Your favourite Batman...

[Christopher]

On the one hand, I'd almost like to see the next Batman go the Brave and the Bold route and embrace the wild, retro, comedy/fantasy/sci-fi side of Batman. But on the other hand, the Schumacher films tried to do campy, funny Batman and they didn't entirely work out well, since they took it to too much of an extreme.

[JarodRussell]

I don't think they will reboot any time soon. Can't get the Joker right a second time. And nobody is going to reboot Batman without the Joker.

[Lapis Exilis]

stj wrote:

---

Anders is most definitely talking about charisma. And if "supreme force of will" was supposed to just means the will to continue, it is a remarkably misleading way of putting it. The sensible reading is that "force of will" means the ability of the will to actually change things. And "supreme" would mean supreme.

Ah, sorry - I see where you got the idea now. I was pulling quotes from several paragraphs under that main point. You are correct that in the quote I put up about Batman of the comics now, Anders is referencing a kind of charisma, which is way overplayed by a lot of writers these days, and comes off as pretty ridiculous. However, before he gets into that he speaks more of the kind of will I and Christopher described. Personally, I find that a more compelling part of a heroic character, because, as you say, the kind of charisma referenced doesn't actually exist and only serves to create a cartoon.

Part of the appeal of Batman is that a hero would take on thugs on their own turf and beat them and save those of us who couldn't. Street criminals stand for anyone who would use violence or threats of violence against us, something we all know of from the playground. I think nowadays some people have a resistance to admitting to feeling weak and powerless and daydreaming of being saved. Cosmic conquest is more rewarding I suppose.

The two are not mutually exclusive by any means. Batman, or most any superhero, works as a wish fulfillment fantasy of someone to save us and/ or of being the one who saves people - but, like Ahab, can also be read in a grand symbolical manner if the material is there. It may be why Batman has a flexibility and resonance lacking in some other superheroes. With a deeply personal, all-consuming mission at the core of the story, you can alter a lot of details and keep the essence of the character. In contrast, Superman works on the same wish fulfillment level, but he saves people because he can, not because he is driven to. He's not engaged in anything that could be read as trying to prove something to himself, anyone else, or the cosmos.

You may not care for the symbolic reading of Batman or Moby Dick - that's the nice thing about stories, you can pay attention to what resonates for you and ignore the rest.

[Christopher]

I disagree about Superman. He doesn't just defend the Earth because he can. He defends it because he already lost the world of his birth, lost his entire species, and he's determined to make sure nothing like that ever happens to his adopted home and people. It's not really that different from Batman -- he has to live with the loss he couldn't prevent, and he deals with that by doing all he can to keep it from happening again. True, he had a happier upbringing because of the Kents, but that inconceivably vast tragedy in his past still has a powerful impact on him, and his status as the only living Kryptonian brings a certain loneliness with it, motivating a powerful drive not to lose the people he cares about. The key difference is that it's more personal for Superman. Batman is driven to make sure other children don't lose their parents, but the people he's compelled to protect are mostly strangers -- and if anything, the people he is close to are the ones he draws into his fight and shares the danger with. Superman has more of a family, both adoptive and extended, and is closer to the people of Metropolis and the world, so he sees it more as taking care of his family and community. But they share a similar compulsion to prevent loss because of their personal experience with loss.

[Brikar99]

Christopher wrote:

---

That might be a good approach for a film reboot that would be distinctly different from Nolan's version. Denny O'Neill's Batman as globetrotting adventurer, master detective, and romantic lead. Avoiding the camp and cartooniness of the Burton and Schumacher movies, but also very different from Nolan's approach. It would also fit more neatly into a shared Justice League universe.

I would be totally on board for such a film.

[Captaindemotion]

Christopher wrote:

---

On the one hand, I'd almost like to see the next Batman go the Brave and the Bold route and embrace the wild, retro, comedy/fantasy/sci-fi side of Batman. But on the other hand, the Schumacher films tried to do campy, funny Batman and they didn't entirely work out well, since they took it to too much of an extreme.

(emphasis added by me)

I'd say that one of the problems with B&R's camp is that they didn't take it far enough. At least with the 1960s show, the unashamedly made it tongue-and-cheek (even if they may not have been intending it to be 'camp'). They embraced the silliness whole-heartedly and went all the way with it.

