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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second

I've seen it a few more times since the release and I find it gets better over time; it was flawed but ambitious in its story. Bane was actually a pretty nasty melon-fether.

Spoiler:

Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character.

It is almost as if it is the artist made it their own and brought something new to the table instead of slavishly transliterating the comic. Nolan focused on elements that others tend to ignore in favor of making visual approximations, and for many they can't get over that. In the end Bane was still the physical and mental match for Batman, broke him, and took over the city even if he wasn't a Luchadore inspired drug addict. Considering this is also a world where Batman ages as well as other things not present in the comic I'm ok with it. If I just want the same thing I have already read I can just reread it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

Even if you aren't Catholic or religious you now have to go to confession to free yourself from this evil.

Meh. The only part of the newer Batman I didn't like was that you never really saw him as Batman, in his prime doing his thing.


Admittedly, I'm not a huge Batman fan - but I liked Bale as Bruce Wayne, just not as Batman.

I mean, the first movie was the obligatory origin story - which the Michael Keaton ones kind of skipped and I loved them for it- the second was him doing his thing for a few weeks and then retiring, and the third was him washed up and coming out of retirement years later.

Just jump right in. We know who Batman/Supes/Spiderman are at this point. Just because you decide to reboot a series or whatever I don't need the whole rigamarole. Throw out a few flashbacks so people won't get totally lost, and then just get to it.

While I normally find people who call the Nolan films bad to be rather childish (based on this reasons that is), I can agree that I think Bale was good as Wayne, but meh as Batman. The whole deep throat thing got old really fast, and kind of sucked the power out of the portrayal for me.

 Ahtman wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character.

It is almost as if it is the artist made it their own and brought something new to the table instead of slavishly transliterating the comic. Nolan focused on elements that others tend to ignore in favor of making visual approximations, and for many they can't get over that. In the end Bane was still the physical and mental match for Batman, broke him, and took over the city even if he wasn't a Luchadore inspired drug addict. Considering this is also a world where Batman ages as well as other things not present in the comic I'm ok with it. If I just want the same thing I have already read I can just reread it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

Even if you aren't Catholic or religious you now have to go to confession to free yourself from this evil.

I am all for artistic freedom, but man, at some point you have to call the line. Let's make Batman pink and base his character off of otters instead (don't get me wrong, otters freaking rock, am just picking whacky animals at this point).

And hey, if I'm going to confession over anything, it's for the confusing feelings Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy gave me

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second, not least for it's lack of the strangely ancient face of Maggie Gyllenhaal and the drizzle of piss that was the Harvey Dent story, but also because it's joker was no real threat to Batman, a terrorist and a nasty little psycho, but no grand scale evil like he should of been, or that Rhaz and Bane were in the other two movies.

You may rage at me when ready.

Nah, I'm with you. Hardy's performance is worth the price of admission alone, IMO. His version of Bane sucks the air out of the room in every scene - it's kind of Vader-esque. Just pure malevolence.

It's been mentioned a few times, but it is worth repeating: The difficulty with trying to answer the question of "who is a better Joker" is that there is no such thing as a singular Joker. Even if you don't include any of the TV/Movie versions you end up with a pretty large variety of personas that are all part of the Joker.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is the "killer" aspect of the Joker, and he plays that part well. His portrayal includes the campy "things that are clown-related" and "things that have to do with laughing/smiles" that is popular in many comic book versions. JN will kill anybody just for the lulz, and he will kill you in ways that are over-the-top joker related. He is an agent of chaos because he kills people without any real reasons just because he can, but he also does what he does for his own personal gain. This Joker is the classic anti-Batman but also mimics Batman. The Joker will do clown things and kill people with clown things while spraying Smilex and Batman will do bat things and fight people with batarangs and other things from his batbelt. Jack Nicholson plays the perfect version of this Joker, and it's the perfect Joker for this type of film.

Heath Ledger's Joker is the "psychological manipulator" aspect of the Joker and he plays that part very well. This is also a Joker that is portrayed frequently in the comics. This Joker is not above killing, and other than the pencil trick his killing isn't done in campy clown-related ways. He is an agent of chaos not because he kills people (and people already mentioned that his kill count is much lower than JN), he creates chaos because he will make the people kill each other. This style of chaos is seen in his first appearance during the bank robbery: JN would have had all of the robbers jump into the bus with himself as the getaway driver and then the next scene would have had him open the back door with all the other guys dead in the back from Smilex. HL makes them kill each other and then just kills the last guy standing. This Joker has try-outs and turns the city against Batman and each other. People are still getting killed randomly, but not by his hand. He laso doesn't do it for his own gain, as evidenced by burning a giant pile of money with the guy on top, but he just does it for the sake of chaos. This Joker also captures the complemantary relationship of Batman and the Joker and how they need each other. Part of what makes his Joker great is that he is still the Joker, but he is also a realistic version of Joker that could actually exist and that is what makes his performance good. Heath Ledger plays the perfect version of this Joker, and it's the perfect Joker for this type of film.

