New Green Lantern movie concept art
- Thread starter trekkiebaggio
- Start date
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Re: Green Lantern's Light!
Batman fighting without his cape just wouldn't be right. Perhaps once or twice but having velcro hold on Batman's cape just wouldn't be right. It's part of the suspension of disbelief. Like Bruce Banner not getting arrested for public nudity when he hulks out or Clark Kent wearing his costume under his clothes.
Batman fighting without his cape just wouldn't be right. Perhaps once or twice but having velcro hold on Batman's cape just wouldn't be right. It's part of the suspension of disbelief. Like Bruce Banner not getting arrested for public nudity when he hulks out or Clark Kent wearing his costume under his clothes.
Not in this movie but it seems they could ultimately set up the Sinestro Corp for movie number two and then a compact war of light for the third.
Notice that I've never actually said that I disliked the Oa concept art. It's just the attitude behind some of the filmmaker's statements I find worrisome. Disdain for the source material you're adapting is almost always a bad thing, IMO.
If the final script in any way resembles the first one - and some of the details sound the same - it's rather hard to say that Hammond is a supporting villain and Parallax the "main" one. Parallax is represented in a way very different from the comics - from all reports, very much like the "main antagonist" in the first script - and Hammond's story is very much central to what Parallax is and does.
Yes. They're good movies, but I think Nolan's unease with the pulpier aspects of the character makes his Batman movies less than what they could have been. And I think it's sad and idiotic that Hollywood is now making Batman movies that you can't take a young child to see.
I know that I'd show my nieces Batman, Batman Forever or even (
) Batman and Robin before I'd ever consider either of the Nolan movies.But we're getting off topic here. Most of the GL stuff we've seen so far looks pretty good, and I look forward to seeing more.
There is no disdain in stating that the filmmakers want the visual presentation of the movie to have more "depth and substance" than the drawings in a comic book. It would be worrisome if they felt differently.
Well, it's not like the Batman comics -- or just about any of the main-universe comics being published by DC or Marvel anymore -- are suitable for children either. Comics these days are aimed at older teens and adults, with lots of sex and violence and horrific stuff. So if anything, Nolan's films are just catching up with the portrayal of Batman in the comics. (Heck, within the recent GL mythos, you have blood-vomiting Red Lanterns, zombie Black Lanterns, and stripperifically-attired Star Sapphires.) If you want to find comics suitable for children, you need to look to the separate lines specifically aimed at younger readers, like the Johnny DC and Marvel Adventures lines or the comics based on TV shows like Batman: The Brave and the Bold.
I hope that comment about Nolan and the Batman source material was a joke the poster a few comments ago made. Nolan has talked about reading "Batman: The Long Halloween", "Year One" and several other books. He cited "The Killing Joke" as an inspiration for "The Dark Knight" as one take on the Joker.
I completely agree with Dennis and was not trying to single out anyone...was generalizing when I said comic book fans and include myself since I bitch about "Smallville" all the time and understand the mentality to do so. Something isn't exactly like how we have come to know and automatically the reaction is to complain or point it out, it's a natural response, we care about the material and want to protect it but I have no worry that the "Green Lantern" people are going ruin things by adding depth and substance to Oa. One could say that Geoff Johhns and his artists over the years have done the same thing. I think even "First Flight" showed more of a city aspect for Oa and I don't remember reading people bitching about that film.
I completely agree with Dennis and was not trying to single out anyone...was generalizing when I said comic book fans and include myself since I bitch about "Smallville" all the time and understand the mentality to do so. Something isn't exactly like how we have come to know and automatically the reaction is to complain or point it out, it's a natural response, we care about the material and want to protect it but I have no worry that the "Green Lantern" people are going ruin things by adding depth and substance to Oa. One could say that Geoff Johhns and his artists over the years have done the same thing. I think even "First Flight" showed more of a city aspect for Oa and I don't remember reading people bitching about that film.
I'm not down on the Nolan movies, I enjoyed them, but I understand the comment perfectly. I would sum up by saying they were far more like a James Bond movie with a rubber suit than anything to do with Batman. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with the comics.
