The upcoming “The Dark Knight Rises” has many movie lovers in hysterics. They can’t seem to stop oohing and aahing over the trailer and singing the praises of the most recent Batman franchise. Amidst all this ruckus, I have to bring some sanity back here.
I’m a rabid Batman fan. Have been for most of my life. I’ve done my duty and run through an obscene number of DC comics and have read all the famous (and not so famous) story arcs in the Bat universe. So you can say that I “get” Batman. I know what he’s all about. Sure, it’s unrealistic in so many ways but it’s an awesome fantasy. A normal human being able to achieve the things he does. It just gives you a high.
But Batman movies? Not so much. I always found that they pretty much suck big time. I respect the character of Batman too much to see him mutilated. Which is why I hate the recent Batman series by Christopher Nolan. What surprises me is that everyone raves about them as if they’re the awesomest movies ever made. Sure, they’re probably better in comparison to the Joel Schumacher version, but that doesn’t make them good. In fact, I find them awful. And here’s why:
Batman’s Appearance – The “Helmet”
I hate Batman’s appearance in Christopher Nolan’s universe. There are so many things wrong with him that I don’t know where to start. He’s not menacing enough. He just looks like a funny guy in a suit. The suit itself is a horrible wreck, looking like a clumsy piece of armor rather than something flexible that can be moved easily in. And before the fans start shouting “It has to be realistic!”, let me assure you that Batman as a concept isn’t very realistic at all. But more on the “realism” aspect later.
He’s not scary. At all. Just look at his “mask”:
That’s a helmet! He doesn’t look in the least bit scary. His mouth and lips are “squeezed” into a gap, making it bunched up. No wonder Bale talks with his lips parted so often! Next up – the eyes. Why, oh WHY can’t Batman movies make the eyes white like they are the comics? Dammit, this guy actually has makeup on his face around his eyes. MAKEUP! It makes me want to cry when I see what Nolan has done to my favorite comic book hero.
For reference, here is how Batman’s cowl should look like:
See the difference? Now that is scary. THAT is a sight I wouldn’t want to see at night swooping down at me. The guy in the first picture? Some loony clown on drugs wearing a costume. Pchaah!
Crappy Armor – Horrible Cape
I don’t even know where to start. I mean look at that suit. It’s a bunch of disjointed pieces fitted together haphazardly. It’s not uniform or elegant. It just looks shoddy. There we go again with that whole “realistic” mantra that Nolan loves to try and inject into this character. Please Nolan huh? Go make movies of Superman or something and leave this guy alone – please.
Batman’s cape has always been part of his effect. And yet it does nothing for him in the movie. It doesn’t even merge in color with the main suit! It’s a deeper shade of black that ruins the “solid” effect of night that is Batman. It breaks the illusion that this is one gigantic bat – almost supernatural. Instead, it tells us that this is just a costume worn by a guy for unknown reasons – since it’s clearly not scary. Here’s a nice shot of the real Batman style:
Let up with the voice huh?
We all know that Bruce Wayne disguises his voice as Batman to make it scary as well as to keep his identity secret. Works great in the Batman animated series, so why can’t Nolan give us a real crackling voice huh? In various media, Batman’s voice has been compared to “stepping on broken bottles”. In some comics, Batman literally uses his voice as a weapon to scare criminals into submission whenever he can.
And once again, Nolan turns Batman’s voice into a joke. You can barely understand squat of what he’s saying. It’s obvious that his voice is fake and put on. And coming from that squished out mouth of his, it just makes you want to puke. Someone needs to tell Nolan’s Batman to shut the fuck up.
The Batmobile
Ok – I get it. You were trying to compensate for the “blue lighted” batmobile in the Joel Schumacher movies. But come on! That’s not a batmobile – that’s a tank! Where’s the “bat” in it? It’s not stylish, it’s not elegant. It doesn’t make a statement. And remember that Batman is all about style. That’s why we really like him so much. More about that in the “realism” section.
Gotham
Gotham city is an integral part of Batman. It provides the setting, the atmosphere and sets the mood of the comics. It’s even called Gotham city for a reason. Because it’s gothic. Nolan’s Gotham is a ghastly departure from what Gotham should be. Where are the soaring cathedrals? Where are the gargoyles? Where is all the goth? He’s just gone and turned Batman’s city into Chicago! What the hell was he thinking?
