You can't kill something that doesn't exist.
Nolan's Batman
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
You've put a fair deal of thought into this haven't hungrywing?....haven't you? eh? eh?
You can with some lethal E's
You can with some lethal E's
But thats my point when I say thats the "whole idea" of the films being different experiences to the comic/graphic novels.
A book uses literatacy to tell a story, everything is explained to you and from that you create your own imagery.
A graphic novel/comic uses very little literature, a short explination of events and "speech" and uses the artists own images to manipulate your imagery.
A film uses very little, if any, literature to tell the story and all the imagery is dicated to you by the director.
Your perception of a graphic novel will never be the same as the film because a film is made up from the perceptions of a massive amount of sources, from the screenplay writers idea of each scene to how the actors believe they should play their character... to how the director thinks those actors should play their character.
So thats why I mean the whole "point" of graphic novels being different to the films is right.
Watchmen and V for Vendetta were both written by the same author, if I'm not mistaken.
And I've read the graphic novel for Watchmen (before I saw the movie), and it was an excellent take on it. They covered all the essentials and only changed the ending slightly - to one more tailored for the average joe I believe.
They left out a few side things, but really that wasn't relevant to the main storyline - and in fact the side story I'm talking about they released as another DVD anyway.
I personally much prefer to see the Killing Joke filmed than DKR.
Preacher was going to be made into a series (HBO) I think Gambit, but it got pulled.
"We were budgeting and everything and it was getting really close to going," Johnson told The Continuum. "But the new head of HBO felt it was just too dark and too violent and too controversial. Which, of course, is kind of the point!”
I'd like to see the Invisibles or Transmetropolitan filmed.
I haven't rated any of the Moore adaptations particularly highly. Watchmen I found rather boring.
Preacher was going to be made into a series (HBO) I think Gambit, but it got pulled.
"We were budgeting and everything and it was getting really close to going," Johnson told The Continuum. "But the new head of HBO felt it was just too dark and too violent and too controversial. Which, of course, is kind of the point!”
I'd like to see the Invisibles or Transmetropolitan filmed.
I haven't rated any of the Moore adaptations particularly highly. Watchmen I found rather boring.
Yeah I found it boring, which is odd cos they did nothing wrong...it was basically entirely faithful right down to camera angles...Moore would probably have liked it weirdly...but it just lost something.
Either the freshness of seeing it for the first time...or just because pages and pages of long ideological conversations that seem interesting and thought provoking on paper, are just fecking dull when put on screen for 3 and a bit hours.
Either the freshness of seeing it for the first time...or just because pages and pages of long ideological conversations that seem interesting and thought provoking on paper, are just fecking dull when put on screen for 3 and a bit hours.
Moore doesn't seem to like films in general:
"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."
"I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying," Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. "It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change."
Yes but he's also a nutter
Watchmen was horrendous, it's not fit to lick the sole of TDK's boot.
I'd love for there to be a movie made about Batman's battle with Bane. I'd also like to see a Superman v Doomsday movie.
You should give Transmetropolitan a read Mockney. No superpowers, just one Hunter Thompson-esque journalist living in a decadent future versus a shithole city and an insane, corrupt President of the US.
As for Batman dying, I'd by okay with it either way. Thematically it might work but I think an ending where he gets his shit together as a crimefighter would work well too.
As for Batman dying, I'd by okay with it either way. Thematically it might work but I think an ending where he gets his shit together as a crimefighter would work well too.
Whilst I didn't like The Dark Knight very much, I agree with you, re: Watchmen.
And as for Batman dying, this is Nolan's and Bale's last Batman movie, and probably Freeman's and Caine's too, so they'll kill him off probably. Maybe they won't kill him, but would leave him dying, thusly having an option of a new movie should they absolutely have to make one.
I said in my opinion
Does that make it ok to be wrong?I said in my opinion
In your opinion.
I meant the people of Gotham, rather than the cinema audience. It was just a passing thought of how they could end it with the Batman/Bruce persona coming together in the public eye as Gotham's would-be saviour. Rather than the puppet martyr of the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character.
I haven't really given it much thought though, and it would seem that you have.
Which is AKA fahct.
I think the main obstacle to people not wanting him to die is that it's Batman...you can't kill Batman.
If this wasn't Batman...if this was something Nolan had written called Night Thunder Hawk Man...then I'd guess a lot more people would say the logical conclusion would be to kill him off triumphantly...However since it's Batman people chime in with "well it's got legs, there are more villians, you can't do that" etc etc
But you need to not think of it as Batman, but as a film trilogy in of itself IMO. Batman will continue as a franchise even if Nolan added a 20 minute scene where Batman was forced to suck Alfred's cock in explicit detail at the end....it just will...Someone else will do Batman vs Conan, or whatever
For me some trilogies, or sagas, or whatever, need their characters to die to reach a satisfactory conclusion of the story....Some don't (Indiana Jones shouldn't ever die for example..neither should Bond) but some do (Frodo should've died in LoTR, Ripley had to die in Alien 3..ditto the Terminator, though they kept fecking that one up)
Essentially as Nolan's 3 film Superhero saga, I think Batman really needs to die to complete the circle and ram home the message of sacrifice for the greater good, which is at the core of Batman, and particularly Nolan's ones...
