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 think your punishment must be very severe talking shit about nolan
Romeo – let’s not forget that Burton killed off Joker and Penguin, while Schumaker killed off Two-Face.
Personally, I thought these movies were fantastic in their own right, as we’re the films from 89 to 97. I know, I know, the Shumaker films were campy and over the top (and certainly not my favorite) but they were HIS adaptation of the characters. If you take a look at every single comic book publication of batman from 1939 to now, you will see dozens of different writers giving their adaptations. Why can’t film makers do the same? My view is that it was Nolan’s adaptation, his universe, and his story to tell his way. He felt it was an old story that needed to be brought into the 21st century and he did it that way. It wasn’t done wrong, and it wasn’t done right. It was simply done the way he imagined it and he shared that imagining with all of us.
Maybe one of you, or another fan you know, has their own version of the story or their own adaptation and imagining of the characters. If so, grab a pen and put it to paper. Make your own comic book or script and tell it your way. Pitch the idea to someone who can make it happen. Those who have had the luck to bring their stories to us all started out just like the rest of us, as fans. Who knows, maybe you could direct a future Batman film.
Where is the section talking about how crappy the villians have been? I mean, to be honest The dark knight rises was horrible. Bane was a joke…… Sigh…..such is life…..oh, and one last thing. Fuck The Realism! I mean come on. Let Batman do so very weird shit, and when people ask “well how is that possibly?”..All you have to do is say “He’s Fucking Batman”. End of story.
Not a batman fan, not a comic book fan, but am a fan of Nolan (memento is the best damn movie of the last 30 years) However, Hated this film, was so dull, horrible action scenes and awful dialogue.
I couldn’t care less about how accurately batman was portrayed, I just wanted to see a good film, and was very dissapointed.
Not only did they mess up the look and feel of the Batman universe in the transition of bringing the comics to cinema, but they also destroyed the storyline. If anyone disagrees they need to check the comics, I’d suggest reading The Long Haloween and then watch the Nolan movies to see how many plot differences you notice.
Firstly, Nolan’s Batman movies in general, with the exception of Begins, are terrible examples of cinematic technique. That’s on a pure technical level. Nolan’s and Pfister’s ignorance regarding digital cameras and technology become readily apparent in their interviews where they make a lot of statements that, to informed individuals, are incredibly off the mark and wildly wrong in magazines like American Cinematographer or in documentaries where they share their knowledge about the transition from celluloid to digital. In 20 years time, when the public becomes more informed about digital acquisition, these statements will sound as ridiculous and stubbornly outdated as imperialist comments made about “third world” countries at the turn of the 20th century. Nolan has even called 3D technology a misnomer — that since all imagery is designed to appear in depth or in perspective then 3d has no distinction as a term outside of it being a marketing tool. He’s right the term is a marketing tool, but unlike 2d images which are obviously confined to their surface, 3d gives the illusion of having been freed from the confines of its surface, hence it has an extra layer of depth and the illusion of existinc in real time and space SEPARATE FROM the screen, and needed a special designation from the previous technology. The real question is why did Nolan use that statement — “3D is actually a misnomer” — as a way of suggesting that the 3d process itself is flawed? There have been many amazing and convincing staples of 3D which to Nolan’s mind may not hold up, but which many other opticians have been inspired by and find to be very convincing indeed? It’s because Nolan and Pfister are artists, not technicians. They don’t understand the mathematics and physics behind the very technology they use, not like Paul Verhoeven (physics major) or Brian De Palma (physics major) or Anton Furst (physics major, laser designer) or James Cameron (not physics major but someone who educated himself with graduate research on photochemical processes). And yet Nolan and Pfister, after being lucky enough to capture lightning in a bottle with TDK, feel they suddenly have the clout to brainwash the public into thinking their way is the right way. It’s JUST ONE WAY. And it’s the way they use to convince the studios their work is somehow different, when all it is is the same story told with an independent flair. Years from now an objective audience will find that their movies have not withstood the test of time. People will still be talking Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, as innovations of cinematic science, technology, art and entertainment. The Nolan Batman films are just juggernaut receptacles of limitless budget and the best of what Hollywood has to offer, and yet they are hollow, empty, and artless, and still offer nothing in the way of innovation. And don’t mention IMAX. People had been using IMAX long before. Again, it’s a format like 70mm. Are we supposed to give someone a star every time they use a new aspect ratio? And please don’t say that Nolan put comics in the real world. Batman had been put in the real world. The Gotham of the 1966 series was shot in REAL locations, in addition to sound stages. Gotham in the 1966 series looked like New York and Chicago. And Donner’s Superman was also set in a REAL NEW YORK. One last caveat. Watch “The Dark Knight” and “Heat” back to back. “Heat” is indeed a good story, well thought out. Its clone TDK is a pale comparison. I’m sorry I can’t justify remaking the same damn film in look and feel and calling it original and innovative. “Heat’s” cinematography was so unique that for “TDK” to have achieved the same look required blatant imitation. And coincidentally Nolan and Pfister bonded over their affection for “Heat” during a film festival in which Nolan showcased “The Following.” Oh yeah, it’s interesting that both Pfister and Nolan talk so much crap about digital cinematography when another Michael Mann film they liked had great digital cinematography — “Collateral.” These two just need to sit down and shut up, and stop turning their luck into a license to opine about subjects of which they clearly have no real technical knowledge.
Batman is like Bond – sooner or later will make great comback in his original style (I hope…). For now we have Batman in daylight, and Bond with prostate gland problems.