Here’s is Nolan’s Gotham – aka Chicago:
And this is the “real” Gotham:
Poor Fighting Style and Posture
Everyone knows that Batman is one of the greatest martial artists of the DC universe. He’s the master of hundreds of fighting styles. He’s agile, knows his reach with mathematical precision and conserves the minimum amount of energy and movement while fighting.
And yet, Nolan’s Batman fights like a thug. There’s the scene in a pub which I cringed while watching. He’s like a boxer, even taking up a stance to fit. He looks ridiculous:
Notice by the way, how his cape is of a darker color than the suit. It doesn’t mesh. It breaks the continuity and looks just like just another piece of cloth. Not a part of him. It just looks funny. Here’s how it should look:
Notice how the cape drapes, how it “merges” into the cowl. Also see how Batman covers up his eyes. It makes him look scary instead of just a guy in a suit. Remember how cool Ironman’s mask looks when his eyes light up? Why the hell can’t we have the same thing for the bat?
Fake “Realism” in Nolan’s Movies
I’ve saved the worst for last. Nolan and many of his fans excuse all the above mistakes by saying that this is a “realistic” take on Batman and Gotham. I call bullshit on that claim. Because even as depicted, Batman is horribly unrealistic. You want realistic, get rid of the cape. It hinders you, can get caught on stuff, and you can trip over it. The marginal utility of being able to slow your descent and hide some stuff in it is heavily outweighed by the disadvantages. Even Nightwing has remarked that a cape cramps one’s style too much.
But yet we keep it. We have to keep it. Why? Because it’s about image. Because it makes Batman what he is. It’s about style. It’s about maintaining the atmosphere. Even Nolan can’t get rid of the cape without destroying Batman. Moral of the story – this is a comic book. Style and atmosphere trump realism. And I’m just scraping the surface here. Superman is in Batman’s universe as well! Talk about aliens and unrealistic in the same breath?
Spare me the junk realism please. Give me something that for once stays true to the comics. Two great movies I’ve seen that replicate the mood and the style of their respective comics perfectly are “Watchmen” and “Sin City”.
Can we please have a Batman version of “Sin City” for those of us who appreciate what Batman is really about? We’ll gladly leave the Christopher Nolan’s fans at the altar alone.
I don’t agree with this review. I have watched movie and i think the movie was perfect. The points you have highlighted are the part of of comic but for changing that myth into reality, these changes were necessary.
I agree with you about pretty much everything. I think the animated series got it right, but I guess it’s not fair to cite that because cartoons can get away with stuff film never could. For example: Batman’s eyes. In the cartoon there big and white and down right scary. But if they incorparated that in a live action movie they would look like lenses, and you wouldn’t be able to read his face. The Spider-man films encountered the same problem. That’s why his facial reaveal is always in this over the top way. Even in the REBOOT this happened (stupid).But don’t take this as I don’t agree with what you said. I hate how reverential Chris nolan’s name has become. He can do no wrong! I like to think that the numerous plot holes and mediocrity of The Dark Knight Rises has snapped some people out of this Nolan High! I am not even a fan of THe Dark Knight anymore. It’s a long, talky, self-absorbed film that has taken a backseat to the likes of The Avengers. I think Inception is better than The Dark Knight, simply because he didn’t have to follow any source material. Something that, as you correctly pointed out, he isn’t very good at.
In reply to Donovan Austin
I think they did Iron Man’s eyes just right. Glowy and scary. I wish they had used the same technology for Batman too.. :(
Dear Bhagwad,
you seem to dislike the Dark Knight Trilogy for all the wrong reasons. I understand that it is all up to your opinion but sounds rubbish to me.
Lets face your points.
1. The Helmet:
So what. It doesn’t look like you might accept it from comic books. This is not the comic book Batman. Thanks god it is not.
Yet the example picture you like about how the helmet/mask should look alike, that one looks really crappy.
2. The cape:
What does the comic book cape do any better than the cape from the Dark Knight. That one makes no sense.
3. The voice:
Wow, Batman – if not in the suite of Bruce Wayne has a different voice. So nobody can tell his idendity by recognising his voice. Good idea. Yet in comic books there is no voice. Strange, huh?
4. The Batmobile:
Nolan’s Batman uses a vehicle that goes functionality over style. I confess, Burton’s Batmobile was cool looking, but some kind of tank already, equipped with double machine gun and bombs, not to forget the thruster that could burn the enemies down. Nolan developed more into that idea and let go all that cliche looking stuff.
5. Gotham City:
Dude, you ever read a book? Any good novels? Now try to think of Batman written as a novel and the author gives you his/her impression of gotham, yes, and you have to picture it all on your own. Guess you would use pictures of real cities restored in your brain to build up on.
