Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in "Batman" after all

Huh. Whaddaya know.

It's utterly-impossible to "predict" who or what he'll be playing, because that's not how Nolan and company roll: He could be playing anyone, re-imagined into anything, and it'll probably work out (and if not we'll spend years pretending that it did anyway) because Nolan Can Do No Wrong.

In any case, might as well make a game of it: Who can come up with the most preposterous rumor as to who he's playing?? I'll start:

He's Dick Grayson... but NOT Robin!

He's Clark Kent... but NOT Superman!

He's Bane... BEFORE the experiments!

He's Jack Ryder, alias "The Creeper" (short version: What if Keith Olbermann was secretly The Joker, and a good guy.)

He's Harley Quinn - Nolanverse Joker is even more "reimagined" than we thought!

The Joker: 2.0!

Azrael! (good god, I hope not...)

The new Ras Al Guhl!

Vic Sage, alias "The Question!"

The Riddler - Turns out the Nolan's really, really liked your photoshopped fan-poster!

The Ventriloquist! (I love that guy)

Superboy Prime - he suckered-punches reality, thus explaining why the various DC movie heroes don't live in the same universe now!

Surprise! The vaugely Robin Hood-esque bandit Alfred supposedly killed back in the day had a son! And he likes to hire Luchadores and kitty-cosplayers to fuck with his enemies!

Clayface. Why the hell not?


Lucas Neumann said...

I'll tell who he is Bob... Brendan fucking Frye, the teenager gumshoe detective that came to Gothan to kick some ass, discover who killed his ex-girlfriend, help Batman how to be a detective and talk 50's slangs.

Fuck yeah!!!

Dave said...

OK so I have to know...what's with the nolan bashing?

Because I remember you going into this giant accent filled rant about how awesome dark knight was and how great inception was. Are you contractually obligated by the escapist to hate on a set quota of popular things?

Or in the absence of commenting on spiderman have you just decided to hate on nolan?

Drunken Lemur said...

Maybe he'll be Tommy Elliot? Or Victor Fries? Maybe Doctor Hugo Strange?

Sarge said...

Bob talks a lot about how he's "controversial" and "unapologetic" and now he's starting to realize that he only gives bad reviews about %10 of the time. He looks at his history, sees that he gave "Knight and Day" a positive review and apologized for calling Michael Bay a douche bag, and suddenly realizes that he's boring. He's a watered down Peter Travers.

Time to hate on something! Who's popular? Nolan! Okay, let's criticize him for... well, I liked Dark Knight... and all his other movies... so maybe I'll just criticize him for being liked! That's good enough!

Elessar said...

Okay, since this seems to be a big point for you, I need to say this, so that when Nolan is done and someone else inevitably takes over, this can be here for me to say I told you so to the entire universe. I'm gonna put my main point in caps and then expand, kay?


Nothing else matters. If Robin had been in Dark Knight, it would have been average at best (never mind that you'd have to be running an 103 degree fever to be a director who puts Robin in a movie). Robin's problems, backstories and baggage are enough to sink the movie all on it's own. Costume and actor don't matter, he will find a way to pull the movie down regardless.

Ditto for Superman, DOUBLE for Batgirl. I am not kidding. I honestly think that expanding Batman's entourage is the worst thing you could do in a movie. I'm not going to bother going into why.

Secondly: You know what? Fuck yeah, Nolan can do no wrong. I'm not going to apologize for that. It's like the Coen Brothers: There comes a point where you have enough clout as a Director that I will trust you enough to assume you know what your doing. There aren't a lot of directors like that, but after Dark Knight and Inception? Nolan is one of them.

Third: He's probably some form of ally, they don't ALL have to be direct from the comics. That Latina chick from Dark Knight was supposedly based on Renee Montoya, but does she have anything to do with Montoya? Of course not, and it's better that way. Being too close to the comics with something like Batman will sink you.

tyra menendez said...

He's not Peter Travers, because Travers is a spoiler machine when it comes to any geek property. Also, Travers fawns over Oscar-bait and sucked James Cameron's cock so hard, it two trips. Four stars for Avatar? Cracker, please.

Anyway, Nolan isn't all he's cracked up to be. Maybe he's realized that Nolan gets a free pass on a lot of stupid shit, and no one should get that many. To see what I mean about stupid shit, compare his Batman movies to any big, dumb action movie of the 80's and consider how much Nolan tosses around the word "realistic".

Popcorn Dave said...

