Am I the only one who feels that Nolan got it all wrong?

[circa02]

As a life long Batman fan, I was ofcourse thrilled about Chris Nolan's take on Batman, but not only was I very disappointed, I seam to be the only one on earth who thinks they totally suck. My biggest reason is I believe he got the character of Batman all wrong. In his movies, he IS Bruce Wayne, who pretends to be Batman. His personality outside of the mask is totally normal, not dark or brooding; he isn't psychologically damaged, he 's just angry. He only takes up the mantle as a symbol to inspire others to make changes, meaning being Batman is only for a short while.

That's not at all the Batman from the comics and the cartoons. He needs to be Batman, he couldn't function otherwise. That's the only time he feels any type of normalcy. In the Dark Knight, when Harvey Dent came along, he was all for retiring the costume. Would the Batman from the DCAU ever even consider that?

I also believe that Nolan failed in the whole "realistic approach" as well. The gliding cape would never work as shown, and just about everything in the Dark Knight was ridiculous. Aside from the Joker being able to know and do just about everything, including rigging a hospital with hundreds of explosives in less then an hour, the whole cell phone sonar thing... I mean, come on, THAT'S realistic? The tumbler makes no sense as well. If the military were to use a car for jumping rivers, they wouldn't have it armored, have weapons, a stealth mode, and how/why the heck could a MOTORCYCLE fit in there? And anyone above the age of 4 would know that there would be no way Dent could function with that much damage.

Anyway, I've been wanting to talk about this for a long time, and I did it here because I believe you guys will be more objective then at the IMDB forums. So, what say you?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology)

[ryandcow]

I liked them both, but I only liked Christian Bale's Bruce/Bats in the first movie. He seems more intwined with the Batman in the first one. (He also was only Batman for a tiny little bit at that point) If not for the spot on Joker by Heath Ledger, TDK would have stunk. To be fair though, we could say that Batman has not become the unstable paranoid man he is in the comics yet, so in the third movie he could be like that. Especially since everyone will be/was after him.

[suss2it]

That's not at all the Batman from the comics and the cartoons. He needs to be Batman, he couldn't function otherwise. That's the only time he feels any type of normalcy. In the Dark Knight, when Harvey Dent came along, he was all for retiring the costume. Would the Batman from the DCAU ever even consider that?In the movie Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Bruce was ready to quit being Batman when he fell in love.


The tumbler makes no sense as well. If the military were to use a car for jumping rivers, they wouldn't have it armored, have weapons, a stealth mode, and how/why the heck could a MOTORCYCLE fit in there? And anyone above the age of 4 would know that there would be no way Dent could function with that much damage.It was built for the military but Bruce and Fox modified it.

I like Nolan's take on Batman, sure it's kinda different from the comics and the DCAU but then again Batman is quite different throughout his entire comic book history so I don't see it as a problem that Nolan makes his Batman a bit differently.

[Dreyfus]

I don't think Batman should be portrayed as crazy. I hate it when writers focus too much on that brooding, dark side to the character. For me, the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne is what created Batman, but it didn't traumatize him for life the way that some people think. It set him onto his mission to stop crime. Besides that, I would argue that Christian Bale does a great job as Bruce Wayne. He plays the eccentric billionaire in public, but you also get the "real" Bruce Wayne in the scenes where he can be himself.

[Michael24]

I won't get into whether or not the film's captured the characters or whatever, but just as a viewer, I know I was disappointed by both. I liked The Dark Knight a tad more than Batman Begins, but overall I just found them so relentlessly dark and grim and borderline-depressing to watch. Yeah, yeah, I get that Batman/Wayne is a character with problems, and I don't mind that. But . . . I don't know. At the end of the day, these movies just don't work for me.

Personally, I'm already waiting for future Batman movies once the franchise changes hands again to see what they come up with.

[launchpad20]

In the 'BTAS' episode, 'I Am The Night', Batman goes into a rage after he sees Gordon shot, and taken to the hospital. Blaming himself for not getting to him on time. He tells Robin that he might retire because he doesn't feel like he's making much of a difference in Gotham. Fortunately, things turn around, Batman sets things right, Gordon recovers, and has renewed confidence in his duties. Also, the main plot of 'Batman Beyond' involves Bruce giving up his career as Batman at an old age until Terry came into his life, and having him become the new Batman. So i would say that this isn't all that far off from who Batman is, and how he deals with his daily struggles in 'The Dark Knight'.

