Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JacksonArcher, Oct 27, 2010.
I never knew Batman killed vampires.
Right, but trying to understand the authentic Batman has twisted my head in loops. To straw-man a medley of arguments I've heard in these forums, the Adam West Batman is a mockery of the definitive Batman, who of course was defined in the 1970s (or, alternately, the 1980s, depending who is talking, although the 1970s appear to be more popular). It's as if time travel is needed to unknot the argument or I'm so dense or manipulative I had no idea what they were on about really.
Pretty much. That's an interesting question, aesthetic. Generally I'd say the Nolan films are the better movies, and handily so - although Batman Returns has a deserved third place, however distant, in my book.
But the Batmobile? The Danny Elfman theme? The Gothic Gotham? I do tend to reflexively think of that when I think of Batman, for precisely the same reasons others go to their preferred iterations - saw it first. And yeah, I like the Gotham and the Batmobile and (especially) the orchestral soundtrack of the Burton films more than I do Nolan's.
Yeah, it won't deter me from seeing TDKR in the least.
Still, a small part of me was hoping that along with a rebuilt new mansion we might get a newer Batmobile. I just don't see the Tumbler, a vehicle built for the military and looks like it was, as being practical(as many champion it is) in the urban street environment where roads become alleys quickly sometimes.
In a movie about a dude dressing up as a giant bat.
The problem with the 'Nolan-verse' is that it's so grounded in realism the central conceit of some dude dressing up and fighting crime is actually too far fetched.
Nolan's films are set in the 'real world' in the same sense, say, Die Hard is. The Tumbler makes perfect sense with that kind of action film logic, as does Batman himself.
That's a decent analogy. When you get into genre materiel it becomes a complete fiction and fantasy even if the line between fantasy and "reality" is rather fine and blurred. Many run-of-the-mill action and thriller films also ignore basic physics and folks often give these a pass just for the sake of enjoyment.
I think Nolan has taken the Batman idea as close as you can to portraying it as "real" without actually ditching many of the things we recognize that make Batman. Reading these forums it's evident that quite a few people prefer Batman played more as a live-action comic book along with the many exaggerated elements found there. But Nolan has adopted much of the sensibility of Miller's Year One and translated it to live-action on the big screen.
For me it works partly because it gives Batman and his world some substance that you lose when played more as a comic book. I really liked the '89 Tim Burton film when it first came out because at the time it was so far above what had been done before with superheroes as live-action. I still have quite a fondness for the film, but time hasn't been very kind in some respects and the camp elements I overlooked before are much more apparent now. Granted they are still nowhere near as bad as the '60s TV series or the three films that followed, but it's there. There are still elements of camp to Nolan's films, but they are played down and not really obvious as a primary element.
The "conventional" type of batmobile befits a film or TV series aiming to do a live-action comic book in a more immediately recognizable form. But in the Nolan-verse Batman it would look out of place because you cannot imagine Nolan's and Bale's Batman ever driving such a thing. The Nolan Batman's hardware has a harder and far less theatrical or operatic quality. It looks high tech and unusual yet without being comical. Nolan's hardware looks more science fictional rather than theatrical.
I, too, was disappointed and thought when I saw the first pics of the Tumbler. But later as I got into the film's "reality" I began to see it differently and to appreciate it on a different level. Now I quite like it as I also like the batpod.
In a sense Nolan is doing to Batman onscreen what the much of the '70s writers and artists did for Batman in the comics.
hehe... the Nolanverse is so grounded in realism that two peeps can take a dive off of a skyscraper, slam into a vehicle on the ground below, and walk away without a scratch.the terms Nolan and realism should never be used in the same sentence.
For the most part, I really loved both the Tumbler and the Batpod, but I did have at least some of the following issues.
1) In Batman Begins, when Batman is driving Rachel to the Batcave, the film did not convince me that anything reasonable happened when the Tumbler went into stealth mode. I thought the cops losing sight of the Tumbler was completely ridiculous, since their helicopter had been shining a light squarely on it.
2) Also in Batman Begins, just before, my disbelief was not as suspended as the Tumbler was when it was driving across the rooftop(s) of old building(s). I kept waiting for a roof to cave in.
3) In The Dark Knight, I did not think it was reasonable for Batman to shoot/blow up objects in the path of the Batpod. There could have been, e.g., a pair of lovers making out in one of those cars. Similarly, back in Batman Begins, some of the police chasing the Tumbler might have been seriously injured. The unpredictable chaos that ensues from such wrecks in real life does not fit in with the "Batman doesn't kill" mythos. I want my Batman to be less irresponsible.
On the plus side, the otherwise hyperrealistic design is a refreshing change from the completely ridiculous-looking Burton Batmobile. As an explicit military spinoff, the Tumbler also makes a lot more sense. I also liked the subplot of Reese figuring out Batman's identity based on the Tumbler.
Thought we went over this. Batman doesn't kill unless it's a fat guy and he happens to be holding some dynamite he wants to shove down his pants.
I think we can all agree Adam West's Batmobile is the most plausible. It looks like an actual car someone could really drive, and if memory serves, that's exactly what it was.
Here they are, live action Batmobiles:
1960's era Batmobile
Tim Burton's era Batmobile
Joe Schumacher's era Batmobile
Chris Nolan's era Batmobile
I've always thought Burton's Batmobile looked the best.
Where's the %*$& teaser trailer! It's the only reason I got out of bed this morning.
I don't think it's scheduled for official release until Monday.
True, it's not a literal 1940s style, but I still think Burton put enough of that in there to capture the feel and spirit of those early-era Batman comics. Not to mention the old 40s movie serials.
Both of those might have taken place in the "real" world, but were always so melodramatic they might as well have been set in Burton's Gotham.
Both of these are equally pretty badass, but to me Burton's Batmobile just says "Batman" in a way the other one doesn't.
Even after two movies, I just have a hard time associating the Tumbler with any kind of Batman I grew up reading. Seems more like something The Punisher would drive.
Or Frank Miller's Batman.
Like the horrible, awful music that was prevalent in the 80s ( not that things have really changed all that much ).
Search the web. It's not exactly legal to post links or pictures to it yet.
Dammit, I just got Rick rolled!!!
I saw the trailer with Harry Potter. It was great. Audiences cheered when they realized it was Batman.
Separate names with a comma.