Yeah, what the other Dave said. Your Dark Knight and Inception reviews were as fanboyish as they come. Sure sounds like you just want to paint everyone else as a sheep for no good reason.

Lucas Neumann said...

So, what are Nolan's stupid shit we are overlooking? Granted, I do see flaws in his movies, but isn't the realist tone he gave in the Dark Knight, how he took the movie and the audience seriously, the very aspect that made the movie to be acclaimed to be "the best super-hero movie ever"?

And I agree, don't use Robin, or superman, or any cameo from other heroes that defy physics laws. They just don't fit for how these movies have been built up.

I know Bob seems to really dig this continuity from comics, and more than once mentioned that Robin should be in the third movie, and even made a short video puting together Superman and Bale, but man, no way, Batman works best alone, if you wan't a superhero mash up extravaganza, wait for Avengers, the comics sucked anyway.

To make an argument, let's take the best Batman cartoon ever, the animated series. The first season was by far the best, and featured very little of Robin, batgirl, and none of the other DC heroes, and the best ones were stared by just Batman and the weeks nemisis, wich was awesome!

Thn they decided to call the show "The Adventures of Batman & Robin" and the "the new adventures of Batman" and by then the Dark Knight have a freaking Bat-family, Bat-gil, Nightwing, Robin, arghh...

O.T said...

Oh please Bob, it couldn't be more obvious who he'd play.

Bathound. Hellz. Yeah.

Seriously Bob, you've sadddened me with your obliviousness and your fanboy-ism towards HUMAN characters. I'm no longer your fan.
Goodbye forever.

-Disappointed guy you'll never meet.

R. Dempsey said...

Robin would be a fantastic character who was given at least two films to be introduced and built up.

But I'm agreeing with the always hilarious Robin bashers; he's not appropriate for the Nolan films because it's to early in Batman's career for Robin to be appropriately introduced. His actions have already gotten his token dead-girlfriend dead, I can't imagine this Batman embracing a side-kick.

I'm excited for Nolan to wrap up his fantastic saga and take on Batman and I'm equal parts excited for someone with a better sense of fun (and isn't all GRIMDARKSRS) to take on Batman and introduce the more memorable and ridiculous elements of the Batman-a-verse.

Daniel said...

Ooh ooh, I know, I know!

He's Killer Croc but in this he's not a crocodile, he's a gangster with a tendency to wear crocodile skin suits and shoes.

In all seriousness, I happen to agree with Tyra and Bob. I've recently re-watched The Dark Knight a couple of times and while its still a fantastic film the flaws have gotten more and more glaring. The fight scenes are confusing, Batman's voice isn't getting any less annoying, and most importantly Nolan seems downright ASHAMED to be filming a "Comic Book Movie" so he wants to cover it up with a "Crime Drama" disguise.
Example- Don't call it a Batcycle, its a Bat-Pod. Its not a Batmobile, its the Tumbler.

Also; Whats with all the hate towards Robin, handled correctly Robin would work perfectly in a live action film. Don't anyone dare to bring up Forever, Schumacher used Robin in the worst way possible. Batman Forever didn't suck because Robin was in it, Robin sucked because he was in Batman Forever! Hit-girl already proved audiences can accept a crime-fighting kid sidekick.

upessimist said...

Deadman...but not actually dead.

Sara Pickell said...

Actually, he could make a pretty decent Clayface. Judging by how the characters have been handled so far, Clayface is one of the easier ones since you simply need a character who changes their face through make-up and prosthetics.

Nick said...

@ Dave and Sarge: Why are you pretending that Bob hasn't already explained what his issues are with Nolan?

akkuma420 said...

I don't think he was shit talking Nolan, just kinda poking fun at the fact that Nolan is so hyped up and that everyone watches and gossips about everything he does when it comes to movies.
It's true what he says too... "Nolan can do no wrong"
I mean he had to earn that quote by making good movies, but at this point if the 3rd Batman movie turns into a complete mess like Transformers or something along those lines everyone would ignore the bad and try and find the good, but any other director is a walking target, nitpick all the bad and ignore the good.
Long story short, I don't feel that he was shit talking, just poking fun at Nolan and his loyal to a fault followers.
IMO anyways...

Blue Highwind said...

Obviously Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be playing Terry McGinnis and "The Dark Knight Rises", despite sounding like a porno, will actually be an adaptation of "Batman Beyond".


(Also, to Bob, why exactly are we rooting against Christopher Nolan here? I thought you wanted a good movie, not a bad one.)

Quey Joh said...

