Because you can't simply separate the mediums, which portray the characters.
Actually, uh, yeah, you can. Blade
, for example, is a wholly different take on the material than its comic source, and yet they're both wholly valid interpretations -- just as last year's Transformers
wasn't hurt in any way by Optimus Prime being a Peterbilt truck instead a cab-over.
Just because The Dark Knight
didn't translate, beat-for-beat, your favorite comic stories and origins, doesn't make it any less of a movie. Try criticizing the movie based on what it was
No, I do agree that some of the artistic changes for good or bad can be done right. I didn't mind Optimus Prime being whatever he was. He looked like Optimus. Same with the flames. I did have a major point in that him and Megatron were brothers and I did have a slight problem with the entire makeover of Bumblebee.
How is Blade any different than what is in the comics? I haven't kept up with Blade in a long time (is his comic still around?) but I believed that his origin stayed pretty well to the comics.
The problem I am having with the Dark Knight is this:
What is Christopher Nolan trying to do? Is he trying to re-write Batman? Is he trying to follow more closely to the comics? Because to me, it's hard to do both without stepping on toes.
From what I understood in Batman Begins, he was trying to recreate Batman and the villains. He was trying to make them more real and to do away with the -- fantasy? I don't know how you would say it. Things like the Lazarus Pits with Ra's and the origin of Joker. But essentially, he was trying to make Batman more realistic than anything, no?
We can argue semantics and can argue about this and that but we can agree that there are certain things in Batman that stay true through each medium and each outlet for the character.
- Batman's parents are killed
- Dick Grayson/Robin/Nightwing's parents are killed. Even in the horrendous reboot, Grayson's parents are killed.
- Batman creates the Joker -- Joker's origin is never explained. This I can agree upon with the movie. And I actually liked that Nolan nodded to the comics in this, that Joker gives different reasons for his being. It doesn't have to be the same stories, I just like that the fact that the Joker doesn't have an origin and that he is a pathological liar.
But what I did have a problem with, is that the Joker came out of a vacuum. I thought we would have the delight of seeing Batman (when it was first reported) create the Joker and that is why the Joker is obsessed with the Batman. It doesn't have to be a vat of chemicals. It could be anything but I wanted to see that connection between the two. It could be a botched robbery or something.
Another thing that I simply cannot remove from my mind is Harvey Dent's split personality. Nolan leaves two explainations in the air for Dent's transformation to Two - Face
1/ Dent has always had two personalities buried within himself. A split between good and bad. That personality is brought out by the Joker and by his disfiguring; that what he looks like now represents who he is.
2/ Dent just goes insane from the trauma. He never had two personalities. The loss of Rachel and the disfiguring adds to this trauma and his personality fractures.
Which one of these is the correct one?
Nolan seems to be leaning toward re-creating a new Batman universe devoid of comics except in name only with the re-imaging of Gordon (family), the origins of Dent (which I found actually more plausable), Joker, and Ra's.
I also kept thinking Ramerez was Montoya for some odd reason.
So my question is, what is Nolan doing with the Batman movies?