Both guys played awesome Jokers, but JN could not play the type of Joker we see in The Dark Knight and HL could not play the type of Joker we see in Batman.

 Bromsy wrote:
. We know who Batman/Supes/Spiderman are at this point. Just because you decide to reboot a series or whatever I don't need the whole rigamarole. Throw out a few flashbacks so people won't get totally lost, and then just get to it.

I agree entirely.



Pretty much everyone knows Batman's origins, just quick summary and move on.

ideally something like the intro to All Star Superman



and crack on.

I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.



He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.

Personally, there are times when I get bloody fed up hearing about the joker!

Penguin's better dressed, Riddler's got better plans, and poison ivy's much underused.

People talk about Batman and the Joker being polar opposites, but if you want a hero with a villain that's a mirror image, then Bond and Scaramanga, has yet to be bettered.

 Albatross wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second, not least for it's lack of the strangely ancient face of Maggie Gyllenhaal and the drizzle of piss that was the Harvey Dent story, but also because it's joker was no real threat to Batman, a terrorist and a nasty little psycho, but no grand scale evil like he should of been, or that Rhaz and Bane were in the other two movies.

You may rage at me when ready.

Nah, I'm with you. Hardy's performance is worth the price of admission alone, IMO. His version of Bane sucks the air out of the room in every scene - it's kind of Vader-esque. Just pure malevolence.

TDKR felt a little more choppy and uneven than I'm used to with a Nolan flick, but Hardy was PDG.

It also should be said that the story wasn't the one that was originally planned. Everything changed after Ledger died.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
I am also somewhat fed up with : Batman meeting a girl and deciding to stop being Batman and/or Batman revealing his identity to a girl for similar reasons.



He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.

Yeah, although I can't blame the writers for taking pity and wanting to give the poor bastich a happy ending.

 d-usa wrote:
A lot of concise, well reasoned points

Completely agree. JN's rendition has a 'member of the Rogues Gallery' feel to it. HL's has a very 'arch nemesis' feel to it.

Both were very much products of their times and reflective of the decades they were created in. In the case of superheroes, being reflective of a specific mindset in American history isn't necessarily a negative.

That said, Batman Returns > Batman, Tom Hardy's performance was a masterstroke, and TDK suffers from far too much Maggie Gyllenhal/Aaron Eckhart being whiny (loved the revenge plot when he just got down to it. The scene with him and Ledger in the hospital is excellent).

 jreilly89 wrote:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

Wash your mouth out with soap, boy! Heresy!

Tom Hardy's Bane is awesome. To be honest, I quite like the no-inflation-required Bane. Makes him more human and a more realistic character. Which was kind of the point of Nolan's Batman series.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

Wash your mouth out with soap, boy! Heresy!

Tom Hardy's Bane is awesome. To be honest, I quite like the no-inflation-required Bane. Makes him more human and a more realistic character. Which was kind of the point of Nolan's Batman series.

Except that's not Bane at all. Why not have a totally normal Riddler? Bane is an insane drug addict raised in a Brazilian prison as a child. Even if they wanted him to be more realistic, don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.

That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread

I love Burton's BatFilms. Can't say the same for Nolan's. This is purely a matter of personal taste as I think both directors' visions are worthwhile. I just like deco-gothic Batman/Gotham more. To me, Nolan's ultra-serious BatFilms have to be endured rather than enjoyed. Burton's films have more "give" even if they are also quite dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
He's Batman, he'll never be happy or stop.

Quite beautifully summed up (at least regarding the 80s onward Batman).

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I personally preferred the third nolan film to the second

I've seen it a few more times since the release and I find it gets better over time; it was flawed but ambitious in its story. Bane was actually a pretty nasty melon-fether.

Spoiler:

Except compared to every source material he was so wildly off character. Even the terribly 90's Batman and Robin had a better Bane.

So the mute, mindless Bane of Batman and Robin was more "in character" to you?
.
.
.
.
I think I'm done here.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Except that's not Bane at all.

You seem to be conflating your opinion with fact.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Bane is an insane drug addict

Read the comics. He has never been insane and his reliance on Venom has changed over the years.

 jreilly89 wrote:
raised in a Brazilian prison as a child.

This is not true either. In the comics it is a fictional South American country, not Brazil.

 jreilly89 wrote:
don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.