If you are really into Batman comics you should know better than that. Did Gotham City always look like what it does now?
And Nolans Gotham City looks big enough, let alone all these useless statues and gothic elements.
6. The fighting style:
If a bear hugs you, you can not jump like a ninja.
Kidding.
Batman went through several training technics and he went with thugs, to learn why they do what they do, to learn about the thrills and the fear. In most situation to fight like a thug is the beat way to rid off the pests. Why try the kabuki if all you do is fighting thugs anyway? Yet it makes Batman more human instead of that killer machine that could even compete against Superman.
7. The ‘fake’ realism:
That only comes to you because you are the one who thinks those movies have been meant to be realistic. But if you give us your cheap sorry face because ‘others’ told your ears that the movies are realistic, so what. It is still you who got tricked into believing this. Don’t throw it on us.
Now that you have reached a point that made you believe that the movies are realistic, you found yourself wondering where the realism is hidden.
Given that fact alone makes you a worthy character for the next Nolan Batman movie.
But wait, you are lucky. The trilogy ends without anyone knowing you as Batman’s secretly most intrigue enemy ever to exist – “The Realizer”.
In reply to Michael_1978
That last little rant makes you sound like a moron – what in god’s name are blithering about?
I believe the best batman was the 1960’s – Adam West.
I say that believing that the silver age was the best time for comic books and even though it was a bit “strange” it was funny and really showed what 60’s comic books were like. Aswell as a good attempt at replicating the costume when they had so few special effects.
Totally agree on the absolute idiocy of making comic book stories “realistic”, it makes no sense and creates boring and almost depressing movies. The tired old argument of “what works in comics won’t work on the big screen” has been disproven soooo many, i’d say the last one was the Hulk owning Loki. Totally silly and unrealistic – and totally awesome.
As for Nolan’s movies being “thought-provoking” and “deep”, funny how everyone who claims that in this thread also can’t spell….
In reply to Nick
Nolan finally has had the guts to give us a Batman who is not goofy. No foolish rubber suits. No ‘merchandised’ toys. Nolan shows more of Gotham Citys citizens, the citizens are more involved. The conflict of Bruce Wayne – to be Batman or not to be Batman – is better presented. Does Bruce Wayne want to be Batman any longer? Do the citizens need Batman anymore?
Nolan was way more creative with Batman and his suorrounding, his neighbours, his villains.
The overall situation reminds me of the situation that came up when Super Mario Bros. hit the public view. Video game nerds gone weird, could not get it. They did absolutely not understand that the movie was made for the non-video-game-people.
Same here with the Dark Knight Trilogy. It is not made for comic book “nerds” that will rant on anything not comic book alike enough. But it’s made for people that can look beyond their comic books and for people not reading comic books at all. That trilogy is made for people who are not nerds.
In reply to Michael_1978
Do you realize how strange it is to make the statement, “He made a comic book movie for people who don’t read comic’s”, do you even realize how offensive it is to imply that only nerds read comic’s? That’s as idiotic as Abram’s claim to make a Star Trek film for people who don’t like Star Trek, or the even more asinine statement made about the film “The Host” in that it was a Science Fiction film for people that don’t like Science Fiction. Most of those films are terrible films. And before you say it, no money is no barometer of the merits of any film. Many of the films that have stood the test of time that we consider classics did very little box-office on their initial release. Some didn’t even catch on until a re-release after they’d done well abroad. I generally like the first two Nolan films, but they’re not perfect Batman films. Stanley Kubrick didn’t say I’m making Sf films for people who don’t watch Sf. 2001 and A Clockwork Orange are considered excellent films and they are solid SF films. If the comic book Batman can tell intriguing stories why can’t film’s based on Batman, and still stay true to the character. Watchmen for all practical purposes is a comic book film ( and comic) with adult, mature themes, but it’s still fantastic. You might like to believe a lot of criticism of Nolan is only from the “nerds” but it also comes from film buffs as well, and sorry but TDR has some serious plot flaws that detract mightily from it, and it could use some serious editing down. The script in my opinion needed at least one m0re rewrite, and shame on Nolan for taking a character as intriguing as Bane and giving him no “realistic” motivation for doing what he’s doing. Allegory is one thing, but your allegory has to make internal sense, and lots of stuff in that film don’t make sense whether your a comic book fan or not.
In reply to James Nelson
@James
People like you like to misread things.
