RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Batman: The Dark Knight casting, news and rumors

Fine. But what I'm trying to say is that, even with all the change people apply to their individual takes on Batman, there's still consistency that I would personally like to see and that I feel would add to the overall value of the characters.

For example: Of all the writers of Batman and all their different styles, I don't think anyone was willing to touch his origin like Nolan did. Mike Barr's Joe Chill story was at least set years after the incident.



Uuuhh.....It sucked.

Philosophy and Morality itself isn't a bad thing of course, but people don't go see Batman movie's for metaphysical nuance. The whole absorption of philosophy through extraneous elements thing was the worst part about the original movie and made it way too abstract. Subtle development of his own personality through his own observations would have been preferable to everyone else sticking their oar into Bruce Wayne's personality (see also: Falcone, Racheal, Ra's, Alfred). In the origin story, that's exactly what Batman did in the first place, so it would have fit better. Although, like I said, I acknowledge that Nolan rearranged the origin so there'd just be Bruce Wayne with a suit, so it wouldn't work the same way it did with Batman. But at the same time, that doesn't make it an involving or gripping story.



That was my point: Nolan hasn't made a real Batman. However you choose to interpret Batman's MO, it's not the same as recognizing whether or not he exists as a persona.

This isn't me being facetious or petty, Nolan really did make a point of selling this movie based on Batman being a "person." i.e. He wanted to write about a Bruce Wayne and not a Batman. This isn't just Year One; it's Year One with a Bruce Wayne who knows Joe Chill was the killer. That just morphs everything.



Actually, the entire point of the book was to say that's what could have happened since its fit Joker's caveat of a "bad day" scenario.

But in any event: Whether or not any of us think he went crazy post- or pre-dip, the point is that he was never defined as a dude who smiled because his mouth was screwed up that way. His personality has always been about the dude who was smiling 'cuz he wanted to.

Ledger's Joker, on the other hand, is rather superficial. All attitude, very little apparent substance.



To point: Nolan's crafting Joker's image based on the wound. If they hadn't thought of the sliced up face idea, they probably wouldn't have bothered even if the character they were thinking of was crazy.

It just seems to me that they're making extreme efforts to break away from the psychological and emphasize shock tactics more than anything else. And that confuses me; what's wrong with having basically normal looking people who are crazy as opposed to visually disgusting and scary figures? It makes me feel like I'm watching "The Batman" series where all of the enemies are made as monstrous and physically abnormal as possible for the sake of contextualizing the archetypes for the kiddies who watch the show.