Dark Knight Rises - Now that we know the cast — Page 25

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I think there is only one rule when it comes to adapting Batman: there has to be a reason why they call him Batman.

and what is that the law?  did you just make that up out of thin air?  ; )

 

Ha, well I mean you can't just call a guy Batman for no reason.

why not?

Warbler said:

well you tell me:

would it be ok to depict batman as having super powers?

would it be ok to depict batman as killing the criminals he catches instead of turning them in? 

Would it be ok to depict Batman with Wayne's parents still alive and well?

would it be ok to depict Batman demanding pay for his services from Gotham 

If it's somehow done well, sure.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I think there is only one rule when it comes to adapting Batman: there has to be a reason why they call him Batman.

and what is that the law?  did you just make that up out of thin air?  ; )

 

Ha, well I mean you can't just call a guy Batman for no reason.

why not?

Well now that you put it that way, I guess you could. But you wouldn't.

well,  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

Really Warbler, it really just sounds like you have an incomplete impression of the Batman mythology. I know that may sound insulting, and I mean no offense. But if you haven't read The Dark Knight Returns...no wonder The Dark Knight Rises seems out of character. But in the mid-1980s---30 years ago, I might remind you--Frank Miller re-wrote the mythology. He recast it in an R-rated noir, where an aging Batman comes out of retirement to give his life to save Gotham from one last threat, eventually deciding to fake his death and let a young replacement, who briefly fought along side him, take over as Batman, with Wayne essentially retiring. Because Batman is a symbol when you get down to it, and Bruce Wayne's body no longer worked, he realized he could retire and move into a different role so long as there was someone worthy to take on the symbol as their identity.

That's a HUGE part of the modern Batman mythos. And it's not like it is recent, this was released even before Tim Burton's first film was made. The Dark Knight Returns is not only the best Batman graphic novel, it's one of the most important graphic novels ever made.

Saying it's outside the mythology for Batman to retire is like saying it's outside the mythology for Superman to be killed. It's a core element of the mythology as it currently stands. These storyline's have simply become part of the canon.

So, I guess, for you, your conception of Batman is that pre-modern, pre-80s view that wasn't so cynical, or so realistic for that matter. In the 1980s and early 1990s the Batman mythology evolved, just as Superman's did, and The Dark Knight Trilogy is essentially the result of this. Batman Begins is an adaptation of Batman Year One, by Frank Miller (1990s I think). Dark Knight is probably the most original of them all, because of Harvey Dent, but The Joker's inclusion shows a lot of influence from The Dark Knight Returns (1980s) by Frank Miller, in the way he is depicted. Finally, Dark Knight Rises takes the villain from Knightfall (1990s) where Bane breaks Batman, and grafts that injury onto the thematic plot of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns (1980s), where a battered Bruce Wayne comes out of retirement to save Gotham from a terrorist army, and decides to either die or retire and pass the mantle to a young kid named Robin.

The Dark Knight Trilogy, especially Dark Knight Rises is classic Batman, as faithfully as has ever been done. If it doesn't seem that way to you, it may very well be because you haven't kept up to date with the modern mythology of Batman. And fair enough. The 1990s Batman movies were more old fashioned in approach, the Nolan trilogy is the first feature take on the modern mythology.

zombie84 said:

The Dark Knight Trilogy, especially Dark Knight Rises is classic Batman, as faithfully as has ever been done. If it doesn't seem that way to you, it may very well be because you haven't kept up to date with the modern mythology of Batman. And fair enough. The 1990s Batman movies were more old fashioned in approach, the Nolan trilogy is the first feature take on the modern mythology.

I think it is important to mention that The Dark Knight Returns was never intended to fit into Batman continuity and is not in any way canon. It features Gotham City being located in a dystopian America lead by Ronald Regan. It also features the 3rd Robin as a young woman, before the character of Tim Drake had even been thought of. I think calling it "classic" Batman is extremely inaccurate. While the graphic novel itself is most certainly a classic, and it is about Batman, it is very avant-garde and out there, it is most definitely not "classic Batman". You could very accurately make the claim that Returns is part of modern Batman mythology, but that doesn't make it, or other works that loosely use some of these ideas from it "classic batman".