[CyclonatorZ]

Why is it necessarily bad if Nolan's Batman isn't 100% like the comic books or the "Almighty Better than Perfect DCAU?" Is there anything wrong with him putting his own spin on the Bruce Wayne/Batman relationship? The mark of true genius is not just making a perfect adaption of someone else's work, but creating a new version that still retains the spirit and themes of the original.

Besides, while Nolan did alter some things about Batman's world (and thus made it more realistic than any previous comic book movie), I still feel that his interpretation is one of the best we've ever gotten. With brilliant casting, great themes and characters, and special effects that don't rely too heavily on CGI, I really don't understand why some people are so negative about his movies - or anything else that isn't related to Bruce Timm. Go back and watch your collection of DCAU dvds, and let the rest of us enjoy new, original interpretations of Batman. :p

[Invidente 7]

There's a whole website dedicated at stating how much TDK sucks and how everyone who disagrees are idiots

It's www.thedarknightsucks.com

There a whole bunch of people who genuinely hate the movie for destroying the mystique of batman and making him too real...and of course they're the other fans who call such people idiots and so on

[Itchy]

I could never get into Nolan's Bat-movies either. When Batman Begins came out it was nice to finally see a more serious and darker Bat-film again, but the movie came off to me as kinda bland. The villains weren't that memorable, most of the fight scenes not very exciting and Gotham looked pretty much like it could've been any city, it didn't have a distinct style like Burton's Gotham did.

The Dark Knight is a fairly good movie but there were still some things that kinda bugged me.
Aaron Eckhart does a wonderful job as Harvey Dent, it's just to bad they decided to only give him about 15 minutes of screen time as Two-face and then kill him off. It would've been a much better decision to leave him out of the film after he is disfigured and have him return in a sequel as Two-face and be the primary villain of that film.
Bale kinda overdo the Batman voice, it sounds forced and over the top in some parts.
I don't really like Nolan's idea of making a hundred percent realistic Batman movie. Some realism is okay, but not so much that you have to make The Joker have a glasgow smile, wear makeup and dye his hair because the whole transformed by toxic waste thing is not realistic.
And I am sorry Ledger fans, but this Joker didn't work for me. He seemed joyless, depressing and looked like some kinda messy emo. I guess Ledger did a good job with it though.

Just to clarify before any Nolan fans decide to tear me apart, I don't think they're bad, they're just not my kinda movies.

[JasonFox]

The thing is Batman himself and his universe in the comics is more realistic than other comic series.

But Nolan made it more realistic. Think about it. If your parents had been killed you of course would be angry but it would also to serious damage to the mind. Where as in real alot of people convert to becoming criminal. Bruce Wayne turned to crime-fighting but still dealt with not being able to handle relationships with people.

I find this was achieved perfectly by Nolan.

[DisneyBoy]

This is a conversation that's been going on around here for years (glad you joined it!) and there still seem to be, even for those who don't love Nolan's take, arguments on both sides of the fence as to who got it ''right'' in the end. I wouldn't say anything 'sucks' because that's pretty blunt and disrespectful to the creative teams...

...unless we're taking about Smallville, of course :anime:

Like you, I don't enjoy Nolan's ''This is the REAL world because we have an explanation for EVERYTHING!!'' approach, but after Burton and then Schumaker's wierd, wild and expressionistic Gothams...where else could the franchise have gone? Someone was bound to take a more 'real' approach to things, and I guess I can't argue with that.

I also don't quite feel like Bruce Wayne exists before Batman in these films either. The idea with Batman Begins was to show the birth of the hero...so obviously Bruce will get significant development and focus and screentime. Just because we were introduced to him in depth first before Batman doesn't mean this isn't a Batman franchise.

For me, the real issues are how Nolan twists what I enjoy about Batman to suit the 'realistic' version he'd like to portray. His Joker isn't a laughing maniac in a purple suit who plays games with Batman to amuse himself - he's a terrorist out to prove people will turn on each other and chaos is the only absolute power. Visually, I could barely stand to watch this Joker on-screen. He looked like a crack addict crossed with a rapist, licking his lips and breathing heavily. Not my cup of tea. Joker laughs, Joker smiles, Joker scares...Heath was playing some other character.

