Your favourite Batman...

[Captaindemotion]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Uh...no comment.

 

[Christopher]

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

Here's a pretty good argument that you're not:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/05/batman-and-robin-movie-review/
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/11/batman-robin-movie-review/

I don't entirely agree with it, but they make a good case.

 

[JD]

Another Batman that I like that I haven't heard much about in this thread is Bruce Greenwood. I really liked him in Under the Red and in Young Justice. He's good as the older, more experienced, mentor figure Batman.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

Here's a pretty good argument that you're not:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/05/batman-and-robin-movie-review/
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/11/batman-robin-movie-review/

I don't entirely agree with it, but they make a good case.

Batman and Robin is what I call comic book film. It's a live action animated film. All the stuff you'd easily accept in a comic and cartoon is in there.

 

[Warped9]

Depends what you want in a comic or animation. If Batman comics of the '70s-'90s had been continuing what we saw on '60s TV I wouldn't have bothered with them. And while I enjoy B-TAS there is stuff in there I'd have a hard time accepting in a live-action feature.

Dialing back the grittiness we got with the Nolanverse could work, but if you dial it back too far then it's a question of whether you start turning some people off. Are audiences now ready to accept a Batman feature done in the tone of the Marvel films? Probably. Any lighter or sillier than that? I don't know.

This brings Game Of Thrones to mind. Most sword-and-sorcery leaves me cold because I can't believe in the setting. But GoT shows a world that is much more credible even if it's a fiction. It's quite easy to suspend disbelief.

Superheroes by their very nature are also a fantasy. But Batman is one of the few exceptions because he isn't superpowered and so it becomes easier to put him into a more realistic setting. I emphasize realistic as opposed to real because we're still dealing with fiction and extraordinary elements.

I really enjoyed The Avengers but I do recall thinking along the same lines as a lot of other people after the big climactic battle: where was the reference to the extensive casualties among civilians that such an attack would have wrought? The Avengers was sanitized to make it accessible to a broad audience, but some of the omissions were hard to swallow.

If you're going to go goofy then how about something more like The Incredibles? Or Kick-Ass if you really want irreverent parody?

 

[Christopher]

^Well, after Batman: TAS, conventional wisdom was that animation audiences would never settle for a "silly" approach to Batman again. But The Brave and the Bold proved to be very popular and admired and scuttled that conventional wisdom. As I often point out, category doesn't determine quality -- quality determines quality.

So if someone developed a silly approach to Batman for the movie reboot, it might work or it might not, depending on how well it was done.

 

[Warped9]

I freely admit my bias. Batman done in lighter tone like The Brave And The Bold I could accept in animation. Done live-action then I'll likely stay home and spend my money on something else.

 

[Christopher]

^But before you weren't talking about your own personal preferences, you were talking about whether "audiences" were "ready to accept" a lighter Batman. Those are two completely different conversations.

 

[Gojira]

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

Here's a pretty good argument that you're not:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/05/batman-and-robin-movie-review/
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/11/batman-robin-movie-review/

I don't entirely agree with it, but they make a good case.

Thanks for the links! I do agree with them. They really do understand the movie and what it is about. I liked Silverstone as Batgirl much more than they did.

 

[Warped9]

^But before you weren't talking about your own personal preferences, you were talking about whether "audiences" were "ready to accept" a lighter Batman. Those are two completely different conversations.

Right. Maybe general audiences will accept it. But I can't speak definitively for them. But I can speak for myself and I'm not interested.

And lets differentiate between "lighter" and "silly." A lighter tone in a live-action feature might work for me, lighter as in current Marvel film style. A silly tone in live-action I'm not interested in.

 

[Gojira]

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

Here's a pretty good argument that you're not:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/05/batman-and-robin-movie-review/
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/11/batman-robin-movie-review/

I don't entirely agree with it, but they make a good case.

Batman and Robin is what I call comic book film. It's a live action animated film. All the stuff you'd easily accept in a comic and cartoon is in there.

Exactly! I also see the movie as a homage to the 60s Batman TV series. I also think there is some good character development underneath all the campy corn.