I also think you are misrepresenting Wayne's "retirement" in The Dark Knight Returns. The government wants Batman dead. They send Superman to take him out, and he fakes a heart attack during the fight so the world thinks he's dead. After the funeral, the very next scene is Bruce Wayne alive and well preparing to train a small army. That Batman, even though non-canonical, very much fits with my view of Batman never giving up and fighting until his last breath. I've read The Dark Knight Returns several times, it is one of my favorites. But his "retirement" in that book and the one in the new film are hardly even comparable.

The Dark Knight Returns depicts an old grey haired Batman still donning the cowl and giving it his all. The Dark Knight Rises depicts a still very young Bruce Wayne (the cartilage in his knees was messed up from all he put his body through as Batman, Warb) who seems delighted to still be able to fight with the assistance of technology, and still seems more than capable of doing so. In TDNReturns, Bruce had every reason to fake his own death in order to hide from a government that wanted him dead. In TDNRises he only does it because... uh... well I have no idea actually. 

Probably just because Nolan enjoyed doing scenes inspired by Frank Miller's work, and it made for a dramatic ending. If he intends to return as Bruce Wayne and mentor young Robin (Blah!!) Blake to be the new Batman, then it is really a shame he let his fortunes fall apart (and thus leaving few resources for Blake to use) and it doesn't make sense he'd fake his own death. What logical reason was there for it? If he doesn't want to be Batman, killing Batman would have been enough. But if he intended to train Blake to be the next Batman anyway, why even do that? Killing Bruce off only makes sense if he wanted to disappear into the world and not be looked for, but if he intended to train up Blake, this seems counter productive. Also by killing Bruce off, he looses all claim to Wayne Enterprises (which was potentially salvageable, and his position in the company could have been restored if he uncovered and revealed the faked fingerprint stock scandal) and the resources it would provide for Blake's Batman. 

No matter how you spin it, I feel like the ending of this film is a complete mess.

Frank Miller's TDKReturns depicts a determined, intelligent Batman who meticulously plans his every move and is willing to keep fighting until the end, even if it means he has to fake his own death to do it.

Christopher Nolan's TDKRises depicts Bruce Wayne who lets his fortunes fall apart, fakes his own death so that he can escape to leave Gotham and enjoy his life, and leaves his batcave to a young hot headed cop.

As a side note, though I'm not sure if it should count in this discussion, since it didn't come out until 2001. But TDKReturns' sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, also written by Frank Miller, features Batman, his sidekick, and his army coming out of hiding in order to take down the oppressive dystopian empire they've spent years training to fight against.

zombie84 said:

But in the mid-1980s---30 years ago, I might remind you--Frank Miller re-wrote the mythology. He recast it in an R-rated noir, where an aging Batman comes out of retirement to give his life to save Gotham from one last threat, eventually deciding to fake his death and let a young replacement, who briefly fought along side him, take over as Batman, with Wayne retiring. Because Batman is a symbol, and Bruce Wayne's body no longer worked, he realized he could retire so long as there was someone worthy to take on the symbol as their identity.

Wait a minute... rereading this part of your comment, I'm thinking you have never even read The Dark Knight Returns yourself... The vast majority of everything you say in the above quote never even happens in The Dark Knight Returns. Carrie isn't intended to replace him as Batman (Batwoman?) and he doesn't decide Batman is just a symbol and so he can therefore let go and pass it on. The only reason he fakes his death is so that he can go into hiding rather than be killed and continue the desperate fight by training others. In the sequel, he comes back, as Batman. Older still, and still fighting. As Batman. No retirement ever depicted.

I think The Dark Knight Returns and the rest of Miller's Batman works serve much more as a defense for Warbler's side of this discussion than anything else. In other words, Miller got the character, why couldn't Nolan?

A Nuclear bomb blows him up, but he uses his teleportation superpowers (same ones he uses to get back to Gotham from Africa) to escape the explosion.