I don't define a story that has run for the last 7 or 8 decades by what is being published at the moment. The Batman Brave and the Bold cartoon is every bit as much Batman as the Nolan films, and frankly the Adam West series was every bit as much Batman as the Nolan films. Nolan added to, changed and ignored some of the source material which is fine, but it wasn't true to the source.
Basicly why I'm not in love with Nolan's version, he makes Bruce Wayne a ninja which hasn't been cool since the '80s. I'd find the character more interesting if he'd studied acting and chemistry all those years and was patterned more after Sherlock Holmes. The Downy Sherlock Holmes movie had a lot more of what I'd love to see in a Batman origin film, those are the skills and traits that Bruce Wayne was supposed to have, the suit comes second.
Nolan didn't present to me anything to show how Wayne's personality and psychology led him to a point where there was no other option really than for him to be Batman. Nolan's Wayne could just as easily have joined the FBI, he had no real issues with carrying a gun, or with killing. The Batman to me is unique because his personality is so hardened and fixed into a state where there are things he simply cannot do, and yet he is driven to do parallel acts. He can't be a cop, he has to be a vigilante. Why? Nolan never really showed that or understood it.
Neither did Burton, but what Burton understood was that Gotham created Batman. Gotham is such an extreme, twisted version of New York that it has to produce insanity. Gotham creates Batman, it creates Joker, it creates Penguine, etc because it is a composite of worst corruption of multiple versions of New York and other cities from various eras in the last century. It is Tamany Hall, it is every gang, every psychopath, every incident that you could look up from the past 150 or so years all packed into one time period and a mass of gothic buildings and twisted streets and crowded neighbourhoods from all cities from all eras built together into one big city. Gotham is extreme, it is an exagerated charicature, and it creates exagerated charicatures of villains and heroes and corrupt governments.
Nolan's Gotham was just any modern city, it could be anywhere. He took a couple of crazy people in weird costumes and stuck them in and made a movie. I don't think it was brilliant. Burton's movies were nearly brilliant, I think he missed it by "that much" and there were flaws, but he had the idea.
I don't define a story that has run for the last 7 or 8 decades by what is being published at the moment. The Batman Brave and the Bold cartoon is every bit as much Batman as the Nolan films, and frankly the Adam West series was every bit as much Batman as the Nolan films. Nolan added to, changed and ignored some of the source material which is fine, but it wasn't true to the source.
Basicly why I'm not in love with Nolan's version, he makes Bruce Wayne a ninja which hasn't been cool since the '80s. I'd find the character more interesting if he'd studied acting and chemistry all those years and was patterned more after Sherlock Holmes. The Downy Sherlock Holmes movie had a lot more of what I'd love to see in a Batman origin film, those are the skills and traits that Bruce Wayne was supposed to have, the suit comes second.
Nolan didn't present to me anything to show how Wayne's personality and psychology led him to a point where there was no other option really than for him to be Batman. Nolan's Wayne could just as easily have joined the FBI, he had no real issues with carrying a gun, or with killing. The Batman to me is unique because his personality is so hardened and fixed into a state where there are things he simply cannot do, and yet he is driven to do parallel acts. He can't be a cop, he has to be a vigilante. Why? Nolan never really showed that or understood it.
Neither did Burton, but what Burton understood was that Gotham created Batman. Gotham is such an extreme, twisted version of New York that it has to produce insanity. Gotham creates Batman, it creates Joker, it creates Penguine, etc because it is a composite of worst corruption of multiple versions of New York and other cities from various eras in the last century. It is Tamany Hall, it is every gang, every psychopath, every incident that you could look up from the past 150 or so years all packed into one time period and a mass of gothic buildings and twisted streets and crowded neighbourhoods from all cities from all eras built together into one big city. Gotham is extreme, it is an exagerated charicature, and it creates exagerated charicatures of villains and heroes and corrupt governments.
Nolan's Gotham was just any modern city, it could be anywhere. He took a couple of crazy people in weird costumes and stuck them in and made a movie. I don't think it was brilliant. Burton's movies were nearly brilliant, I think he missed it by "that much" and there were flaws, but he had the idea.