If you think of it less as Batman and more as just a film saga, I'm sure more people would agree....Films shouldn't really pander to fans IMO, that's when they feck up. Hence why people saying Superman vs Batman should happen are completely wide of the mark...That's just fandom/geekdom getting the better of itself..no matter how well you think the character could be served, these films should work in a self contained canon of their own...For me it shouldn't be about how well it services the history of the Batman character, it should be about what makes the best ending to these films....
Sometimes film has a right to feck over it's literary roots if it makes into a more coesive, logical story in of itself. I reckons
Good examples being The Shinning, which Stephen King hated, mainly because it ended on a downer and didn't give Jack a redemptive ending that's in the book, to the point of making his own version which he hoped would be the definitive one...many fans hated it too....But you know what? Kubrick's ver is regarded as the best...Another Kubrick film - The Clockwork Orange - had a similarly redemptive ending the directer removed, which the original author was annoyed about again...He even made a stage version to rectify it...but again, Kubrick's vision prevailed...
Another one..The Prestige...Nolan changed quite a bit from the book, this time the author actually really liked it...In all cases the film maker messed with the source material (and also in all cases, gave the film a more depressing ending) and their version was the one that worked best...
Proof if it be needed that staying loyal to stuff isn't always the best way.
If this wasn't Batman...if this was something Nolan had written called Night Thunder Hawk Man...then I'd guess a lot more people would say the logical conclusion would be to kill him off triumphantly...However since it's Batman people chime in with "well it's got legs, there are more villians, you can't do that" etc etc
But you need to not think of it as Batman, but as a film trilogy in of itself IMO. Batman will continue as a franchise even if Nolan added a 20 minute scene where Batman was forced to suck Alfred's cock in explicit detail at the end....it just will...Someone else will do Batman vs Conan, or whatever
For me some trilogies, or sagas, or whatever, need their characters to die to reach a satisfactory conclusion of the story....Some don't (Indiana Jones shouldn't ever die for example..neither should Bond) but some do (Frodo should've died in LoTR, Ripley had to die in Alien 3..ditto the Terminator, though they kept fecking that one up)
Essentially as Nolan's 3 film Superhero saga, I think Batman really needs to die to complete the circle and ram home the message of sacrifice for the greater good, which is at the core of Batman, and particularly Nolan's ones...
If you think of it less as Batman and more as just a film saga, I'm sure more people would agree....Films shouldn't really pander to fans IMO, that's when they feck up. Hence why people saying Superman vs Batman should happen are completely wide of the mark...That's just fandom/geekdom getting the better of itself..no matter how well you think the character could be served, these films should work in a self contained canon of their own...For me it shouldn't be about how well it services the history of the Batman character, it should be about what makes the best ending to these films....
Sometimes film has a right to feck over it's literary roots if it makes into a more coesive, logical story in of itself. I reckons
Good examples being The Shinning, which Stephen King hated, mainly because it ended on a downer and didn't give Jack a redemptive ending that's in the book, to the point of making his own version which he hoped would be the definitive one...many fans hated it too....But you know what? Kubrick's ver is regarded as the best...Another Kubrick film - The Clockwork Orange - had a similarly redemptive ending the directer removed, which the original author was annoyed about again...He even made a stage version to rectify it...but again, Kubrick's vision prevailed...
Another one..The Prestige...Nolan changed quite a bit from the book, this time the author actually really liked it...In all cases the film maker messed with the source material (and also in all cases, gave the film a more depressing ending) and their version was the one that worked best...
Proof if it be needed that staying loyal to stuff isn't always the best way.
I agree with that, whether he dies or not it should be closed in some way.
I disagree that a film with Batman and Superman wouldn't work, as characters they play off each other well, and I mean, they're Batman and Superman, they're great. But in no way would I want to see Superman and Batman together in a Nolan film. Nolan's film universe has already been clearly established as realistic, or as realistic as you can get with Batman. He's already turned Ras Al-Ghul from an immortal dude into Liam Neeson, he can't go throwing super-powered aliens into his film universe now, it would ruin everything, it would be like that robot in Rocky 3. Just no.
Yeah...that's what I mean. Superman can't be in Nolan's Universe...hence why saying they shouldn't kill him off so they can eventually do The Dark Knight Returns, isn't viable...even if I like the idea of Nolan re-visiting an old Batman.
If you'll allow me to go off an a tangent Mockers....who would you cast as Old!Bruce Wayne?
The only way I could see a Batman/Superman tie in work is if the Nolan Batman was to be a trilogy with Batman dying, retiring whatever and at the end some off screen figure takes up the mantle. This to be followed by a Superman trilogy following on in the same vein and style as Nolan's Batman - not the same characters, story or references but modelled to follow it and link into it but not be tied in as a sequel, so for instance it is known throughout the franchise that there was a past where a hero stood up etc. but it is not definatively quoted so to speak so they can serve one another but not ridiculously so.