Did you realise that i never mentioned that Nolan created a comic book movie? He created a movie that is very loosely based on Batman, who indeed is a comic book character. That alone doesn’t turne his movie trilogy into a comic book movie session. The Green Lantern is a comic book movie, with all those goofy and way over the top actions.
Nolan stripped off the comic book feel and turned Batman into a non-comic-book character. Got it now?
I never said that only nerds read comic booksceither. I said that comic book nerds go weird when movie directors like Nolan take on their beloved franchise and turn it into something that is now more accesible.
Even people who like comic books tend to enjoy Nolan’s effort. Only the nerds cry. Hope you understand it now.
If you feel offended because you must, i can’t help you.
Oh, and please – stay away with your box office and film buffs argument. I do not relay on box office sales and the opinions of ‘film buffs’. I follow my own taste in movies and stuff. I have my very own opinion.
What ever shall i care what is realistic to you? Like the movie(s) or not, it’s up to you.
In reply to Michael_1978
“Nolan stripped off the comic book feel and turned Batman into a non-comic-book character”
That’s absurd. If he wants to turn batman into a “non comic book” character, let him give his hero some other name. Some other “…man”. Batman is a comic book character. Without his style which was completely lost in the movies, it..is..not..Batman.
In reply to bhagwad
Dear Baghwad
I know that Batman started off as a comic book hero. That does not imply that the very character of Bruce Wayne/Batman has to be kept trapped inside a comic book feel.
Batman is now more accesible to people that don’t touch a comic book once. For these people Batman now makes more sense.
And Nolan was pretty aware of all the restrictions that came with his vision of The Dark Knight.
With a simple comic book excuse you can goof it up without anyone taking notice, taking aside some ‘film buffs’.
Nolan turned away from that comic book argument. I’m glad he did.
And what exactly is the typical Batman style anyway?
Are we talking about the Batman of the late 30’s? From the 40’s? The 50’s…..60’s ? Which one?
But the biggest problem i see, whenever someone thinks of taking on Batman, is the universe around Batman. Yet again i must ask which one exactly?
The early Batman? The Batman from the 80’s? The Future Batman, who is the earlier Robin or a complete different character at all?
Which Batman does anybody prefer?
One director can not fullfill the dreams of any single Batman fan out there.
Chritopher Nolan took the elements he wanted and created his version of Batman, the best thing he could do.
We will see the future attempts of others.
In reply to Michael_1978
Actually the way your putting that, is not a compliment to Nolan. Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but it makes it out that Nolan did what every other big named Hollywood director does when they get to do a franchise, but have never ever been interested, or know anything about said franchise, and that is to take the most well known, or sensational stories and try to cram them into a movie. Bane put the Batman out of commission in comics for over a year, sells went up, “yep put that in”. “Killing Joke” got attention because Joker is portrayed as a dangerous psychopath and not just a clown, “yep put that in” . Everybody knows that if a comic story made cash and sold a lot, that’s the story you’re going to get. I don’t care if you read comics or not the Bane story was awesome because it happened after years of buildup with the characters and their relationships. It doesn’t work nearly as well as the third act of a trilogy when the character hasn’t established that support group and network.
If you have to strip away the comic elements from character to “make it accessible” to a wider audience, than why is Marvel’s Iron Man and Avengers film doing so well? Avengers made one billion dollars and trust me that didn’t come from all comic book nerds.
Now don’t get me wrong, I like Nolan’s films, I just think he dropped the ball with a weak third act, but the argument many Nolan supporters are using to against people who have voiced legitimate problems with the trilogy are weak and condescending. Batman is a comic book character, and nobody is going to a Batman film to see a non comic book movie. People go to see good films . Period. You make a good film it doesn’t matter what the subject is. Nolan made some good films, and the talent in those films were at the top of their game. This talk about not making the character goofy, or making it realistic is the reason for the success is just ludicrous. A lot of stuff going on in those movies are goofy as hell, but the story he was telling (in BB and TDK) were intriguing enough that I went with it.
And why do people keep inferring that comic book fans want goofy superhero films? Last I heard Green Lantern tanked, and Batman fans haven’t wanted a goofy Batman film since Frank Miller did The Dark Knight Returns back in the 80’s. Man I really hate it when people who don’t know anything about comics try to broadbrush people who do.
In reply to James Nelson
@James
With your latest commentary i think you are straying to far from the main topic, so i will not argue on all your points made.
Let’s keep it with the Batman and the fans and the nerds. That’s why i started to argue in the first place.
