but that film also illustrated technology still needed to catch up to the needs of this kind of story telling and it began to do just that.

So I think even with the fix in, Triumphant likely would have paid for the sins of B&R at the box office. I don't think fans wanted to see Clooney again and likely would have rejected him in this film. I'm not even sure he had the acting chops at that point to really do a dark Batman of the caliber needed to right this ship. It's easy to think audiences would have been forgiving with the right treatment, but that just wasn't reality for that day. I think both the industry and fans felt Batman needed to be mothballed because to keep it going, especially with the same cast, would have hurt the push being made to make more comic book movies. Subsequently that could have stymied the movies we did get to see like X-Men and Spider-man. Both the industry and fans were looking for engaging stories involving characters the audience could embrace and relate with. Schumacher's treatment reminded everyone of what they had been fighting against (for decades) and didn't want to see again.

This is a very good point. The entire superhero cinematic genre was considered toxic after 1997, and not just because of Batman & Robin. It was a much broader issue that affected CBMs in general. And I'm not sure Batman Unchained could have surmounted the obstacles left in the wake of that fallout, especially with all the baggage it was hauling from the Batman & Robin backlash.

It's sad to admit, but back in the mid-late nineties I used to rewatch the 1990 Captain America movie on video all the same. Same with the Incredible Hulk TV movies from the eighties. Why? Because there was precious little else in the way of CBMs coming out. As far as the late nineties went, the genre was moribund to say the least. This was especially true of Marvel, who's only really good productions at that time had been animated shows like X-Men and Spider-Man and some older live action TV shows from the seventies (I'm fond of the Dolph Punisher film, but I didn't see that until I was much older). Many people also dismiss the early nineties as being a terrible time for superheroes and comic book adaptations, but I strongly disagree with that. After all, the early nineties gave us:

•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987-1996)
•   Tales from the Crypt (1989-1996)
•   Dick Tracy (1990)
•   RoboCop 2 (1990)
•   Darkman (1990)
•   The Flash (1990-1991)
•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
•   The Rocketeer (1991)
•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)
•   The Adventures of Tintin (1991-1993)
•   Batman Returns (1992)
•   Porco Rosso (1992)
•   X-Men (1992-1997)
•   Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1995)
•   Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-1997)
•   Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)
•   The Shadow (1994)
•   The Mask (1994)
•   The Tick (1994-1995)
•   Iron Man (1994-1996)
•   Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994-1998)
•   Batman Forever (1995)
•   Ghost in the Shell (1995)

I'm not suggesting all of these films and TV shows are great, but they are all at least entertaining. And some of them are legitimately great IMO. There are lots of fun lesser CBMs and TV shows from this era too, such as The Guyver, Judge Dredd and Power Rangers. Of course there are plenty of stinkers as well, like Barb Wire and Tank Girl. But overall I think it was a good time for comic adaptations. I've always felt that for DC in particular, the period starting with the release of Batman '89 and running up to the debut of Superman: The Animated Series in 1996 was something of a golden age.

But the late nineties – that's a different story.

Me and my friends were obsessed with comics at the time, but comics just weren't trendy the way they are now. Today people jump on the bandwagon of the latest film franchise and then start reading the comics. But in the late nineties the comics were all we had, and the damn wagon didn't have enough horse power to get started, let alone pick up new passengers. Every time a new CBM came out straight-to-video, me and my friends would read about it in a comic book or sci-fi magazine, get really hyped and rent it opening weekend, only to have our enthusiasm savagely crushed. This included such gems as Steel, Generation X, Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and The Phantom. Talk about wasted youth.

Ok, so we know those movies aren't very good now (though I still kind of like The Phantom), but back then we'd always hope the next effort would be the one to start the ball rolling. I vividly recall going to see Spawn with some mates on my 12th birthday and hoping it would be the new Batman '89 that would reinvigorate the genre. But it turned out to be just another false start. And of course we were all hearing rumours about the 5th 'darker' Batman movie that would feature Scarecrow and possibly reunite Burton and Keaton. There were also pre-internet rumours at the time about James Cameron making a Spider-Man film with Schwarzenegger as Doc Ock, Tom Cruise playing Iron Man, and even Jack Nicholson possibly playing Wolverine.

The one rumour that came true was the one about Wesley Snipes playing Blade. And that movie was a godsend to us geeks. It was the first time a superhero movie had been legitimately cool in years. And it was the first time we started to get a sense of the tide turning in the genre's favour. People usually credit X-Men (2000) and Spider-Man (2002) as being the films that revived the superhero genre, and for the wider audience I'm sure that's true. But for those of us reading comics at the time, I cannot overstate how important the first Blade film was.

Obviously there were some good superhero and CBMs in the late nineties, such as Men in Black, Blade and The Mask of Zorro. But the superhero genre had definitely taken a knock. Even if Batman Unchained had managed to address the problems in Schumacher's previous effort, it might have been too little too late by then. If the market's not there for the product, it doesn't matter how good the product is. It'll still flop. A recent example of this would be TMNT 2: Out of the Shadows. Now that's not a particularly good film by any measure, but it is a colossal improvement over the 2014 TMNT movie. But most fans were so burned by the first flick that they didn't give the second one a chance and it flopped. I suspect a similar fate might have befallen Batman Unchained had it actually gone ahead.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  1 Feb  2018, 03:20
Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

Quote
They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

I wonder if he thinks TAS had enough detective work vs. just action.

Quote from: Andrew on Wed,  7 Feb  2018, 18:28

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  1 Feb  2018, 03:20
Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

Quote
They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

I wonder if he thinks TAS had enough detective work vs. just action.

I have no way of knowing what would Graham Nolan think, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hated how Bane was portrayed in that show, which he was more of a freak of the week type of villain as opposed to the other villains, as some had a fairly lengthy character arc. But then again, you'll have to remember that Bane was a brand new character who first appeared in the comics in the early 90s, around the same time BTAS had started. For all we know, the writers thought he didn't have the rich history at the time compared to the classic villains. Plus, there's no way the show was ever going to show his true violent potential, as we read in Knightfall.

I'm hard-pressed to find anybody, whether it's a comics personality or a fan, who'd object to BTAS. The show definitely got the tone and the characters right. Batman was definitely a detective and a fighter, but he had experienced his share of personal demons, fears and heartbreak. Besides, the show had adapated many comics storylines by the likes of Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and Elliot S! Maggin, and a lot of these comics had Batman's detective skills put to the test. The show's legacy and impact on the Batman mythology can never be questioned. Even B&R used a reference to the Heart of Ice episode for Mr. Freeze's backstory.