Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like Nolan's portrayal. Not exclusively, no, but it's a fine elseworlds portrayal of batman in world of less superpower, more superscience.

That aside, I'm skimping on comics buying until after xmas so that I can get skyrim >.>

@Red: When you were reading Cracked on Rachel Dawes did you not think "um, Alfred?" Don't get me wrong, I think he's probably right and Rises will be that meh.

I think the new movies are awesome.

Edit: except when Christian Bale speaks as Batman.

A lot of folks say Nolan's movies are defined by their realism. I disagree. Their most definitive feature is the character of Rachel Dawes. And that character fething sucks.

I just mostly remember that other character......Batman.

Weird, considering that among all the many versions of Batman, Batman is hardly unique to any of them ...

What? You don't like Batman? I know he's a republican but he's still pretty cool.

Huh? What I am saying is that the character of Batman is not the definitive piece of any of the various renditions of Batman except insofar as he is different fro other renditions -- because of his interactions with other characters, for example. IMO, Rachel Dawes is the character, completely unique to Nolan's films, that has the largest impact on who Bruce/Batman is in Nolan's films. The fact that she is, IMO, an awful character means that this version of Batman is far, far from my favorite.

I think this Batman is as Batman as any other Batman is Batman except his voice would make a death metal singer snigger. As for being defined by his relationships with other characters - that's Batman. Having great villians has always been what sets Batman above the rest of the heroes. As for Rachel Dawes, well she seems about as interesting as Vicki Vale or whoever the hell Nicole Kidman was. Maybe having uninteresting love interests is also Batman.
Edit: At least she served as a plot point to make Two-Face Two-Face. That's more than can be said for the rest.

I was really hoping Talia would be in this trilogy but ah well. I'll have to settle with her cameo in Arkham City.

She should definately be in there considering Ras ah Ghul (sp?) is. Catwomen next I guess but I think Anne Hathaway is a weird choice.

Manchu wrote:I was really hoping Talia would be in this trilogy but ah well. I'll have to settle with her cameo in Arkham City.

WTF?!?

Spoilers man, spoilers!!!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Maybe having uninteresting love interests is also Batman.

Selina, Talia, Zatanna and Diana (in the DCAU) dissagree.

So, (ultimate) Spider-Man is dead... well, !

Deadpool Classics continues to impress and I am baffled by how the character has changed over the years.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Maybe having uninteresting love interests is also Batman.

Selina, Talia, Zatanna and Diana (in the DCAU) dissagree.

So, (ultimate) Spider-Man is dead... well, !

Spoiler:

The story in itself worked, that Spidey got himself killed because he confronted the sinister six even though he knew he was badly wounded. What pissed me off though, was that the Ultimates could've saved him, if they wouldn't have been busy fighting among each other. I'm still not sure if I even want to read the Ultimates Tie-in to Death of Spider-Man.
The saddest thing about the whole ordeal was, that for the first time during the entire series, Peter's life was... good. He was back with his girlfriend, he had a job, the relationships with friends and family couldn't have been better. I wanted to read more!

Deadpool Classics continues to impress and I am baffled by how the character has changed over the years.

Oh yeah, I think when spidey actually gets shot is in ultimates vs. avengers. You're not missing much though. Pretty sure they show it in USM too right?

Yes, I'm also quite...baffled about Deadpool.

Yes, they show how get shot, but not how and why the Ultimates fight.

Manchu wrote:A lot of folks say Nolan's movies are defined by their realism. I disagree. Their most definitive feature is the character of Rachel Dawes. And that character fething sucks.

Err, what? I barely even remember Rachel Dawes, how can that character be the most definitive feature?

What defines the Dark Knight series is the villains.

That's what I think.

Rachel Dawes scarred Manchu's psyche though.

Ledger aside, there is nothing memorable or unique about the villains of Nolan's movies. What did we get from Nolan? Alfred's bizarre cockney accent, the Michael Bay-style Batmobile, the Bat-growl ... Yeah, yeah. But when you consider Nolan's take on the character of Batman, nothing is more important as Rachel Dawes. If you barely noticed her, I don't think you understood the movie.

I find the realism too far along the scale, when Joker blows up the Hospital for example, that just felt they where shooting the shot in LA, not a version of Gotham.

This is my main gripe with them, I don't get a very good Gotham vibe from them.

Secondly, I agree with Manchu, none of the villians have been well done. Tis sad to me, that the recent cartoon versions of Joker outdo Heaths in every aspect.

Manchu wrote:If you barely noticed her, I don't think you understood the movie.

If she's all you noticed, I think you definitely didn't understand it.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:If you barely noticed her, I don't think you understood the movie.

If she's all you noticed, I think you definitely didn't understand it.

Thanks for that non sequitur. Now go rewatch the movie for comprehension. Actually, I'll burn some of my own time explaining it to you: Dawes acts as Bruce's anchor to pre-trauma normality, especially regarding morality. A character that mediates between Bruce and Batman based on Bruce's childhood is the most significant departure from other iterations of the franchise. Even Alfred, when not a Cockney, is very circumspect about this. Moreover, Nolan has Dawes as the source of Batman's definitive heroic aspect -- his renunciation of lethal violence and devotion to Gotham. Batman is the title-character, yes, but Dawes defines him. She is the pivotal character of the first movie (Ras is a complete afterthought by comparison) and although she is less prominent in the second one she still is at the center of every plotline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Secondly, I agree with Manchu, none of the villians have been well done. Tis sad to me, that the recent cartoon versions of Joker outdo Heaths in every aspect.