I am so glad I found your blog post. You put my opinions into words. Every word you speak on Nolan’s Batman is the truth. Finishing the post by referencing Watchmen, again, amazing and raised your credibility tenfold.
I would kill for a Batman film shot in the style of the Batman Animated Series cartoon from 1992, but done in the same way Snyder brought Watchmen to life.
People like us need to all segregate ourselves from the unwashed, clueless masses of sheep.
I am completely with you. I greatly prefer the Tim Burton movies (I even liked Batman and Robin batnipples aside). Everything about Nolan’s films has just been a major drag. I hate how he portrayed Bane as just this tough guy with martial arts training. The real Bane is just some thug criminal, but with the super strength from his toxins. I get that Nolan things just having a tough guy is more realistic, but part of what makes batman great is his defeating villains with real super powers despite him just being a man.
In reply to Taylor
Oh, also his choice of casting was abysmal. Christian Bale has to be the absolute worst Batman ever. I even liked george clooney better. Though my personal favorite was Val Kilmer, and come on, Jack Nicholson was a much better joker. He had the right personality while in the Dark Knight Heath Ledger was this whiny bitch with no sense of humor. He’s the joker, a laughing nutcase, thats what he is supposed to be. In essence these new movies aren’t bad movies, but they aren’t batman movies. They are generic action films that happen to have a guy dressed as a bat.
Have to agree on the realism part. Batman is not real , never was, why Nolan chose to make things so hyper real yet hyper fake is beyond me, case in point, Batman’s armor. He has all that armor, it’s realistic, right? Except for the fact that batmans eyes and mouth are exposed? It doesn’t make sense. batman should feel real in his world, not in ours. Nolan has put Batman in our world, where he does not exist, and therfore, nolans Batworld comes off as fake and riddled with holes.
What annoyed me about Nolan I’m afraid is Nolan’s lack of emotion or direction in his Batman movies. The convoluted scenes, the wooden dialogue, along with the fact that every “extra” reads their lines in their scenes like they’re making an oscar award movie. Take also the fact that Nolon hasn’t learned anything fro DK2 and crammed as much useless pretentious crap as he can for D3 is a sign that Nolan doesn’t realy have a directors vision. Often less is more but Nolan believes that more is more. Ledger saved the DK2 and it was evident that Nolan didn;t have Ledger to save DK3.
Among the aspects of Nolans realism lies its sheer stupidity. For example in DK3 we see the hundreds of gotham’s police force charge blindly towards Banes men, who are all armed to the teeth with guns, yet the police who were unarmed coming out of the sewers seem content in charging into a wall of weapons, that’s not something one can overlook, even in the comic fantasy world, let alone “realism” in our world.
Out of all the things Nolan does wrong, the biggest reason why Nolans DK sucks is simply ..Nolans lack of vision or skill. Take Batman out of the equation, imagine it was a cop and robber movie, good VS evil, which it primarily is, take those things away and noland Bat movies are quite unimpressive, but if i were to be frank, I’d say that they’re terrible. The plot had major in DK3 had major holes, the acting was so stiff made cardboard look like rubber. Not to mention everyone in DK3 was so so stupid or so so smart. Everyone seems to know that Wayne is Batman without so much as a blink of the eye and Batman takes Catwoman word ( after she burglarized him) when she leads him into the sewers into Banes trap. Even the dumbest comic book character wouldn’t so such a thing, let alone a man who’s supposed to be as smart as Batman.
Batman begins was arugably nolans best batman as a whole, but even that lacked emotion or even exhiliration. DK2 was special only in Ledgers part, everything else in that movie was average. DK3 had neither the good point of 1 and 2 and was just a rushed, careless and amatuerish. DK3 should have been named ” Gothams stupid citizens you wish you nuke” Most of the movie had neither Bane nor Batman and how Nolan could even call it dark knight was an insult to any comic book fan. Almost 3 hours and Batman comes out around 2-3 major times. the rest was spent on Gothams stupid cops and citizens and moronic carboard villians. there were several occasions during DK3 where i prayed that Bane would just hurry up and blow the living hell out of gotham and it’s imbeciles and of course Levitts character, Blake. Oh, and blake knew Batman was Bruce Wayne just because he once met Wayne and Wayne had the same look of an orphaned boy much like he was…are you KIDDING me Nolan? Who in the whole damn didn’t know Wayne was batman? It was like some bad joke.
Banes voice was plainfully painful to listen to. Not only could i not hear what the hell he was saying, he sounded like an old British man who;s just come off a bothced circumcision. Banes voice went from high to low to high, it was like he was getting kicked in the nads everytime he spoke. then Bane tries to manipulate the stock market with force? As if the stock securities wouldnt reverse any of it after the fact? This stupidity nolan calls “plot” would never happen in the comics, let alone the real world. There are so many things wrong with DK 3 it boggles the mind. Even TMNT is better put together. I’m afraid Nolans biggest problem is the fact that he is not a great movie maker, he’s unimaginative, has no sense of direction or flow, has an ocd way of thinking when it comes to editing and he cares not for what makes a great movie. the great director Miyazaki has said himself that a great movie needs three things, a memorable story, memorable characters, and memorable places. DK3 has not one of those 3 essential things, in fact, DK3 has everything i wish to never rememebr if I could help it.
PS, Watchmen was a complete stinker as well, and i have to say, way worse than any comic movie I ever saw. That movie made was a prime example of what happens when you let pre pubed teens make a movie.