Same goes for Two-Face. I love how he's the literal embodiment of the duality of human nature. Destroy or create? Defend or condemn? He swings between both these things because that's who he is inside. This Harvey was just a guy who ended up in a really nasty accident and lost his girlfriend, all because of some terrorist. He blamed his friends for not protecting him better (or whatever - I really can't recall why he went after Jim Gordon in the end) and stalked around pointing a gun at people's heads. That describes a heck of a lot of people in the real world...but not Two-Face. When we saw Nolan's Harvey wearing a two-toned suit all of a sudden, who wasn't thinking ''Um....what's with the sudden fashion sense, Harvey?'' He didn't have a multiple personality disorder, his abusive father was completely left out as well, and in the end, I actually found myself rooting for this poor guy to get some sense of justice. Obviously, I don't condone gun violence simply because of personal pain...but the way the script played out, how could you not sympathize?

And I know there are plenty of people out there ready and willing to tell me I'm wrong - I'm being close-minded and denying the vision and genius of this franchise because I simply don't ''get it''. But I think I do. Others here have said I simply don't prefer this version, and I have to agree with them.

So in that sense, yup, you're not alone. And while we're crabbing...does it annoy you that Heath's Joker got all the Oscar buzz, and is now on Entertainment Weekly's Top 100 Characters list? Yikes. Give me Hammil or Nicholson any day.

[Robin2099]

As a life long Batman fan, I was ofcourse thrilled about Chris Nolan's take on Batman, but not only was I very disappointed, I seam to be the only one on earth who thinks they totally suck. My biggest reason is I believe he got the character of Batman all wrong. In his movies, he IS Bruce Wayne, who pretends to be Batman. His personality outside of the mask is totally normal, not dark or brooding; he isn't psychologically damaged, he 's just angry. He only takes up the mantle as a symbol to inspire others to make changes, meaning being Batman is only for a short while.

Uhm, did you forget the entire part in BB, when they have a discussion about how "Bruce Wayne" was just a mask that he uses to throw off people about who he really is?


That's not at all the Batman from the comics and the cartoons. He needs to be Batman, he couldn't function otherwise. That's the only time he feels any type of normalcy. In the Dark Knight, when Harvey Dent came along, he was all for retiring the costume. Would the Batman from the DCAU ever even consider that?


If your a lifelong Batman fan, you should know how many times Bruce was willing to give up being Batman. He's done it multiple times in the comics over the years, as well as twice in the DCAU.


I also believe that Nolan failed in the whole "realistic approach" as well. The gliding cape would never work as shown, and just about everything in the Dark Knight was ridiculous. Aside from the Joker being able to know and do just about everything, including rigging a hospital with hundreds of explosives in less then an hour, the whole cell phone sonar thing... I mean, come on, THAT'S realistic?

Your missing the point here. Nolans goal was to make a comic book movie that felt like it could exist in a realistic world. It obviously isn't 100% realistic because you loose that the second you have a movie about a guy dressed like a bat who fights crime. And as for the part about the Joker, superhero movies always have plot holes. Again, if you can accept a guy dressed like a bat beating up the mob, I don't see why the Joker and explosives is a problem unless you just want to knit pick to knit pick.


The tumbler makes no sense as well. If the military were to use a car for jumping rivers, they wouldn't have it armored, have weapons, a stealth mode, and how/why the heck could a MOTORCYCLE fit in there?

The Bat pod wasn't a separate motorcycle. It was already present in the tumbler, and it was used for ejection purposes. It's what he used when he was using the targeting computer.


And anyone above the age of 4 would know that there would be no way Dent could function with that much damage.


Two-Face is a fanciful character, again if you can accept that someone is running around dressed like a bat, I don't see why TF is that big an issue. By the same token, I could say anyone over the age of four knows that falling in acid won't bleach your skin white, but magically dye your hair green. It's fantasy, just accept it or you won't be able to enjoy it.

[JTMarsh]

Nolan's Batman is a deliberate work in progress. He's got a lot to learn about being a superhero.

As for the Joker's "social experiment" not being "realistic", well, he's gotten away with wonkier things in the comics, cartoons, other films, etc. In the 1989 film he rode into downtown Gotham on a pink cake float throwing out what was supposed to be fake money (look closely you may see his face on the bills) and then tried to gas everyone, and then managed to gun down Batman's very expensive & powerful Bat-Wing with an impossibly long revolver. That's what's called Suspension of Disbelief.

[mr.happy]

As a life long Batman fan, I was ofcourse thrilled about Chris Nolan's take on Batman, but not only was I very disappointed, I seam to be the only one on earth who thinks they totally suck.I wouldn't say they outright suck, they're just wildly overrated, and, as you said, Nolan got some of the fundamentals badly wrong.