I don't think that Bob's bashing Nolan here at all, he's poking fun at the fanboys out there who get all worked up over directors/screenwriters who alter the slightest thing when doing comic/movie adaptations, but who are all conspiculously silent when Nolan does it.

I think everyone recognises that these movies are the best screen adaptation of Batman himself, which gives him something of a free pass when he changes the other characters.

Or it could just be because the movies are so damn good, and wouldn't have been made better by being more loyal to the source material (quite the opposite, in my opinion).

Dave said...

@ Blue. Don't you dare get my hopes up like that.

@ Daniel

The ashamed meme is one that really need to die in a fire. You are not the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a comic book movie.

The wackier elements of the batman mythos are better left our because alot of them make no damn sense and would feel extremely weird coming out of nowhere.

There's a distressing trend among the geek community to think that somehow we are so much smarter than everyone else and that if only the world would pander to us then everything would be alright.

there's a wonderful image I saw once that lists the various geek movies and the reactions of geeks to them...and they are usually inversely proportional to their success. So while some people might enjoy a batman film so esoteric that people outside the club won't get it, it would only end up hurting the franchise as a whole.

I saw a

The Grey Man said...

I'm with Lucas. Any ties linking this film to "Brick" will only make it better.

And add me to the list of those perplexed at the side comments about Nolan doing no wrong. It's not that he CAN'T, it's just that he generally doesn't. He's not perfect and I still say he has a very functional directing style (I'm glad he didn't get a best director nomination over some of the more deserving nominees), but what he DOESN'T do is fuck things up. I'm not blind to the faults of his films but that doesn't make them bad, and it doesn't mean he's prone to making stupid decisions. And the "spend years pretending" line really threw me. The only film of his that doesn't really hold up that I've noticed is "Insomnia." With the prior casting, a little bit of vitriol sort of made sense; Bob didn't seem to like Bane and Catwoman has not been treated well by the film adaptations, not to mention Anne Hathaway is an odd casting choice regardless of how good she is. But the only news here is that Joseph Gordon Levitt is in the movie. What is there POSSIBLY to bitch about there? Jokes about how he'll play a character who thinks he sees invisible Batman helping a down on their luck pro baseball team win the big game? The guy's on a roll and he's worked with Nolan before, where's the bad news here?

Daniel said...


Watching "Knight" I don't feel like I'm watching a comic book movie I felt as though I was watching a crime drama with a slightly eccentric costume designer. In my mind a proper comic book movie would celebrate its original source not downplay it. Don't get me wrong it's still a fantastic film just not IN MY OPINION a proper comic book adaptation.

Also; I'm not saying the next film should get all "Silver-age" on us, I'm just saying they could go a bit wackier, I mean the guy is already dressing up as a Bat why not go balls to the wall on this thing. Although I agree with the fact that its just too late for Nolan to do this. But since this is his last film, I guess all my wishes could come true after this.

Also, also; I'm really tired of people drawing a line in the middle of say a franchise's mythos and say "From this point on, its geek-only territory." The concept of geek material as a stigma is pretty much gone.

Just recently Lost, one of the most popular T.V shows of all time had its finale. The show was drenched from top to bottom in continuity, one of the central pillars of geekdome.

6 of the highest grossing films of all time include sprawling mythologies and fantastical elements, both inherently geek.

Tron got a sequel.

Watchmen was filmed (whether or not you think its good thats still a gigantic achievement)

Marvel will soon bring to a theatre near me a team up consisting of a gigantic green monster, a cyborg, a master archer, a WWII super-soldier, and the Norse God of Thunder. This is really happening!

If the movie watching audience can accept the idea of a gigantic Mech knife-fighting with an equally gigantic blue-cat girl I think they can accept the idea of a boy training with a billionaire to become a vigilante's sidekick.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Mr. Freeze. It's going to kick ice!

Kyle said...

akkuma and Quey doh are right about the Nolan comment. Personally, I don't think a little optimism is a bad thing. Still, carte blanche isn't the right way to go either.

I love J G-L. Always have. I don't care who he plays, it'll be awesome.

As far as Bob's little game, I'll throw my lot in with...

Riddler. I don't care if its not true. That's who I want.

Additional guesses are Calendar Man, The Mad Hatter, uh... the guy who studies clocks and time and can go super fast in that one Batman: The Animated Series and... longshot: Jimmy Olsen.


Clayton said...