Actually Bruce Wayne was supposedly just another guy killed during Bane's reign.

And I don't think it's too hard to believe he found a way back to Gotham and a way to fix the autopilot. 

And Fox said long term he could prove fraud with the trades, which means eventually Fox gets all the money back to Wayne Enterprises and continues to be a good president for the company. So Bruce wouldn' have to worry about that.

And Bruce finding a life to live is just as much about making Alfred happy as it is making him happy. Batman was Bruce's way to follow his father and help Gotham. Bruce finding a life is his way of following the man who really became his father, Alfred.

Warbler said:

well,  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

CP3S said:

zombie84 said:

But in the mid-1980s---30 years ago, I might remind you--Frank Miller re-wrote the mythology. He recast it in an R-rated noir, where an aging Batman comes out of retirement to give his life to save Gotham from one last threat, eventually deciding to fake his death and let a young replacement, who briefly fought along side him, take over as Batman, with Wayne retiring. Because Batman is a symbol, and Bruce Wayne's body no longer worked, he realized he could retire so long as there was someone worthy to take on the symbol as their identity.

Wait a minute... rereading this part of your comment, I'm thinking you have never even read The Dark Knight Returns yourself... The vast majority of everything you say in the above quote never even happens in The Dark Knight Returns. Carrie isn't intended to replace him as Batman (Batwoman?) and he doesn't decide Batman is just a symbol and so he can therefore let go and pass it on. The only reason he fakes his death is so that he can go into hiding rather than be killed and continue the desperate fight by training others. In the sequel, he comes back, as Batman. Older still, and still fighting. As Batman. No retirement ever depicted.

 

I think The Dark Knight Returns and the rest of Miller's Batman works serve much more as a defense for Warbler's side of this discussion than anything else. In other words, Miller got the character, why couldn't Nolan?

 

Going to have to disagree here. Dark Knight Returns opens with Batman already having given up being Batman. But he decides to come back for a final fight, with the understanding that it will probably kill him. Like in Dark Knight Rises, his health problems and the realization that this battle may be his last are hinted at throughout. Finally, Robin is clearly poised to sort of take up the fight where Batman left off; I think he may even have a line to the effect of "she's perfect." Not that she would necessarily become Batman, but she is presented as a sort of successor to him. Finally at the end, Batman does give up being Batman. The suit is retired, and he instead decides to spend his days training new recruits to do the work he once was able to do so effectively, passing on the torch as it were.

That is basically what happens throughout Dark Knight Rises. Not precisely, because the plots are very different, but you can clearly see the seeds germinating in Dark Knight Returns. As to the Dark Knight Returns sequel--which I haven't read--who is to say Bruce Wayne is done for good? Dark Knight Rises played out with more finality in that Bruce pretty much can never be Batman ever again, because Miller's universe is more fantastic where a 60-year-old Batman could still come back and fight crime (Dark Knight Rises is way more realistic: Bruce's body would be spent for good before he was forty), but if you think about it he can't really be done for good, like I said. He's not going to spend the next forty years sipping iced teas on a French beach with Selina Kyle. He has to come back to help Blake. As it stands, Blake couldn't just become Batman, he has to have someone show him how it all works, and he needs to have a support team, not to mention some training. So if the idea of Bruce Wayne walking away from Gotham for good rubs you the wrong way, that is not at all a stretch to imagine, in fact it's pretty realistic.

Warbler said:

would it be ok to depict batman as having super powers?

would it be ok to depict batman as killing the criminals he catches instead of turning them in?

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

well,  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.  

 

Well if they have to be true to the comics I vote this one:

That's awesome, Tyrphanax. Thanks for sharing!

In before Warbler quotes himself quoting himself again. :-D

Have you by any chance even seen TDKR? (or Inception for that matter?) There's absolutely zero reaching in that article. Christopher Nolan's films have always been about more than dumb entertainment, clearly. 

captain, please say you've watched my edit.

skyjedi2005 said:

LOL. That essay takes these films way too seriously they are and were for entertainment and making money. 

The essay was far more pretentious than inception and dkr combined.