I also believe that Nolan failed in the whole "realistic approach" as well. The gliding cape would never work as shown, and just about everything in the Dark Knight was ridiculous.Yes, although the first movie seemed fairly well rooted in some sort of reality, things got decidedly wacky by the time the sequel rolled around.


The tumbler makes no sense as well. If the military were to use a car for jumping rivers, they wouldn't have it armored, have weapons, a stealth mode, and how/why the heck could a MOTORCYCLE fit in there?To be fair, I believe the stealth mode was just switching the lights off. :)


Anyway, I've been wanting to talk about this for a long time, and I did it here because I believe you guys will be more objective then at the IMDB forums. So, what say you?I say it's always good to see someone who's reluctant to accept the fanboy gospel about Nolan's Batman.

[RavenFan17]

I say it's always good to see someone who's reluctant to accept the fanboy gospel about Nolan's Batman.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like you see people calling these movies overrated or anything. I've never seen a topic like this, ever. You're totally alone. :shrug:

That said, I don't have that much love for Nolan's movies anymore. I still love love love Heath Ledger's performance, though. I'm surprised that Nolan allowed such a fun character into his movie.

[Gokou Ruri]

The Nolan Movie Batman is my favorite Batman. I liked the more realistic take on it. I found it to be better than the comics or cartoons.

[ryandcow]

But he's a realism Nazi.... No other Super heroes exist in his Batman world, because they are not realistic enough (Dido/Johns/WB are going to force him to change that) yes even heroes like The Question (the face mask thing?, please, Batman's cape is exactly the same level of border line possible) Ted Kord (get rid of the flying bug and you'd be fine) and Wild Cat (the human one) . That means he isn't making DC films and is just making films about Batman.

[Bloody Marquis]

But he's a realism Nazi.... No other Super heroes exist in his Batman world, because they are not realistic enough (Dido/Johns/WB are going to force him to change that) yes even heroes like The Question (the face mask thing?, please, Batman's cape is exactly the same level of border line possible) Ted Kord (get rid of the flying bug and you'd be fine) and Wild Cat (the human one) . That means he isn't making DC films and is just making films about Batman.
Well, that's because they're supposed to be films about Batman. How exactly would TDK be improved if the Question was around?

[GWOtaku]

I've never fully bought into the idea that Bruce Wayne is only the mask that Batman wears. To me, the character of the man informs the actions of the hero just as his traumatic experience motivates him. If that's what a "realistic" take means, then so be it. I don't need Batman to be a Gary Stu semi-crazy-but-not-too-much brooding badass to be a big fan of the guy.

There are many different takes on Batman. I'm nowhere near the biggest Bat fan around, so I won't presume to say which one is best. But Nolan's take is completely legitimate and it's delivered us two really, really good movies. No complaints. It's not animated Batman, but it doesn't need to be. It's good.

I do enjoy the relative realism of his gadgets, his suit, etc. That doesn't stop Nolan's Batman from being awesome. Seriously, the Batmobile is just cool. The costume & the armor he wears is certainly imposing and useful. And I won't even start to gush over how great it was when Batman used his motorcyle to flip over a truck in TDK.

[HG Revolution]

The Nolan Movie Batman is my favorite Batman. I liked the more realistic take on it. I found it to be better than the comics or cartoons.

I thought you didn't like live-action, especially live-action movies with big-name actors.;)

[Superpan]

Also, Nolan doesn't want other heroes because they're not realistic, but because he didn't want any other heroes in Batman's universe. That's why he changed Zorro to an opera, because he didn't want Bruce to be following in other's footesteps. He'll probably do the same with Superman.

As for the realism arguement, these movies aren't anymore realistic than most other franchises. Frank Miller's Batman: Year One was much more realistic then Nolan, and that had two references to Superman. This is only the beginning of Batman's career and so there hasn't been many parts of Batman lore that can't be done with significant departures from reality. To be quite frank, the only movie that ever wowed me with it's realism was Iron Man, because of all the references and designs definitely felt like how Tony Stark would become Iron Man in 2008.

I love the Nolan franchise, and I think he had good interpretations. While I prefer Timm's take on Batman and Joker, Nolan did great live-action versions of them both, and Two-Face I liked more under Nolan than Timm.