Nolan could not ignore the Batman franchise, true. Otherwise his movies would not exist.
I think he did the best thing ever any director has ever done to Batman.
Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, as much as i do respect them, tryed to stay as close as possible to their preferred Batman time period. Yet the fans overall opinions were of mixed results.
Batman 1989: That movie is today highly praised as best attempt to bring the Batman into the theaters. But this is only because it was the first real serious cinematic Batman movie ever, not just a TV show. Still not everyone is satisfied with the Joker being the murderer of Bruce’s parents – because the darn comic book says otherwise.
The second movie already was received with extremely mixed views. It was way too dark for some, because the holy cow that christmas is was not just a merry christmas in here. And why has the pinguin had to be a freaking mutant? Another point not pleasing the overall crowd of fans.
And many fans criticise the choice to have Michael Keaton as Batman (Batman & Bastman Returns) because they do not like his ‘stiff’ acting.
The third movie, Batman Forever was then 1. just too bright compared to Batman Returns, yet too cheesy overall.
Not to speak of the fourth installment the Batman & Robin flic turned out to be.
What ever (comic book) fans expected, not one director could do it right for everyone.
And right here comes the one point at which Nolan did it right.
He took all the elements he wanted to be in his movies and created his very own vision of Batman, his suorroundings, his villains and friends, vehicles etc, keeping the main aspects and characters intact and yet give a damn about the comic book ongoings.
And he closed the story about Batman. He told us how Bruce Wayne became the Batman and he has shown us all the wrongs the had to come with it. And in the end Nolan gave as a final solution how Bruce Wayne can finally escape the Batman situation, thus completing it.
Nolan reinvented Batman, gave him a fresh start.
Nolan freed Batman from the walls of these tony comic book frames and established him as a movie character on his very own.
That fact given, every other director now can create another totally new Batman movie character without scratching/hurting the picture of Nolan or any comic book author.
That is what i call reinventing a character.
@James
Peole like you like to misread things.
Did you realise that i never mentioned that Nolan created a comic book movie? He created a movie that is loosely based on Batman, who indeed is a comic book character. That alone doesn’t turn his movie trilogy into a comic book movie session. The Green Lantern is a comic book movie, with all those goofy and way over the top actions.
Nolan stripped off the comic book feel and turned Batman into a non-comic-book character. Got it now?
I never said that only nerds read comic books either. I said the comic book nerds go weird when movie directors like Nolan take on their beloved franchise and turn it into something that is now more accesible.
Even people who like comic books tend to enjoy Nolan’s effort. Only nerds cry. Hope you understand it now.
If you feel offended because you must, i can’t help you.
Oh, and please – stay away with your box office and film buffs argument. I do not relay on box office sales and the opinions of ‘ film buffs’. I follow my own taste in movies and stuff. I have my very own opinion.
Whatever shall i care what is realistic to you? Like the movie(s) or not, it’s up to you.
Thrilled to hear I’m not the only one not too enthralled with the Nolan Batman films. I liked Batman Begins, but Dark Knight was just okay for me – among other reasons, it felt like a movie where Batman was the side character, and the much hyped Joker wasn’t all that impressive or intimidating for me.
Dark Knight Rises on the other hand was a pretentious, bloated mess. The writing was lazy, the acting terrible, and there seemed to have been more effort put into the trailers than the film itself. In spite of this, people soiled themselves like this was the second coming of Citizen Kane. I even got death threats for writing a review of the film that said as much. I still will say that I thought Dark Knight Rises was the Heaven’s Gate of comic book movies.
Chris Nolan doesn’t have fans, he has a cult. The world at large will move on when they reboot the Batman franchise under hopefully a more loyal direction.
“Chris Nolan doesn’t have fans, he has a cult. The world at large will move on when they reboot the Batman franchise under hopefully a more loyal direction.”
Actually I find that statement to be pretty dead on. Cult is a good way to describe what is going on in films today, and Nolan is not the only director out their who has one. You could say the same for Snyder, Jackson, or Whedon. It’s like people don’t critique films these guys do on any subjective level. “There awesome, everything they do is great every choice they make is the right one, and you’re a moron if you can’t see that!” is the only level of debate you can have with them, and they use box-office numbers to try and support their numbers. TDR was an unexpected monster hit. It’s a good film, but not a perfect film. Chances are a superior Batman film won’t make nearly as much as TDK, but we’ve already had superior films that didn’t make those numbers.