You should visit Brazil sometime and see the variety of Brazilians, it will blow your mind. Either way see above as to why that is a bunch of gak.

 jreilly89 wrote:
That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread

Captain America is black in the comics. This may be a surprise to you since you didn't even know that there are light skinned Brazilians, but there are Americans that are black.

 Ahtman wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Bane is an insane drug addict

Read the comics. He has never been insane and his reliance on Venom has changed over the years.

Fair enough. I'm going off the comics I've read and the 90's tv show, so I'm willing to admit it may have
been retconned.

 jreilly89 wrote:
raised in a Brazilian prison as a child.

This is not true either. In the comics it is a fictional South American country, not Brazil.

Fair enough. Again, I'm willing to admit I was wrong for generalizing. I always thought he was Brazillian.

 jreilly89 wrote:
don't make him white instead of Brazilian. Hell, the guy sounded british.

You should visit Brazil sometime and see the variety of Brazilians, it will blow your mind. Either way see above as to why that is a bunch of gak.

See above where I admitted I was wrong. Also, nice candor.

 jreilly89 wrote:
That's like a black Captain America. But that's a story for another thread

Captain America is black in the comics. This may be a surprise to you since you didn't even know that there are light skinned Brazilians, but there are Americans that are black.

Captain America was only ever black in one series. Perhaps you're thinking of Green Lantern. Again, really mature.

@jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.

Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Captain America was only ever black in one series. Perhaps you're thinking of Green Lantern. Again, really mature.

He is black in the actual comic series, not some side project or Elseworld style project.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.

Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.

Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.

Especially when David Warner voices him.

Brazillian (and fething awesome):


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Just saying.

 Albatross wrote:
Brazillian (and fething awesome):


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Brazilian:


Just saying.

Thought we established he wasn't Brazillian? And my problem is with his Scottish accent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@jreilly: You're also forgetting that Bane is a highly educated criminal and it's possible he could have lost his Hispanic accent over time.

Possibly, but that still seems like an aside. Assuming the prison was still fixed in South America and he hooked up with Ra's al Ghul, wouldn't he have more of an Arabian accent instead of British? Even Ra's didn't seem to have a British accent. I mean, Dark Knight Bane sounded like Sean Connery.

Lol. Are you aware that not all British accents sound like Queen's English? There's a huge variety here. In a great deal of Batman animations, Ra's has a British accent.

Yes I am aware, but most of what I've seen has Ra's with a pretty neutral accent. Also, Bane speaks English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Latin. He could totally lose the accent, but I would still think it would be neutral, not Scottish.

Lol what Scottish accent?! There isn't one lol.

 Ahtman wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Captain America was only ever black in one series. Perhaps you're thinking of Green Lantern. Again, really mature.

He is black in the actual comic series, not some side project or Elseworld style project.

Absolutely not. He was black in one series, the 2003 limited edition series. He's also my favorite superhero, so don't screw with me on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Bradley

Cap's now black again as of 9hrs ago..

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Cap's now black again as of 9hrs ago..

Why? Thor's a woman too and Iron Man is now very Silver Surfer in terms of color.

K. Bravo Disney. Now how about make Yoda a woman and Han Solo black too?

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/07/16/marvels-avengers-now-captain-america-is-black-thor-is-female-iron-man-has-a-new-suit/

 jreilly89 wrote:
Absolutely not. He was black in one series, the 2003 limited edition series. He's also my favorite superhero, so don't screw with me on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Bradley

IF you are going to look at wiki you need to look at all of it, especially the last part:

During a battle with an enemy called the Iron Nail, the Super-Soldier Serum within Rogers's body was neutralized, causing him to age rapidly to match his chronological age of over 90. No longer able to take part in field missions but retaining his sharp mind, Rogers decided to take on a role as mission co-ordinator, organizing the Avengers' plans of attack from the mansion, while appointing Sam Wilson as his official 'replacement' as Captain America.

And on The Falcon's entry:

After Rogers is aged into an old man, he appoints Falcon as his 'official' replacement as Captain America.

Steve Rogers is now essentially The Oracle from Batman.

As for complaining about Thor and Iron Man you are both months behind the time (we had a thread about it already) and informed as well as someone who doesn't read comics is but sees headlines on non-comic websites.

It's like Bucky or John Walker (or, heck, a lot of peeples): give 'em an arc or two to make a statement, then a writer change later the status quo and Steve Rogers will be back.

The Punisher isn't an angel or a Frankenstein's monster anymore, the extra Hulks are being wiped out, Thor will have goolies again within a year or two (he was a frog, and dead, at separate times). The more things change the more they stay the same.