[Silverstar]

I'm not the biggest Batfan there is, nor am I big on the practice of giving comics, cartoons and other bits of fiction the "realistic" treatment. Since I have to live in the real world, I don't particularly want to see it up on the big screen. For me, the unreality and over-the-top powers and special effects are what makes superhero movies fun for me.

That said, Nolan's "real" approach works for Batman. His 2 films worked out fine, since Bats has always been a tad more 'rooted' than other DC superheroes. The Nolan approach only falls apart when you start entertaining the notion of crossing Batman over with other DC characters; super-powered aliens, Amazon princesses, cosmic powered space cops with magic rings and Atlantean kings simply wouldn't work in the Nolanverse.

(The Nolan take can also be counterproductive if carried too far; if you make things too real, then pretty soon, Batman himself won't be permissible. After all, how realistic is a billionaire playboy who deals with his mommy and daddy issues by dressing up as a bat and smacking the snot out of people, capturing them with his super-duper bat-themed gadgets and his boo-billion dollar high-tech cave?)

[Gokou Ruri]

I thought you didn't like live-action, especially live-action movies with big-name actors.;) I prefer animation overall, but I found the Nolan movies to be better executed than the animated adaptions I've seen. I'm not one of those people who worship The Dark Knight as the best movie ever or think Ledger Joker was the Be-All-End-All Joker, but I liked the more realistic approach. I mean, a tank makes more sense to me than a normal car with bat wing designs on it for someone going out on the streets to pick fights with thugs.

As for the 'no other heroes', I don't want to see Superman or anyone else in the movies (though we probably will if DC decides to copy marvel's Movieverse format). I want to watch Batman; if I wanted to watch Superman or Question, I'd watch a Superman or Question movie. If I know Superman exists in the Batman universe, then I always ask "So.. why doesn't Superman just come and stop the Joker or whoever in the blink of an eye?" I prefer the heroes to be in their own universe and not have crossovers for that reason. But I disagree with them not using Killer Croc or Poison Ivy or some of the more 'out there' villains. I think those could work if given the right twist. Though in that regard, I think animation would work better to show off their abilities (since the fight scenes and shaky cam in the movies were kind of an eyesore), but it'd still be interesting to see. Still, with guys like Riddler and Black Mask out there, they don't need to tap into the more supernatural rogues for the Nolan movies.

[ryandcow]

Well, that's because they're supposed to be films about Batman. How exactly would TDK be improved if the Question was around?
That's not the point, I gave the Question example because (s)he's a powerless hero who is fairly plausible, yet still doesn't exist in Nolan's Batman universe. My LCS guy said that Metropolis doesn't even exist on his movies. (Not sure of the truth to that). I'm just saying that a big part of the DC Universe is the interaction between all of the different characters, which can't happen in Nolan's Batman Universe. And two reasons that Superman can't come and stop the Joker or whoever 1. It's Batman's City. 2. He's kinda busy with stuff going on in Metropolis, His city.

[Hanshotfirst113]

No, you're not. Mr. happy has detailed his problems with them inconsiderable detail many, many, many times :p. There are plenty of detractors for them floating around. Years down the road, we'll see what kind of reputation they have.

[W.C.Reaf]

That's not the point, I gave the Question example because (s)he's a powerless hero who is fairly plausible, yet still doesn't exist in Nolan's Batman universe. My LCS guy said that Metropolis doesn't even exist on his movies. (Not sure of the truth to that). I'm just saying that a big part of the DC Universe is the interaction between all of the different characters, which can't happen in Nolan's Batman Universe. And two reasons that Superman can't come and stop the Joker or whoever 1. It's Batman's City. 2. He's kinda busy with stuff going on in Metropolis, His city.

But these films aren't meant to be DC Universe films, they're Batman films. They're not meant to showcase the best and brightest of DC, they're meant to be films about Batman.

Even the Marvel Movie verse doesn't showcase other heroes unless there's a reason and even then it was just Black Widow in Iron Man 2. The wider universe had no real effect on Iron Man 1 or The Incredible Hulk other than cameos at the end.

Even though they could've had the Hulk fight Iron Man in a Hulk buster suit at the end of his film, just because their universes are the same, it doesn't happen because Incredible Hulk was about the Hulk. It's not about Tony Stark tracking the Hulk, which the film would've turned into if they'd have put Iron Man in it.

The Batman films are going to be about Batman first and foremost. If people want Superman in there then that's what a Worlds Finest movie is for, a Superman Batman team up.