I happen to wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of the Nolan films, I really don't see how you claim that Nolan wasn't true to the source. Bruce Wayne is considered one of the DCU's top martial artists for years and years in the comics. There were elements used in both films from various eras of Batman books, such as the Bat Bunker in Wayne Tower in Dark Knight, straight from the 70's Denny O'Neil era, the Tumbler was obviously inspired by the Bat-Tank in "The Dark Knight Returns", Lucius Fox who was never used in the Burton films but has been a long time staple of the Batman books as head of Wayne Enterprises. I think Nolan did a great job of establishing and executing the core of what Batman is and presenting an original take on it.
I'm a little confused by this comment. Nolan's Batman movies have almost everything to do with the source material. I can understand some people not enjoying his grittier, more down-to-earth approach, but even then Batman has been less fantastical in the comics- just look at Frank Miller's Batman: Year One as an example.
The James Bond elements that exist in Nolan's movies- most notably Batman Begins- were derived from the comics themselves. Bruce Wayne traveling the world trying to understand the nature of criminality is exactly taken from the comics. His fear stemming from bats, inheriting the tools and arsenal of his gear coming from Wayne Enterprises, almost everything that might have had a Bond influence was taken directly from the comics. So I don't understand how these elements have "nothing to do with the comics". What parts of Nolan's movies have "nothing to do with the comics"?
What did Nolan ignore or change exactly? On the same level, Burton changed a fair bit from the comics- in the original source material, Joe Chill was the murderer of the Wayne's (as he is in Nolan's films) but in Burton's version the killer is The Joker. Burton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne was also very different than the comics- in his version Bruce Wayne is a balding middle-aged man when he becomes Batman, but in the comics (and Nolan's films) he's a young square jawed muscular man with good hair. Also, lest us not forget one of the biggest changes- that Burton's Batman had no problem killing in cold blood.
Okay, that is one element of Bruce Wayne's characterization in Batman Begins, but it's actually much more prevalent in the characterization and portrayal of the League of Shadows than Bruce Wayne- he becomes Ra's al Ghul's student for a little while but he rejects his teachings. Also, what's wrong with taking certain elements from any era? Didn't you just say the Adam West series is as much Batman as the Nolan films? So by that train of thought, shouldn't any character element just as well fit into that same line of thinking? Just because you don't think a certain element is cool doesn't make it any less a solidified part of the Batman mythology.
That's perfectly fine, but let's try and distinguish what you would prefer in a Batman movie over what you absolutely say is not from the source material, because Nolan's films are soaked in comic-book history. Also, Nolan explored the psychology of Batman- why he put on the costume, why he spent so many years trying to become Batman- that was probably the most important part of Batman Begins. If you want to see a more detective side to Batman, The Dark Knight has a whole segment devoted to Batman trying to figure out the fingerprint of a shattered bullet casing.
Okay, so did you even watch Batman Begins? There's a whole part of the film where Bruce Wayne firmly decides never to use a firearm- it's when he decides to kill Joe Chill after the DA's office releases him- but one of Falcone's cronies kills him instead. Rachel's talk with him solidifies in him that there's a different between justice and revenge and Bruce literally throws the pistol in the water- did you not see that scene?
Unlike Burton's Batman, who had machine guns on the Bat-Wing and had no problem killing people viciously, like how he strapped explosives onto one of the Penguin's goons and literally blew him up. Batman may have led Ra's Al Ghul die at the end of Batman Begins, but there's a difference between not saving someone and intentionally killing someone. Burton's Batman was much more of a cold-hearted killer than Nolan's Batman, who for all intents and purposes, doesn't kill- in fact, a huge chunk of The Dark Knight is The Joker pushing Batman to break his one rule, which is to not overtly kill someone.
Of course he did. He couldn't be a cop because he believed the system was broken- he saw how easily Chill got off and he saw how Falcone and the courts had corrupted Gotham to its core. He also saw how Ra's al Ghul had nearly infiltrated every aspect of Gotham's infrastructure- to the GCPD all the way to the bureaucratic part of things. Criminals like Zsasz were being let out of prison thanks to shady judges and psychologists and sent to even shadier mental asylums which were run by corrupt individuals.
Nolan's Batman spends years and years all across the globe searching for the tools and reasons to stop injustice, and he realizes after understanding criminality and the corrupt nature of Gotham that in order to stop injustice he would have to become "a symbol... something everlasting...something terrifying..." and that is the catalyst that forces him to become Batman.