I say go right ahead and make him Jean-Paul Valley considering we already got Bane on board. I think of Azrael as more of a study of how Batman is the ONLY guy who can do what he does. Azrael was an anti-hero, but they didn't glorify it, especially after he started tripping balls and got super-violent. Granted the Knightfall storyline would be kind of hard to adapt into a two-and-a-half hour movie, but the Nolan brothers have proven that their capable of great things. Nolan hasn't proven himself wrong yet I don't expect him to anytime soon.

Dave said...

@ Daniel

You are aware that DC stands for Detective comics, right?

Batman has ALWAYS been a crime story. He's always fought gangsters in addition to his rogues gallery. What the nolan films depict is as much a part of the batman mythos as anything we've seen on film (barring of course batman and robin which was ironically the most comic accurate film ever.)

If you want zany villains, you go for superman. Which of course we won't get because snyder is busy ripping off richard donner and 'improving' it by adding uneccessary slow mo and grimdark shots.

The nolan films are celebrating the source material. Just the parts that were never touched on because the previous writers WERE ashamed of it being a comic book movie. Nolan likes it enough to give it the respect it deserves and not just randomly give into comic geek demands to see Bat mite and solomun grundy all over the place.

Regarding lost, geeks do not have a monopoly on continuity. IN fact its a relatively new thing. Continuity was a staple of mainstream soap operas for how many decades? And early comics could take or leave continuity seemingly at random.

As for the movies, what you fail to mention is that most of them already had built in mainstream fandom/awareness, or were considered the 'event movies' with ground breaking special effects and whatnot. And pretty much all of them existed in a sci-fi fantasy world where they don't have to explain quite as much.

I mean half of avatar's hype came from it being the first new movie form the guy who made the previous most successful movie...which was about a boat.

Compare to movies like Serenity...which made back its budget. Or Snakes on a plane. Or Kick ass. Or Scott Pilgrim vs the world (I am quite personally overjoyed to say the world definitely won on that one).

Compare with say, tranformers...which gets some pretty hilariously misaimed hatred from the geekosphere, and is still extremely popular.

Yes, tron got a sequel. So did cats and dogs. So in all likelihood will yogi bear.

Watchmen was NEVER unfilmable. It was not an achievement to film a novel that was essentially perfect.

And as for the avengers, we have no idea how it will work out. There has been exactly 3 films released building it up, with another 2 on the way. So far, only 1 was really any good.

Lucas Neumann said...

Man that would be so Badass, Batman Beyond was awesome!!!!

And people, chill, Bob is just making fun of the Nolan followers, don't need to get on your toes.

Now my two cents. In a lot of ways I prefer the Burton's Batman than Nolan's. Basically because of Keaton, but the way the world ans story were brought up. Sure, it was dark and had heavy moments like the Nolan ones. But on the other side had Denny DeVito riding gigantic duck. It's all about context people, in Burton movies you could see a troubled teen joining Batman to fight crime because that world allowed it to.

But the same can't be said to the Nolan movies, because even if it's about a guy who dresses like a flying rat, the setting is more a realistic one, stressing on the rational e emotional impact a vigilant such as Batman has on the city and people surronding him.

Can you guys imagine Batman taking a side-kick after a LOT of people were killed, including the love of his life, because the acts of a madman who's nothing more than a side effect to his doings as a out-law vigilant? The last thing he wants is to drag someone to this insanity.

Seriously, what's wrong with this "geek" community, that can't stand anything that doesn't resemble the stories they read in their childhood, and always riding the high horse about how or what should be done in "their" properties, so evil Hollywood won't "rape" their childhood.

Bobby said...

Why is everyone hating on Bob's rather amusing joke about Nolan-fanboys?

They treat him like a god, and ignore very obvious flaws in his movies, while trumpeting his changes to the source comics, and at the same time lambasting any other director that is changing another comic.

Nolan has a handful of good movies, and a few bad ones. "Batman Begins" was awful, and "The Prestige" was one of the worst films I have ever seen. "TDK" is good, to be sure, but not near the level of masterpiece his rabid fanbase have built it up to be.

With all that out of the way, I am looking forward to this last movie, and the addition of JGL will be nice, but if it's not good, I won't really be disappointed.

Dave said...

@Lucas It's called nostalgia, and it's one of the more dangerous aspects of the human psyche. They associate the things in their youth with good times free of responsibility so those things themselves have to be good, and they'll fight to maintain that illusion because they fell that they are protecting their childhood.