If that makes any sense whatsoever.
No! You can't kill Batman!
I mean it isn't literally possible.
(psssst, he doesn't actually exist)
On a more serious note, no you can't kill off Batman. I mean it's Batman. My guess is someone is going to 'reinvent' the whole thing 40 years from now like Nolan has. So it makes no sense for him to die.
Erm....Mickey Rourke?...no...no...Bruce Willis?...in a wig!
That's precisely the reason why you can
Locke from Lost. Or Clint Eastwood.
Unfortuanetly though, its not just a film saga. It's Batman, something Nolan himself has admitted to being a huge nerdy fanboy. He's actually taken a lot for the comics in his films, sometimes literally shot for shot. His films are actually a huge homage to the characters in some respects. He's not just suddenly come in and created a new version of the Batman that no ones seen before. It's more an amalgam of various stories , Year one, the Long Halloween, Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, The Dark Knight Returns etc. In that he has no control and him killing off the Batman, regardless of of film techniques, storytelling and Kubrickisms,is not his decision to make. Superman v Batman isn't a story in itself it's part of a grander tale and if he was able to deliver that tale the way he has the ones he's intertwined already it could work. He's not making art, he's making a film about a masked vigilante that has already been told in many tales beforehand that he himselfs worships.
No you can't. Batman has a story of his own. Nolan has just put his spin on it. It's still Batmans story. He's an icon. Nolan is just another director to tell the story of Batman. There will be loads of others. You can't just kill him off and then bring him back to life again and again. Superheroes shouldn't die IMO, defeats the purpose in being super doesn't it
Tell me something, does it make any sense to kill James Bond?
James Bond is considered to be one unending canon, whereas Batman is multiple and unrelated canons which serve different storytelling purposes - I doubt anybody has any trouble between separating the joker of Batman and the joker of the Dark Knight so one franchise where he lives and another where he dies ought to be no problem.No you can't. Batman has a story of his own. Nolan has just put his spin on it. It's still Batmans story. He's an icon. Nolan is just another director to tell the story of Batman. There will be loads of others. You can't just kill him off and then bring him back to life again and again. Superheroes shouldn't die IMO, defeats the purpose in being super doesn't it
Tell me something, does it make any sense to kill James Bond?
After all the whole point of different canons and reboots is to allow writers the utmost creativity to head for different directions so it almost defeats the purpose of rebooting if you regulate where you can and cannot go.
Yes but the Joker isn't Bond, he's Blofeld, Goldfinger, Oddjob etc. To be frank I don't mind if Nolan kills Batman off, I just can't see him doing it.
I've been watching Batman movies for a long time and for me, and my guess is that it's the same for a lot of people, although Nolan's movies are told in a different style. It is still the same person I'm seeing on screen in every film. When he was first shown on screen for the first one Nolan made, it wasn't like 'oh that's Batman'. More 'what's Batman up to now'. Which would be hard to feel if you just watched Batman die a few years back. It makes the connect strange. It is still ONE character and I just can't see how it would all make sense. For me it would ruin the longevity of the whole thing. But that's just my take.
Also, Mock, why does he have to die to make the whole thing come full circle? Surely every story has it's own 'perfect conclusion' and death although dramatic and poetic in some ways, doesn't apply to every story. Unless you feel it applies to this one in particular.
Did you just make that?
I'd like to see him in the mask before giving my approval. feckin hell I should be a judge on 'who wants to be Batman?'.
Yes yes of course...but that doesn't mean he's bound to it...it means he's taken good inspiration from it...The Joker for example he completely messed with..but it worked..
Yes it is...who's is it?
No. That's the nerdy fan boy in you talking...Superman would instantly render Nolan's universe - the one he's painstakingly created - a joke. He could never work in Nolan's universe....It's for someone else to do...hence why Nolan should end his saga definitively...And as I've said, killing Batman is hardly herecy as it's already been done in the comics...the bigger betrayal was the 60s show..or the bat nipples, or any of the other shit other people have weaved into their versions over time. This is Nolan's version, not the world's or the fans...the only reason people do get so tight about it is because he's done it so well...he's actually fecked with a lot of shit along the way...Most of the main villians are complete re-imaginings for a start. He can kill Batman, and leave someone else to do another one. He's not making these for the slavish fanboy in him, no matter what his spin tells you, he's making the best films he can make...It's a fools errand to think he is, or should, be making these slavishly and loyally for DC universe fans...That would be error No1.
Batman of course. Nolan is just a puppet.
Do you go to conventions?
I've been a huge Batman fan all my life. IMO Nolan should NOT kill Batman off.
Bruce Wayne was recently and controversially killed off in the comics and it caused an absolute shit storm amongst fans.
Warner bros would never allow it anyway. Batman is their no. 1 franchise
Bruce Wayne was recently and controversially killed off in the comics and it caused an absolute shit storm amongst fans.
Warner bros would never allow it anyway. Batman is their no. 1 franchise
I don't understand which kind you're referring to