If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rotten Tomatoes)   "Whoever Warner Bros hires to reboot the 'Batman' films a few years from now, I wish you luck. The bar is as high as it could possibly be"   (rottentomatoes.com) divider line 176
    More: Cool, Batman, Time Out New York, Moviefone, Ant-Man, HitFix, TDKR, La Grande, reboot  
•       •       •

7387 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 12:09:53 AM

Supes: Wayne 985: The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.


Let alternate universe Batman be a killer
 
2012-07-17 12:12:33 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Supes: Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.

What you describe is the Punisher-not Batman. One of the great things about Nolan was that he understood the concept that what makes Batman a hero was that he wasn't out for revenge.

It's one of the reasons I wasn't too big on the Burton films was Batman running around killing people.


It seemed awesome to me growing up, as I was a Marvel kid. Looking back, yes, it just didn't seem right. Still was a pretty good movie. And a great antidote to '60s Batman.
 
2012-07-17 12:19:12 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Batman is *literally* from the 40s.

The Joker was in the first 'Batman' comic in 1940.
Two face first appeared in.....the 40s.
Cat Woman first appeared in....the 40s.

Okay, now brace yourselves for this...Bane first appeared in....the 90s. 1993.

The newest character in the 'new' Batman movie is 19 years old.


This is actually a really good point. Hell, every superhero franchise falls into this trap. New Spider-Man is still in love with Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane Watson. Superman has Lois Lane. Iron Man has to fight Whiplash.

But I have to wonder, how well would these movies be accepted if they blazed a new trail for the character, instead of using established characters from the pre-existing lore?

Look at how many threads we've had on TDKR, before any details were out. How many discussions were had over which villain should be the new rival for Batman? Would it be Bane or the Riddler or someone different? I remember markedly few suggestions that maybe Batman could take on a new enemy, someone who didn't exist in a previous continuity. And when we did get a new character on the roster - John Blake - there was plenty of speculation as to what role he would fill. Would he be a parallel to Dick Grayson, maybe Nightwing or Azrael? Would he be the Joker hiding in plain sight?

I can't help but wonder if, when confronted with a character with a massive backstory across several media, we find it more comforting to be presented with characters we know and expect. Otherwise, maybe it feels more like the studio is using the name of a known character to sell a new plot. I said something similar about "G.I. Joe" when it came out. I didn't think it was very good, but I thought maybe it could have been better if it were just a random action film by any name, instead of trying to force a few characters into the G.I. Joe mold.

Similarly, imagine if TDK were released with Batman fighting some new villain. Would there have been an epic outcry asking where the Joker was, or whatever happened to the Riddler? Is it only because we expect those characters as part of a complete story arc? Would we be more accepting if the movies were coming one by one, more like Bond flicks, as mentioned upthread?
 
2012-07-17 12:32:35 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: t's cool. Just wnated to understand.

Personally, the Joker in the Red Hood and Return may have good voice acting, yet it is the SAME joker from B:TAS. The character isn't done differently, with the exception of actually having some real VIOLENCE from the Joker. Joker in the B:TAS world was creepy as hell, yet he still didn't do alot of stuff on screen like he did in those movies. He is basically the 60's batman with the creepiness turned to eleventy.

That doesn't cut it if you are trying to bring something different to the table. YMMV of course, I just don't see where they are night and day better then this Batman world's Joker. Ledger's Joker worked well for this interpretation of the world. The first 2 movies of this trilogy have had a grounded, believeable sense to them. They have enough reality to have us think "Hey this COULD happen" in the back of our minds, yet enough fantastical stuff to remind us it's a comic book movie. You can;t have B:TAS Joker and achieve that.

/and Scarecrow was, is and always has been pretty lame


I vote BTW, that TAS Joker is the greatest for an unfair reason: he's a Joker for all seasons. Over an entire series we got to see light and dark. We got to see many aspects of Hamill as Joker, to the point that many people can seize on their favorite interpretation. As testament to that fact, let me post my common post, where a Hamill imitator makes Ledger sound like a rank amateur: great closing
 
2012-07-17 12:36:39 AM

Supes: bglove25: Because, despite Batman being my favorite superhero, I don't have time to watch and compare every animated work or comic book that comes out concerning him? Yeah, I guess. But um, none of the voice actors was ever asked to physically portray the Joker.

Regardless of not "physiclally portraying him," Mark Hamill is a damn good Joker. And Kevin Conroy frankly the best Batman.


Let's have a show of hands here, who here reads the comics with the voices of EVERYONE from Batman:TAS in their heads?

AND YES, I liked the live action stuff.
 
2012-07-17 01:00:55 AM

Fano: Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

For humoring me, I submit the best death for the "original" Joker


The best death was Arkham City.

"That actually is pretty funny."
 
2012-07-17 01:25:11 AM
I hit this thread way late and it's probably already dead like the original Batman, but I just wanted to throw in my weight in favor of a rotoscoped film. Get a bunch of no-name, pretty faced actors to act out the roles, but get all the old Batman: TAS voice actors to voice over everything. Hamil. Conroy. Get the original Harley, too.

Don't make the next Batman an emo like Bales played him. Don't make him a joke like Clooney played him. Just let Batman be Batman, cleaning up the streets.
 
2012-07-17 01:30:25 AM

Wayne 985: Fano: Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

For humoring me, I submit the best death for the "original" Joker

The best death was Arkham City.