I think Ledger's Joker is great -- for, like Melissia said, an "elseworlds" Joker. I prefer Nicholson and I think Nicholson is closer to definitive/representative.

As to Gotham, Mr. Bermejo's Noel is an excellent portrayal of Gotham for those who prefer something less stylized than Anton Furst's vision but not so "right down the block" literal as Nathan Crowley's.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:If you barely noticed her, I don't think you understood the movie.

If she's all you noticed, I think you definitely didn't understand it.

Thanks for that non sequitur.

There was none.

re: the rest

Again, you place so much emphasis on Dawes that you seem to have missed most of the movie....

Your statement, in response to a list of several things I noticed about the movie, implied that she was all I noticed. Hence it is a non sequitur.

I think you must have me confused with Chris Nolan because it's not me who placed so much emphasis on Rachel Dawes.

I don't see why it's a big deal that Dawes was given an emphasis.

She was another piece motivating Bruce into becoming Batman and staying the course.
For all intents and purposes, they kind of hashed a Tim Drake motivational character(if you don't recall, Drake is who brought Bruce out of the funk after Jason Todd's death. Bruce was being a lot more violent, withdrawn--and seemingly didn't even really realize it) in alongside what we saw in "The Dark Knight" as a Jason Todd moment.

Look at it like this, Kan. What did Batman learn from Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins? Some fighting moves and how to be scary. And what did he learn from Rachel? Not to kill; to devote himself to justice as much as vengeance; to fight for his father's vision of sorting Gotham out. In other words, Batman learned how to be Batman from Rachel -- you know, minus the karate and growly voice.

I don't think Rachel and Tim are comparable at all. Rachel invalidates Tim (and Alfred and Gordon and Dick and Babara). There would never be a need for Tim Drake in Nolan's Gotham.

Manchu wrote:Look at it like this, Kan. What did Batman learn from Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins? Some fighting moves and how to be scary. And what did he learn from Rachel? Not to kill; to devote himself to justice as much as vengeance; to fight for his father's vision of sorting Gotham out. In other words, Batman learned how to be Batman from Rachel -- you know, minus the karate and growly voice.

I don't think Rachel and Tim are comparable at all. Rachel invalidates Tim (and Alfred and Gordon and Dick and Babara). There would never be a need for Tim Drake in Nolan's Gotham.

Pretty much - and in case anyone wasn't paying attention, that sums it up nicely!

I didn't say that Rachel was Tim.

I said that she served a similar role. Rachel in the first two movies is essentially a composite character of Drake and Todd, with Tim Drake's role of "showing Batman who he really was"(after he'd lost his way, mind you) happening before we see her filling Jason Todd's role as a galvanizing force following the death of the character.

Alfred and Gordon always really have a place, as they're Bruce's equals--or in Alfred's case, someone he looks up to. Dick and Barbara would have been far harder to work in, as Dick is just...well, he's "born to be in the centerstage". Dick doesn't work well as a background character or side character. Barbara does, but requires The Joker to really do that.

Ra'as al Ghul has always had kind of a backburner role outside of him being a nemesis, at least IMO. He's a puppeteer, not a fighter--and the League of Shadows isn't exactly always going to be advertising their involvement.

I didn't say Rachel was Tim, either. I said I don't think they're comparable, i.e., they don't serve a similar role.

As for the other characters, ask yourself what the movie would lose if Alfred and Gordon weren't in it at all. Some "heart," whatever that means, maybe? Some recognizability for the franchise, more likely. But no plot points would need major revisions, thanks to Rachel doing almost everything.

I totally disagree with your statements about Dick & Babs. Please see Batman TAS, for example. Ra's, too, is hardly a backburner. Yes, he's in the shadows for much of the time but there's always the climactic fight -- which Nolan gave us, mind. My bringing up Ra's was to show that he was not a pivotal character in Batman Begins compared to Rachel, that's all.

Manchu wrote:
I think Ledger's Joker is great -- for, like Melissia said, an "elseworlds" Joker. I prefer Nicholson and I think Nicholson is closer to definitive/representative.

As to Gotham, Mr. Bermejo's Noel is an excellent portrayal of Gotham for those who prefer something less stylized than Anton Furst's vision but not so "right down the block" literal as Nathan Crowley's.

Ah misunderstood, and I liked Scarecrow to be fair, just had a serious doubt on the way they potrayed Joker, and really had a strong dislike of the two-face storyline.. regarding Joker, I also prefer Nicholson over him myself. Ra Ghul, is a odd one for me, as that was the first time I'd ever heard of him at the time, he seemed okay, but Batman Begins was a bit all over the place for m anyways.

However, reagarding Gotham, aye, the style is key for me. I take a lot (maybe too much?) from the phrase Gotham is Night to Metropolis' Day, and I really struggle in places with Dark Knight. Some have issues with Burton's films, but I loved the style and gothic feeling that dripped off the screen throughout those films. Although Nolan has it in places, stuff like the Hospital scene, and a couple of the city shots in various chase sequences seemed to much in line with our own world.

Once again, MDS, we are on the same page. (I think it's because we were both Marvel hard-liners once upon a time.) If you could ever confuse Gotham for Metropolis or vice versa someone has seriously fethed up regarding one or both cities. But I don't think Metropolis exists in the Nolanverse. I don't mean, "Superman isn't going to be in the movies" either -- I mean I don't think Superman or his city are possible in that kind of literalistic style.

I really disliked the portrayal of Ra's in Batman Begins. It's not Ra's al Ghul. It really is Henri Ducard and they're calling him Ra's. Maybe it started as a double double cross plot but it seems like Nolan really wanted Henri to be Ra's so a lot of people who only see the character in that film are really missing out.