“and they use box-office numbers to try and support their argument. ”
Is the way that should have read. The idea being that many people out in the world don’t go to hit films “just” because they are necessarily good. They go because of the buzz and they feel they don’t want to be the only people that don’t know what everyone is talking about.
Oh yeah and @Micheal_1978
“Still not everyone is satisfied with the Joker being the murderer of Bruce’s parents – because the darn comic book says otherwise.”
No, actually because it’s very lazy writing on every level. It’s a dumbing down of a concept for the sake of simplicity. It’s more comic booky than the actual comic book. Not doing something that cheap is one of the things I give Nolan credit for, and as you obviously see the idea of the Joker as being just this random guy works a lot better and makes more sense. Just because something “was in the darn comic book” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. You wouldn’t make a statement like that about an adaptation of a novel. Why, because people respect novels as an art form; whereas as they don’t necessarily respect comics in the same way, or the opinion of people who read them. You can generally tell where people are coming from by the way they say things.
You are wrong at some points,I’m also a huge batman fan but also an engineer and I do a few martial arts.
Things you are wrong : the suit,the batmobile,batman fighting style,…
the suit is based on the armor of samurai mixed with the armor of a knight of the middle ages.The reason why it is ‘shoddy’ is that if you got a composite armor that you would like to move.In the comics it’s a thight fit and with all kinds of armor underneath.If the suit was like the comic version,Jokers rotweilers would just shred him to pieces.Or it would be so thick that he couldn’t move an inch.
The batmobile must be fast on any terrain,withstand a lot of firepower and should carry even more firepower.And the tumbler is the thing for the job.The 1960’s is very nice but it just can’t do the things it’s asked,the one from the burton films has a turning circle of the moon and the one in the comics are nice but unrealistic.Another option would be a Bowler Wildcat,it’s fast anywhere and can carry all the armor and gadgets.
The fighting style,the pose in the photograph is Hanmi used in every martial art.The one in the comics is nice but a skilled fighter can take him out easily,i encourage you and everybody who dissagrees with me to do some classes and stand in both ways.If you stand ‘menacing’ the badguy easily can push you over,combined with a knife and that thin armor he would be dead in a few seconds.By the way fighting like a thug ? Ok,it’s aggressive but what would you do ? again go to a martial arts class and ask the teacher to do a demo,I do aikido and there are more elegant styles.The one I do is Tissier style (look it up) if there is some nut with a knife or a machine gun trying to get you,you don’t go elegant and in the comics he fights like a thug : no control,wrong fighting techniques,… The thing is with people nowadays they see fighting on tv and stuff and thinks it works it doesn’t.
And your point on realism,how would you do it ? The comics are nice when they are comics,but you can’t do the stuff they do in the comics you are restricted by factors.It’s like Iron Man very good movie and a piece of realism,why ? Because there is no other way,I’m not trying to offend you I respect your thoughts about the movie but I can’t stand it when people critize the way the director have to go by some rules to keep the movie watchable.If Nolan did it your way I probably sit there the complete movie commenting on the fighting style and the gadgets.
In reply to daan
My point is that it shouldn’t be realistic. There are a hundred things wrong with the idea of Batman if you took it too realistically. But that shouldn’t get in the way.
Iron Man for example is not realistic. If I want I can find dozens of problems. But that’s what Iron man is. The cool factor is what matters. The bottom line is that Nolan departed from the comics. And created something that is not Batman at all.
In reply to bhagwad
Yes Batman is supposed to be realistic but get your shit off. This is a different interpretation of Batman. If you think following the comic would automatically make a film great you’re wrong. Nolan’s Batman might not have followed the comics though some story and some characters were based from actual Batman comics that’s what made the film great.The originality,the plot.the intensity,the character developments,the drama etc. That’s what the film great.It strayed off from the comics but gave it a much more awesome Batman film. Following the comic would not automatically make it a great film. That’s why The Dark Knight is considered the best superhero film of all time and The Dark Knight Trilogy itself is one of the best trilogies of all time.If it wasn’t for Nolan’s original idea DC would have been completely obliterated by Marvel
In reply to daan
“The comics are nice when they are comics,but you can’t do the stuff they do in the comics you are restricted by factors.”
The Matrix was made in 1999, and every fight in that film is more exciting than any fight choreographed in all three films in the trilogy. This should not be the case. You don’t even have to do wire work, the point is choreograph a decent fight scene. You know Nolan can do it, just look at that spectacular fight in Inception. Nothing in the Batman films comes close to touching that, and if I expected to see a decent fight, a Batman film would definitely be where I’d expect to find one.