[ryandcow]

The Batman films are going to be about Batman first and foremost. If people want Superman in there then that's what a Worlds Finest movie is for, a Superman Batman team up.
But according to Nolan, there can't be a World's Finest Movie in his Batman continuity, that's what I'm complaining about, not that Superman wasn't in TDK or anything.

[circa02]

In the movie Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Bruce was ready to quit being Batman when he fell in love.

But that was a totally unexpected situation. Remember, "I didn't count on being happy"? In Begins, Bruce is only being Batman to inspire others, so THEY can save Gotham. "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of their apathy, and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne."


I don't think Batman should be portrayed as crazy. I hate it when writers focus too much on that brooding, dark side to the character. For me, the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne is what created Batman, but it didn't traumatize him for life the way that some people think. It set him onto his mission to stop crime.

Then why didn't he become a cop like many who suffer unjust loss? Seeing his parents murdered before his eyes at 8 years old DID screw him up, as it would anyone. If he could never have become Batman, he would have gone totally over the edge.


In the 'BTAS' episode, 'I Am The Night', Batman goes into a rage after he sees Gordon shot, and taken to the hospital. Blaming himself for not getting to him on time. He tells Robin that he might retire because he doesn't feel like he's making much of a difference in Gotham. Fortunately, things turn around, Batman sets things right, Gordon recovers, and has renewed confidence in his duties.

Even if he stopped wearing the suit, his true identity would still be Batman.


Uhm, did you forget the entire part in BB, when they have a discussion about how "Bruce Wayne" was just a mask that he uses to throw off people about who he really is?

I remember at the end of Begins, Bruce says to Rachael that Batman is just a mask, then she says that Bruce Wayne is the mask, despite all the evidence in both movies that the former is correct.

[circa02]

Ok, I tried Begins again, hoping I could try to get into it, but I just can't stand this "take" on this character. I really don't understand why any Batman fan would like this interpretation, it's just all wrong.

[suss2it]

Ok, I tried Begins again, hoping I could try to get into it, but I just can't stand this "take" on this character. I really don't understand why any Batman fan would like this interpretation, it's just all wrong.
How can it be wrong? In the comics alone there are already a huge amount of different interpretations of the character. It's fine that you don't like this version, but to call it wrong, well I think that's wrong:p

[Nygma]

His Joker isn't a laughing maniac in a purple suit who plays games with Batman to amuse himself - he's a terrorist out to prove people will turn on each other and chaos is the only absolute power.

Did you miss the quote, where he told Batman that he needed him, because he was bored with trivialities like ripping off mob dealers? Everything he did from his first meeting with Batman to the present, all centered around the games he was playing with Batman. All the things he told people like Harvey how he "didn't have a plan", he was obviously full of crap and lying to them. All the things he was doing were for the sake of getting Batman to rise to the challenge.


Visually, I could barely stand to watch this Joker on-screen. He looked like a crack addict crossed with a rapist, licking his lips and breathing heavily.

I think you've got Heath's Joker confused with "The Batman"'s take on him.:p

[launchpad20]

How can it be wrong? In the comics alone there are already a huge amount of different interpretations of the character. It's fine that you don't like this version, but to call it wrong, well I think that's wrong:pBruce Timm once said that 'while Batman is iconic, he's open to different interpretations.'

[WrenchNinja]

Yes, you are the only one in the world who thinks that Nolan got it all wrong. You're also a beautiful unique snow flake too.

No, I don't think he got it wrong. He got it more right than any one else has live action wise.

[Bones Justice]

The only live-action Batman film I really like is the one from 1989. Keaton was excellent as Batman and Bruce Wayne. Nicholson gave a great performance as the Joker. Batman was kept mysterious through much of the movie. Gotham was perfect. And the car, wow, that is still the best Batmobile ever! This movie really got me interested in Batman even though I knew about the character long before that.

I tried to like the sequels but I simply don't. I can't even bother watching any of them again. I saw the last one on cable because I couldn't force myself to see it in the theater.

The new movies are much better than the sequels but I don't think they come close to the 1989 film. Batman Begins seems like a fan-film, spending far too much time on the "why's" and "how's" and very little on story. The Dark Knight was much better in this regard and perhaps it's because the Joker and Two-Face stories are re-makes of others but I was somewhat bored with the plot. The action was better in The Dark Knight but neither really impressed me, either. The 1989 Batmobile is so cool, the Tumbler is just...goofy.