Burton never took the time to explore why Bruce Wayne became Batman- honestly to me it seemed like his version of Wayne became Batman because he was a little psychotic. However, on the contrary, Nolan took precise steps and measures to show you how someone like Bruce Wayne would become a vigilante like Batman.
I disagree. While Gotham is corrupt, saturated by the greed and corruption that breathes in every surface, it isn't immortalized by the city, but by the city inhabitants. The people is what makes Gotham City a hellhole- not the other way around. That's why we have perfectly normal cities in our real society but still led by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians- cities don't breed corruption and discontent... human nature does. That's what Nolan understood so well- you create the atmosphere of chaos which is led by the human instinct to do bad.
Ra's al Ghul created a depression that literally tore into Gotham's soul- it was the atmosphere of soullessness that drove Joe Chill to kill Bruce Wayne's parents- and on that same level it was the chaos and destruction that the Joker caused that stirred up so much moral and psychological horror in Gotham and its inhabitants.
These things were directed toward human nature and how sometimes we don't always make the best decisions- it was a key theme in Batman Begins and even more prevalent in The Dark Knight- when the Joker tested the moral capacity of Batman, Harvey Dent and Commissioner Gordon. That's the tragic character arc of Dent and why it resonates- because he had good intentions, he was a good person, but he fell into the darker limitations of human behavior and he let those darker inhibitions torment and corrupt him. The Joker was trying to break down Goham's soul and show that anyone could break down given the right motivation- Batman's mission was to prove the exact opposite.
These elements, though, pertain to the altruistic human nature that Batman strives for- to prove that the spirit of Gotham City is worth preserving, that there are good people that live in Gotham and that despite what everyone thinks, not everyone is as corrupt as a few select individuals- and that's what Batman is all about. It's not about a city breeding chaos or corruption- it's about the city's inhabitants, about the people that live and breathe in that city.
Nolan was trying to make the Batman mythology relatable and authentic- by shooting in Chicago it humanizes the story and makes it tangible. He was going for the atmosphere and tone of such classic stories as Heat or Serpico, which show good honest people living in a normal city that faces corruption. That's essentially what Gotham City is- it's New York but on a slightly dirtier scale- and that's exactly what Nolan's Gotham is in a nutshell.
Well said, Jackson, well said.
If we want to really argue this let's take it outside and start a Batman thread. But I did probably express all this poorly by trying to explain it in a couple paragraphs. The Adam West Batman was true to the source for it's time, Nolan was true to the source in certain aspects and certain parts of the story as well, but hardly all.
Please. Batman is not a ninja. Me saying he is not a ninja does not in any way deny that he is an expert matial artist. Comments like that just show that you are over sensitive to anyone who criticises the Nolan films.
Jackson, I don't have time to respond to your whole post, and it deserves more than the 2 minutes I have right now. But yes I watched Batman Begins and I watched where Bruce Wayne blew up the ninja building killing the Ras al Ghoul persona and numerous others in the process. He was a killer, he just refused to be an executioner.
I agree that Burton's use of guns and blowing up henchmen was out of place and he missed it with that, but he caught other things. His take was as valid as Nolans and as valid as Semple's.
I'm not going to apologise for not thinking Nolan's take is perfect, and I'm not going to apologise for not wanting it to be the definitive Batman that everything is derived from. Change the names and take away the suit and this could just be any action movie. It wasn't a bad movie, but I don't get Batman out of it.
So, like, Green Lantern's looking pretty cool. 
Lax I wasn't attacking your views, I disagreed with them and was simply defending my own views towards the Nolan which you clearly disagree with. I don't get the problem here. I think you're simplifying things by generalizing Batman's fighting technique in the Nolan movies which actually is pretty close to the style he had in the Burton movies, the difference being that Nolan chose to show his training while Burton chose to show his debut. What would you say his fighting style was in the Nolan movies? I didn't intend for this to become a full out debate but it's clear that we have differing views on the film and specifically the use of the source material which comes from the modern day or the past twenty or so years worth of Batman stories. I even cited examples.
Last edited:
