Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Normal human being who happens to be a billionaire and a ninja.

No super powers. Which makes him... allegory, or urban legend, rather than myth.

Also, Burton's Batman (the first one at least) is a horrific narrative mess that makes no sense, a procession of unconvincing aesthetic tropes and miscast ideas that has aged terribly.

No super powers. Which makes him... allegory, or urban legend, rather than myth.

Have you ever read superhero comics? There are a kazillion superheros with no supernatural powers.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

― K DEF FROM REAL LIVE (deej), Friday, December 19, 2008 11:28 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Also, Burton's Batman (the first one at least) is a horrific narrative mess that makes no sense, a procession of unconvincing aesthetic tropes and miscast ideas that has aged terribly.

Well yeah, I'm not saying Burton's movie are perfect (though the second one is better than the first, it's the best Batman movie IMO), just that his approach to Batman is better than Nolan's.

I think superhero stories work better when they're closer to LotR or Dracula or Star Wars than Dirty Harry.

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/captain-america/1-2.jpg

Having watched this for the first time last night, Tuomas completely OTM here, couldn't agree more!

No super powers. Which makes him... allegory, or urban legend, rather than myth.

Have you ever read superhero comics? There are a kazillion superheros with no supernatural powers.

― Tuomas, Friday, December 19, 2008 12:38 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

If they don't have super powers, they're not superheroes; they're comicbook characters.

If they don't have super powers, they're not superheroes; they're comicbook characters. masked adventurers.

http://jordanhoffman.com/wp-content/uploads/watchmen-zack-snyder-update-big.jpg

Good call. Except Ozymandias, who might be considered to have super powers. And that blue dude.

If they don't have super powers, they're not superheroes; they're comicbook characters.

Well, you can call the characters what you want, but I was talking about superhero stories as a genre, and to me it's pretty obvious that characters without superpowers such as Batman, Robin, Green Arrow, or Daredevil are part of the same genre as superpowered characters like Superman, Spiderman, Flash, or Green Lantern. Batman and Spiderman are both masked adventurers with secret identities who devote their lives to fighting crime because a criminal killed their (surrogate) parent(s). The ezistence or lack of powers is not really an essential difference between them.

Daredevil has sonar. Just so long as we're keeping track of powers.

it's very sweet of Mouthy to give Tuomas a pointless argument to be on the right side of for once as an act of Christmas charity.

So far we have three super heroes with no super natural powers. I'm not feeling wrong.

And just to be really pedantic, Green Lantern himself has no powers at all. His ring does.

So far we have three super heroes with no super natural powers. I'm not feeling wrong.

― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Friday, December 19, 2008 10:03 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

maybe you should spend a little time alone trying to get in touch with your wrongness

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

Thread is missing a comicbookguy.jpg

I didn't like batman begins precisely because its realistic and ludicrous attributes don't jive in a satisfactory manner but TDK doesn't suffer from the same issue due to its stringent policier vibe

I swear I said the same thing 5000 posts ago but clicking on show all messages will probably take down the internet

you don't need jpgs when you've got the real thing

xpost

If you're going to make an argument that Batman isn't a superhero, it isn't because he has no innate powers; it's because he's an antihero.

(And even that is changing what with our embrace of gritty realism as virtuous in our storytelling)

I was about to reflexively disagree with you, Dan, but then thought for a second that there's really not much difference between, say, Batman and The Punisher, aside from Bruce Wayne having a respectable public persona.

But if you want to pursue that line of thought, then maybe Iron Man and any post-Civil War registered heroes aside, most comic book heroes are really antiheroes, operating as they do outside the confines of the law.

and most don't have natural powers of their own!

Yes, I do realize DK is a fantasy, just like Burton's Batman is. However, there are different ways of doing a fantasy story. Burton is more interested in using the characters as archetypes and pays less attention to character psychology. Nolan's approach has much more to do with individual psychology; hell, about half of BB was spent explaining the psychological reasons why Bruce Wayne wants to be Batman. Now, I felt that within this more psychological, more "realistic" approach (I'm not using the word "realistic" here to say that DK is less of a fantasy, rather than to describe a certain aesthetic and narrative approach that is more prominent in the Nolan Batman movies than in the Burton movies, and which generally ties with "realism" as applied in art) Dent's transformation to Two-Face didn't feel credible. In less realistic and more fable-like stories, like Burton's Batman movies or many Batman comics, this wouldn't have been an issue, because psychological explanations are less important in them.

i think it's perfectly fair to not think dent's transformation is credible. i think it's fine myself, because i don't think this movie is aspiring to psychological realism, despite the fact that nolan IS obviously quite interested in the psychology of the batman & his nemeses.

but i don't think his approach is all that different from anyone else; this is a character where the psychological element HAS always been at the forefront, driven by trauma and guilt... i mean, you yourself said that you preferred a more "archetype"-driven approach... don't you know where that term comes from?