It's the same premise behind all those old white men who yearn for the good old days of the 1950s...and conveniently leave out the racism, sexism, homophobia, red scare and the distinct possibility of global nuclear annihilation.

it doesn't feel like that.Nolan has always had criticism. People bitched nonstop before both movies. But after 2 massive successes, i think most people have resigned themselves to giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even though I have serious doubts regarding anna hathaway. I've yet to be impressed with anything she's done, and like holmes before her, i expect her to be the weak link in the film.

besides, Bob is the last person who should be criticizing people for being unwilling to stand criticism of their favourite director.

Lucas Neumann said...


I'm gonna get a bit off-topic here, sorry.

Sure, we all have nostalgia, we all have found memories of our childhood, and heck, who can't say they don't whish to go back to that time.

Nostalgia is all about our good memories, the old guys from the 50's want THEIR good time as kids, but I dont think they wish for a come back for all the social problems of that time. It's more as harmless selective memory.

But our generation nostalgia is diferent. We almost treat the things we liked as children as sacred, and damned be the ones who tries to change it. Never mind the public target is not them anymore, but the new kids, you know, what we are not anymore.

So all those tantrums we see in the internet, about how a movie is not like the comics, or how it misses the spirit from the original or the ever so popular childhood rape is pretty much a whinning from adults who can't grow up.

Sure I get upset when i see a bad super-hero movie, not becuse of the hero, but because the movie is bad. Geeks have this tendency to think just because they read comics in their childhood and supported them ever since, they have the right to tell what should or shouldn't be in a movie. What the hell?

Take the Star Wars prequels, those sad times when the internet was filled with fat guys crying about how these destroyed their childhood and made demands to Lucas like they owned the franchise. But if you looks at it closely, the prequels are not a far cry from the original trilogy, be it the stupid comic relieves, corny dialoges, or even an espontanious romance (granted, Harrison Ford saved the relationship by being awesome, while Hayden... er nevermind) and hell, Ewokes!!

So you cant' win with these guys, because they refuse anything besides the things they consumed as kids, and completely forget that now we have other kids willing to make their memories with these new stories. That's so selfish to the point it's annoying.

We don't need to protect our childhood, it's gone, it's just a memory.

Daniel said...


Yes, I'll admit it. I watched a Batman animated series as a child but it wasn't THE Animated Series it was Batman Beyond. And when the day comes that a Batman Beyond film is brought to theaters where Terry's Batsut is covered with unnecessary textures and detailing, where his batman voice is a growling rasp, and where the the joker gang doesn't include a mutant hyena then you can call me as biased and nostalgic as you want.

The reason I am displeased that Nolan's Batman films are unfaithful to their source material isn't because its "raping my childhood" but because the material has produced much better products both in quality and accuracy-wise. Nolan has a dozen golden opportunities and the skills to pull any of them off but decides not to because their too "out there"

I didn't watch the animated series in its entirety until AFTER I saw Batman Begins, that didn't change my opinion one bit. The Animated Series is still the best Beyond is still my childhood love and Nolan's films are still incredibly unfaithful albeit great films.

Bob said...

Oh for Pete's sake...

I like Nolan just fine, along with all his movies and especially his Batman movies.

I'm merely noting my amusement that, somehow, he's become the ONLY filmmaker to whom the majority of "fanboyS" seem willing to extent a carte-blanche wait-and-see policy toward. Seriously - the same people who are LIVID that, for example, Ryan Reynolds doesn't have the precise personality befitting an Air Force pilot of the mid-1960s in "Green Lantern" are somehow untroubled by Ras Al Guhl not really being immortal, Joker just wearing makeup, Two-Face only existing for half an hour, etc.

I mean... can you imagine if, when we were all waiting to find out who/what was in Spider-Man 3, the big bad turned out to be Kaine!? People would've been "uh-oh!" from here to the four corners of fandom. But meanwhile, if word came TOMORROW that Levitt was playing Killer Croc - but The Nolans had "re-imagined" him into a crime boss who's "thing" is to send the heads of his executed rivals to their respective gangs in Crock-Pots; I can easily imagine pretty-much everyone going "y'know... it COULD work! I mean, Crock can mean different things, and a guy whose part-lizard isn't realistic."

Jonnyp555 said...

You know, I don't think it would be too absurd to introduce robin into the mix. The way the series is going, it wouldn't really be that absurd.

Nolan keeps saying it's a trilogy and that DKR will be the "closer" to the series. To me this suggests that either by death, crippling (by Bane), or boring old retirement, Batman will throw his last punch in this movie. Who will take his place?

Robin doesn't even have to be in it. He doesn't even have to don the suit or be reffered to as "Robin". It could just be hinted at in the final scene.