"That actually is pretty funny."


Gotta love Batman laughing at the Joker
 
2012-07-17 01:35:19 AM

HotWingAgenda: I hit this thread way late and it's probably already dead like the original Batman, but I just wanted to throw in my weight in favor of a rotoscoped film. Get a bunch of no-name, pretty faced actors to act out the roles, but get all the old Batman: TAS voice actors to voice over everything. Hamil. Conroy. Get the original Harley, too.

Don't make the next Batman an emo like Bales played him. Don't make him a joke like Clooney played him. Just let Batman be Batman, cleaning up the streets.


www.exposay.com
I love Sorkin, but I'm willing to budge for this
 
2012-07-17 01:38:04 AM

bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.


Mask of the Phantasm actually got a pretty wide theatrical release back during the holiday season of 1993. I took my little brother to see it Christmas Day.
 
2012-07-17 01:55:20 AM
Please DC/Warner
1.bp.blogspot.com

And

media.comicvine.com
 
2012-07-17 02:00:15 AM

Fano: I love Sorkin, but I'm willing to budge for this


Agreed. And Kristen Bell as Catwoman.


idesigniphone.net

/oh so hot
 
2012-07-17 07:29:28 AM
Actually, if folks want to see a darker Batman, let's go the Elseworlds route with "Speeding Bullets:"

upload.wikimedia.org

Kal-el is found instead by childless Martha and Thomas Wayne. Little Bruce sees his parents murdered in Crime Alley, and his powers then manifest. Scratch one shooter via heat vision.

Batman's dark vigilante outlook and penchant for terrorizing the wicked combined with all of Superman's powers. If you think Bats is intimidating with gadgets and athleticism, you should see him with flight, super strength, speed, heat vision, hearing, sight, x-ray vision, etc. It's a great read.
 
2012-07-17 09:15:06 AM
Anne Hathaway is the best thing in this tediously overlong, disappointing final chapter of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.

- Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile
 
2012-07-17 10:16:16 AM

Madbassist1: frepnog: except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds?

Jim from Saint Paul: A. ROCKET. BLEW. UP. A. STAR.

Um...boys boys...we must learn to read more carefully. I anticipated....ANTICIPATED the geek butthurt sure to come from you on this...

My initial post (with relevant commentary bolded)

Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

So what occurs before then...well, who farking cares, I wasnt talking about that.

Now...continue to biatch....thank you.


I understnad your point. I am not complainging about your chronology of events sir.

MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.
 
2012-07-17 11:08:10 AM

Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.


So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.
 
2012-07-17 12:31:54 PM

Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.


Well, you actually watch it launch like a bottle rocket, so yeah. Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:14 PM

Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.


lol

Hey, I just want shows to follow their own rules (whatever they may be). I am unaware of the anything in Star Trek that allows for what they did.
 
2012-07-17 01:32:32 PM

Fano: Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.


That depends...did the aircraft carrier drive off the road and roll down a ravine first?
 
2012-07-17 02:07:34 PM

Fano: Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.

Well, you actually watch it launch like a bottle rocket, so yeah. Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.


the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

i have no problems with the aliens in trek, with warp, with geordie's visor, with Q, or anything that seems in place in the unvierse no matter what it was.

a bottle rocket blowing up a star was pants on head retarded.
 
2012-07-17 02:23:07 PM

frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??


Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.
 
2012-07-17 02:47:29 PM

Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.


if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.

t0.gstatic.com

EARF. Make me CARE that a planet is about it bite the big one.
 
2012-07-17 02:47:38 PM

devilEther: Anne Hathaway is the best thing in this tediously overlong, disappointing final chapter of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.

- Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile


i6.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-17 02:57:25 PM

Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.


Q ='s other dimensional pony being.

Play by your own rules. This whole rocket thing doesn't. I would go into more detail why, yet I am not sure you'd care. Like at all. It's not the only thing that's dumb about the movie, it's just the one I'm talking about too.

/why go baci in time to when Soren can launch the rocket?!
//GO BACK TO WHEN THEY MEET HIM ON THE ETNERRPRISE, PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE, END MOVIE ROLL CREDITS
///I thought this before Red Letter Media pointed it out, I swear
 
2012-07-17 03:07:32 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: /why go baci in time to when Soren can launch the rocket?!
//GO BACK TO WHEN THEY MEET HIM ON THE ETNERRPRISE, PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE, END MOVIE ROLL CREDITS
///I thought this before Red Letter Media pointed it out, I swear


I thought that in the theater while watching the movie the first time. :)


frepnog: if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.


I don't think they explain it in the movie, I was just offering an explanation that fits within the "rules" of the Star Trek universe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really defending the movie. I thought it was a pretty shiatty tbh. I'm just surprised sometimes when I encounter some people's "breaking point" for suspension of disbelief. Like a guy I worked with who didn't like Total Recall because "going to Mars was just too unrealistic." Three-breasted hookers, mutants, memory manipulation, Schwarzenegger's acting...those were all perfectly acceptable, but actually travelling to Mars? That was just too much for him.
 
2012-07-17 03:08:02 PM

frepnog: Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.

if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.

[t0.gstatic.com image 299x168]

EARF. Make me CARE that a planet is about it bite the big one.


Warp 1 = speed of light, right? How does a rocket with no warp capability get from planet to sun in 11 seconds? Because PLOT ADVANCEMENT THAT'S WHY.

Generations sucked.
 
Displayed 26 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report