Also, when I said that I liked Burton's more fable-like movies more, I didn't mean that I necessarily want Batman to be less dark. Like you said, many fables are very dark, and Burton's movies are dark too, but they're dark in a different way. I feel that the "grim and gritty" approach pioneered by Frank Miller, and followed by many other Batman stories (including Nolan's two films) isn't a particularly good one, because it tries to insert "realistic" themes (such as an individual psychology) and issues (vigilantism, the political implications of Batman's work) into these stories, which is at odds with the inherently fantastic/fable-like nature of the whole idea of superheroes.

what would you call pre-frank miller batman if not a vigilante, tuomas??? what is your word for what batman does? i am asking you this as someone who thinks frank miller is god f'ing awful and should shut the hell up forever.

i mean, that is what the character is, and the idea that exploring any implications behind that is somehow inherently at odds with the "fable-like" nature of this particular vigilante "superhero" is really odd to me.

this is all said ignoring the fact that fables are virtually by definition fantastic explorations of political implications of societal actions or morals btw.

it just seems like there is no room for argument in your world behind hyper-realist psychodramas and fantastic tales and that is why most of us are pretty confused and argue with you, over and over again, on this subject. there's a huge grey area. it's ok to say that you think nolan's films fail; but i think it's unfair to fail them on grounds they aren't trying to achieve.

this is all said ignoring the fact that fables are virtually by definition fantastic explorations of political implications of societal actions or morals btw.

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Friday, December 19, 2008 4:11 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

or psychology!

'fables' were meant to explain human behavior through example, psychology before there was such a thing.

god why are we bothering

we're doing it for batman

yeah that is what i mean! i guess by "morals" i was including psychology of the type tuomas is talking about -- i just don't understand what he thinks the word "fable" means and it makes it impossible for me to understand his point, at all.

i mean, i guess his point ultimately is "i like batman to be cartoony" which is fine but what is the rest of this, it is crazy pills. i dunno, it's just that...this is what fables ARE and this all seems so black and white, superheros drive like this etc.

ugh why did the phrase "we're doing it for batman" immediately put "world in motion" in my head. i'm getting more coffee.

i remembered loving the burton batman movies until i saw them recently...god...older action movies seem SO stiff and poorly choreographed (the action sequences) compared to post matrix/hong kong influenced stuff...the fights in burton's batman look more like the old tv show or something, makes it hard to watch.

plus nicholson's joker...ug...i hate him mincing around, the old ham

batman has a super secret spying device that taps into every cell phone -- he says he needs this thing but he knows it's immoral so he hands the controls to a trusted friend. they use it once and then shut it down, and the friend's trust in batman is forever diminished

^^ how is this not a fable? considering the situation on which it comments (US domestic wiretapping) is still an active controversy ie unfinished ie politicized ie non-narrative. the fact that it's 'modern' or 'dark' or whatever doesn't stop it from being a simple moral tale.

it involves cell phones instead of donkeys going up a hill or something so it's not a fable hellooooooooooo

so let me get this straight if batman and morgan freeman were arguing over a donkey going up a hill it would be a fable

only if Morgan Freeman gets eaten by a wolf dressed as his grandmother

plus nicholson's joker...ug...i hate him mincing around, the old ham

― M@tt He1ges0n, Friday, December 19, 2008 11:30 AM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

fuck you dude is hilarious in that movie.... you sound like you been using BRAND X!!!!!

nah Matt is right and the first movie is really terrible (not all Nicholson's fault at all - really he's the best thing in it, probably. Which is kinda sad). Its weird how such a shitty movie kicked off this whole Hollywood-loves-comic-books thing that has dominated for the last 20 years.

i think it's a good movie. michael keaton just kickin it reminds me of rdj in iron man.

yeah Shakey, it was "shitty," you could comprehend what was going on.

can't argue with that

yeah Shakey, it was "shitty," you could comprehend what was going on.

lolz what the first movie makes next to no sense!

seriously I don't even know where to begin

anybody repping for batman begins over the o.g. 89 batman can basically suck my fuccin balls

i know that my standards of film are just whether or not i can comprehend the dynamics on the screen.

spying on 30 million people using a donkey wasn't in my job description batmaaaaahhhhhhh no grandma nooooo

basically this clip >>>> your entire life, shakey mo collier

seriously, let's break this down to real talk: who the fuck are these ppl who cannot comprehend the action/plot/storyline of ANY of the batman films? i mean even batman forever, for god's sake. if you can't comprehend these films then there is something wrong with you and maybe you need to do some sudoku or brain age or something, exercise that mind keep it fresh etc. no exceptions. they are not rocket science.

if you think some myspace angle shot andy dick soundalike joker beats that seriously go kill yourself