Either way, Nolan depicts a Batman driven by rage and revenge, constantly learning through failure and who spent most of the second movie trying to find a replacement. He's a temporary hero; one who's bound to either die, quit or fail sometime soon. He acts more as a message to the future. After all, he's the first of his kind (in the movies).

Robin would merely represent society's continuing quest for justice after Batman buggers off for one reason or another.

white templar said...

Azrael was crazy awesome. Wat the hell man.

The Grey Man said...


Fair enough point, one I sort of hoped you were making (though parts of how you made the point still stuck wrong). Personally, I won't have my carte blanch director free passes going until Aronofsky's Wolverine movie comes out.

Martín Cerón said...

Why would you use an actor for Clayface? Just CGI the clay form and use the original actors for the impersonations.

Jonathan said...

From the man who gave us a vast world-puppet master conspiracy going back 1000's of years in one movie and and a guy dress up as a clown for no reason and no fixed back-story in the next...

Is somehow completely incapable of or unwilling to handle some of Batman's more exotic enemies?

I'll vote Killer Croc, just for that.

Craig The Destroyer said...

He's gonna be Cobra Commander.


RocMegamanX said...

Shoot, I just looked him up on Google and just by looking at him, he might be the Riddler or the Mad Hatter. He might also be someone obscure, like either Zsasz or Black Mask.

Not sure about Clayface, because aren't Clayface and Mr. Freeze "ludicrous characters" in the Batman universe? Two-face was kinda stretching it a bit, but Nolan still managed to make him fit.

Though since there's no Robin, there might not even be a Red Hood sadly, since Jason Todd wouldn't exist.

Sophie said...

hm... hm... hm... weird question... could Lewitt just play a random victim on the street? Or maybe he is ... gee, I know really am intrigued. Lewitt, is not a completely bad actor...but it´s hard to get past 10 things I hate about you and his cameo in one of the worst Halloween movies ever. I am not yet adjusted to his Inception-self. I am a bit feeling like being run over by a truck. But Okay... I can´t guess, WHOM he´ll play... but okay, he can look like a joe average, like a loser, and given a decent hair cut iwth a guy having tricks up his sleeves without magic. Like Anne Hathaway, good actress, good-looking woman, but she was not my first thought for catwoman..and now that the cat is out of the makes maybe lewitt will make sense too...eventually?

Joe said...


You are aware that DC stands for Detective comics, right?

Batman has ALWAYS been a crime story. He's always fought gangsters in addition to his rogues gallery.

If you want zany villains, you go for superman.

We're talking about a man who dresses up as a bat to fight crime with a series of Bond gadgets, who within two years of his first appearance in comics faced:
-A bank robber dressed as a clown
-A short bird-loving mobster with a penchant for tuxedos and umbrellas
-A female cat burglar obsessed with...cats
-A psychologist who dressed up as a scarecrow to scare people

The zany villains are as much a part of the Batman mythos as the detective part. Which, by the way, is kind of lacking from the Nolan films. Nolan's Batman spends most of his time reacting to crime. The Dark Knight of the comics would have half these crimes predicted, solved and nipped in the bud before the bad guys could even start their car.

Dave said...


"We're talking about a man who dresses up as a bat to fight crime with a series of Bond gadgets, who within two years of his first appearance in comics faced:
-A bank robber dressed as a clown
-A short bird-loving mobster with a penchant for tuxedos and umbrellas
-A female cat burglar obsessed with...cats
-A psychologist who dressed up as a scarecrow to scare people

By the end of the 3rd movie he'll have faced all but one of those plus murderer with half his face burned off who is obsessed with doing flips and an ancient ninja cult.

Not seeing what your point is. We had how many films with the zany batman? 5? And how many of them are really memorable today? Nolan is the only one to have been able to make batman work consistently well on film so far. And considering since his is the only superhero franchise with multiple movies that has NOT imploded or suffered a rather sharp drop in quality I think maybe nerds the web over can swallow their egos for 5 seconds and deal with the fact that he might know what he's doing better than they do.

"The Dark Knight of the comics would have half these crimes predicted, solved and nipped in the bud before the bad guys could even start their car."

The Dark Knight of the comics is also an insufferably poorly written Gary stu half the time whose ability to win in situations based purely on the writers liking him a lot is second only to wolverine.

I'll never understand this insecurity that drives so many of us to hate on adaptations of our work simply because they are popular and aren't identical to the comics in ever single way.

Anonymous said...

If I never hear the word "fanboy" again, it will be far too soon.

Also, Sophie, glad to see you. I was afraid to use the bathroom around here.