With B&R, they didn't quite know what they wanted to do, which made it even more of a mish-mash and a mess. You had all the corny one-liners and jokes but then again, you had a plotline featuring an ailing Alfred, which was played straight (and given some dignity by the late Michael Gough). You had Mr Freeze grieving for his wife and you had tension between Bruce and Dick.

It was like they were trying to mix some of the seriousness of the Burton movies along with the camp of the 1960s show and ended up doing neither right. At least the 1960s show was good at what it did.

[Gojira]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

I don't think they will reboot any time soon. Can't get the Joker right a second time. And nobody is going to reboot Batman without the Joker.

I don't foresee another solo Batman trilogy for another 10-15 years.

[stj]

The symbolic interpretations of Batman whose "supreme force of will" awes people with superpowers are the ones I can't see. Other, less grandiose (as in megalomanical delusions) readings seem far more appropriate. My comments were aimed directly at Anders', not elsewhere.

But since it comes up, I don't think Moby Dick permits much reading other than a symbolic one. That may be why some people bitterly hate being forced to read it, or even boast of never having read it, like Spider Robinson if I remember correctly.

[Captaindemotion]

Gojira wrote:

---

I don't foresee another solo Batman trilogy for another 10-15 years.

I respectfully say you're wrong there.

Batman movies have consistently been a huge earner for WB for over 20 years - even Batman and Robin made money for them. But the last 2 movies have taken the $$$$ to a new level for them (it's hard to remember now that Begins' box-office take was viewed as disappointing at the time). And Batman seems to be WB and DC's only surefire hit superhero, after Green Lantern flopped and Superman Returns underperformed.

Even after the mauling that B&R got, the series was rebooted (the first movie I remember this term being used in connection with) and back onscreen within 8 years (1997 - 2005). At the time, some thought that this was a bit soon but that was an eternity compared to the indecent haste with which The Amazing Spider-man rebooted the webslinger). WB are also rebooting Superman, with a 7 year gap between 2006's Superman Returns and next year's Man of Steel.

So to suggest that they'll put one of their biggest earners - and don't forget that they've also lost the money factory that is the Harry Potter series - into cold storage for over a decade, just seems way off the mark to me.

[Gojira]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I respectfully say you're wrong there.

Batman movies have consistently been a huge earner for WB for over 20 years - even Batman and Robin made money for them. But the last 2 movies have taken the $$$$ to a new level for them (it's hard to remember now that Begins' box-office take was viewed as disappointing at the time). And Batman seems to be WB and DC's only surefire hit superhero, after Green Lantern flopped and Superman Returns underperformed.

Even after the mauling that B&R got, the series was rebooted (the first movie I remember this term being used in connection with) and back onscreen within 8 years (1997 - 2005). At the time, some thought that this was a bit soon but that was an eternity compared to the indecent haste with which The Amazing Spider-man rebooted the webslinger). WB are also rebooting Superman, with a 7 year gap between 2006's Superman Returns and next year's Man of Steel.

So to suggest that they'll put one of their biggest earners - and don't forget that they've also lost the money factory that is the Harry Potter series - into cold storage for over a decade, just seems way off the mark to me.

I can be Flexible in my opinions and you may be right!

My question is does Nolan have any say in the matter if WB wants to continue the franchise in a style similar or identical to his?

[Warped9]

Nolan has said he's done with it. I highly doubt beyond that he has any say in regard to how WB would want to proceed.

[Christopher]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I'd say that one of the problems with B&R's camp is that they didn't take it far enough....

It was like they were trying to mix some of the seriousness of the Burton movies along with the camp of the 1960s show and ended up doing neither right. At least the 1960s show was good at what it did.

In fact, I agree with you. Those are both problems with it -- on the one hand, it was an inconsistent blend of seriousness and camp, and on the other hand, the camp elements were way overdone. So it was both too much and too little.

[Warped9]

This makes the Adam West series look...sane.

[Gojira]

^ Am I crazy because I like the movie Batman & Robin?

[Warped9]

Gojira wrote:

---

^ Am I crazy because I like the movie Batman & Robin?

Uh...no comment.