[FireWarrior]

Ok, I tried Begins again, hoping I could try to get into it, but I just can't stand this "take" on this character. I really don't understand why any Batman fan would like this interpretation, it's just all wrong.

Just because you don't like it does not mean that everybody shouldn't. Look, Batman like many other comic book characters is subject to many different interpretations by many different people. Nolan's realistic approach is simply just one of many that is all.

When I was younger I enjoyed the 1989 film immensely. I'd watch the film so many times that the VHS would wear out and my parents had to get a new copy. Now that I have grown older I've watched the film again and I just can't take it anymore. I'm not sure why but for me it seemed that the 1989 film could be enjoyed at a younger age but as an adult I can't take it quite as seriously. Chris Nolan's take on the Batman has been absolutely brilliant in my view. He has explored the character of Bruce Wayne far better than previous attempts and his take on a more gritty realistic comic book universe is refreshing compared to some other over the top comic films. Not to mention that the acting and cast in my opinion is far superior in the newer films versus the older films.

So are you the only one that thinks that Nolan got it wrong? Clearly not as there are plenty of people here on this board who don't care for Begins or TDK. However for you to be confused on how other Bat fans can like the new movies is a little short sighted. Other people have different opinions you know?

[cnfan91]

I like Nolan's take on Batman but my only problem with it is that it takes itself way too seriously.

In the 1989 film it was semi-serious and B'TAS' was similar to Tim Burton's Batman films. In both B'TAS' and Burton's films, they had lighter moments and had some stuff you could laugh at. In Nolan's films it's more melodramatic and darker. I like to laugh a little bit while I watch Batman, not take everything so serious with over the top drama.

Not to get too off topic but I actually thought Superman Returns was better than Nolan's Batman films but that's just me.

[Bloody Marquis]

I like Nolan's take on Batman but my only problem with it is that it takes itself way too seriously.

In the 1989 film it was semi-serious and B'TAS' was similar to Tim Burton's Batman films. In both B'TAS' and Burton's films, they had lighter moments and had some stuff you could laugh at. In Nolan's films it's more melodramatic and darker. I like to laugh a little bit while I watch Batman, not take everything so serious with over the top drama.
You didn't laugh at the Joker's magic trick? Or when he blew the hospital up?

[ryandcow]

@Bones Justice
The designs of the batmobile in the comics and in the Keaton films never made sense to me. They are so aerodynamically unsound that they would never achieve the speeds the do, let alone keep together (especially the dual fins) when Batman fires up an after-burner. The tumbler makes way more sense. And it ain't goofy. Call it goofy when it blows up your car.

[Goodfellow]

Nolan's Batman movies did for superhero movies what Denny O'Neil's Batman comics did for comics in the 70s, make them legitament again. Nolan has perfected Batman in every way as if O'Neil was writing them himself.

And if you don't like Nolan's Joker, read "The Killing Joke," "The Dark Knight Returns," and "Joker's Five Way Revenge" (also written by O'Neil) and you will see the same Joker in action.

[Itchy]

@Bones Justice
The designs of the batmobile in the comics and in the Keaton films never made sense to me. They are so aerodynamically unsound that they would never achieve the speeds the do, let alone keep together (especially the dual fins) when Batman fires up an after-burner. The tumbler makes way more sense. And it ain't goofy. Call it goofy when it blows up your car.
Yes, the Burtonmobile wouldn't have been able to work very well in the real world but the Tumbler would.
I guess that brings up one of the problems mentioned earlier that some of us had with these films. That everything has to make sense and be realistic in Nolan's films.
So that means we can't have a Batmobile with a more cool design, The Joker can't be chemically dyed, villains like Killer Croc or Clayface can never be used and so on. And to some of us that kinda sucks the fun outta things.

[ryandcow]

Yes, the Burtonmobile wouldn't have been able to work very well in the real world but the Tumbler would.
I guess that brings up one of the problems mentioned earlier that some of us had with these films. That everything has to make sense and be realistic in Nolan's films.
So that means we can't have a Batmobile with a more cool design, The Joker can't be chemically died, villains like Killer Croc or Clayface can never be used and so on. And to some of us that kinda sucks the fun outta things.
No, I'm all for metahumans/monsters being in the Batman movies. I just think the tumbler is cool.

[circa02]

http://therawness.com/why-i-hated-the-dark-knight/

http://www.thedarkknightsucks.com/