The Dark Knight Rises (Batman 3) - No Riddler

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridleyscott said:
Yeah, so what? This series is a restart. It created a whole new origin for Batman. Its stupid... there should be only one origin story for a particular character. It ends up being a bunch of meaningless movies..

They are also restarting Spider-Man. Why does it need a restart? It was just restarted only 10 years ago - its not like 50 or 60 years have passed...
Click to expand...

Is Flashpoint Batman the only Batman comic you have ever read? It would explain why you think Begins created a new origin.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Yeah, so what? This series is a restart. It created a whole new origin for Batman. Its stupid... there should be only one origin story for a particular character. It ends up being a bunch of meaningless movies..

They are also restarting Spider-Man. Why does it need a restart? It was just restarted only 10 years ago - its not like 50 or 60 years have passed...
Click to expand...

Holy shit. You're 8 years late to an argument.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Yeah, so what? This series is a restart. It created a whole new origin for Batman. Its stupid... there should be only one origin story for a particular character. It ends up being a bunch of meaningless movies..

They are also restarting Spider-Man. Why does it need a restart? It was just restarted only 10 years ago - its not like 50 or 60 years have passed...
Click to expand...

So Batman Begins is perfectly fine, then?

I don't recall an origin story in the Burton/Schumacher series.
 
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?

Batman from 1989 was not shit - it was huge hit at the time. The ones with Jim Carey and Arnold sucked but who cares?

All they have to do is continue the series in a different direction. They don't have to start all over again and change the entire plot. Dark Knight could have just been another Batman movie where the Joker returns. But no... they changed the origin of the Joker. In 1989 Joker paints his face after an acid attack, in Dark Knight Joker gets his mouth cut and paints his face or some crap.

Just make a new movie like the old series James Bonds did. Someone mentioned Bond riding a Tsunami - that is one of the newer garbage films. They always add some outrageous absolutely impossible scene in there and try to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is one of the faults of modern movies - they try to make thing too realistic rather than maintaining the tone of the comic book, book, etc.

These modern Batman movies are too realistic - everything from the plots to the color in the film. These are supposed to be comics - they are not realistic. they need to look like animated comics (not necessarily fully animated). I like how they did Flash Gordon from the 80s - nice vibrant comic book colors and didn't take itself seriously.

Batman! Why so serious?
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young and became an orphan. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?

Batman from 1989 was not shit - it was huge hit at the time. The ones with Jim Carey and Arnold sucked but who cares?

All they have to do is continue the series in a different direction. They don't have to start all over again and change the entire plot. Dark Knight could have just been another Batman movie where the Joker returns. But no... they changed the origin of the Joker. In 1989 Joker paints his face after an acid attack, in Dark Knight Joker gets his mouth cut and paints his face or some crap.

Just make a new movie like the old series James Bonds did. Someone mentioned Bond riding a Tsunami - that is one of the newer garbage films. They always add some outrageous absolutely impossible scene in there and try to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is one of the faults of modern movies - they try to make thing too realistic rather than maintaining the tone of the comic book, book, etc.

These modern Batman movies are too realistic - everything from the plots to the color in the film. These are supposed to be comics - they are not realistic. they need to look like animated comics (not necessarily fully animated). I like how they did Flash Gordon from the 80s - nice vibrant comic book colors and didn't take itself seriously.

Batman! Why so serious?
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.

You've never read a Batman comic in your life. You have no idea that Batman Begins has Bruce's origin actually be the real origin of the character instead of the Joker which they only did for the movie.

I literally have no other response, you are an idiot. Don't ever watch a Batman film again, please.

You're trolling us, aren't you?
 
The old movies suck. Sorry but it true. They are horribly cheese. Only reason people cared about them was because it was the first real try at a modern Batman.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?

Batman from 1989 was not shit - it was huge hit at the time. The ones with Jim Carey and Arnold sucked but who cares?

All they have to do is continue the series in a different direction. They don't have to start all over again and change the entire plot. Dark Knight could have just been another Batman movie where the Joker returns. But no... they changed the origin of the Joker. In 1989 Joker paints his face after an acid attack, in Dark Knight Joker gets his mouth cut and paints his face or some crap.

Just make a new movie like the old series James Bonds did. Someone mentioned Bond riding a Tsunami - that is one of the newer garbage films. They always add some outrageous absolutely impossible scene in there and try to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is one of the faults of modern movies - they try to make thing too realistic rather than maintaining the tone of the comic book, book, etc.

These modern Batman movies are too realistic - everything from the plots to the color in the film. These are supposed to be comics - they are not realistic. they need to look like animated comics (not necessarily fully animated). I like how they did Flash Gordon from the 80s - nice vibrant comic book colors and didn't take itself seriously.

Batman! Why so serious?
Click to expand...

You know that origin Batman 1989 gave was not true to the source material at all? THAT FILM was actually the one that invented a new origin.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?

Batman from 1989 was not shit - it was huge hit at the time. The ones with Jim Carey and Arnold sucked but who cares?

All they have to do is continue the series in a different direction. They don't have to start all over again and change the entire plot. Dark Knight could have just been another Batman movie where the Joker returns. But no... they changed the origin of the Joker. In 1989 Joker paints his face after an acid attack, in Dark Knight Joker gets his mouth cut and paints his face or some crap.

Just make a new movie like the old series James Bonds did. Someone mentioned Bond riding a Tsunami - that is one of the newer garbage films. They always add some outrageous absolutely impossible scene in there and try to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is one of the faults of modern movies - they try to make thing too realistic rather than maintaining the tone of the comic book, book, etc.

These modern Batman movies are too realistic - everything from the plots to the color in the film. These are supposed to be comics - they are not realistic. they need to look like animated comics (not necessarily fully animated). I like how they did Flash Gordon from the 80s - nice vibrant comic book colors and didn't take itself seriously.

Batman! Why so serious?
Click to expand...
Thats not the true origin....
 
This is the true origin story guys

2012218-batman-toronto.jpg
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?

Batman from 1989 was not shit - it was huge hit at the time. The ones with Jim Carey and Arnold sucked but who cares?

All they have to do is continue the series in a different direction. They don't have to start all over again and change the entire plot. Dark Knight could have just been another Batman movie where the Joker returns. But no... they changed the origin of the Joker. In 1989 Joker paints his face after an acid attack, in Dark Knight Joker gets his mouth cut and paints his face or some crap.

Just make a new movie like the old series James Bonds did. Someone mentioned Bond riding a Tsunami - that is one of the newer garbage films. They always add some outrageous absolutely impossible scene in there and try to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is one of the faults of modern movies - they try to make thing too realistic rather than maintaining the tone of the comic book, book, etc.

These modern Batman movies are too realistic - everything from the plots to the color in the film. These are supposed to be comics - they are not realistic. they need to look like animated comics (not necessarily fully animated). I like how they did Flash Gordon from the 80s - nice vibrant comic book colors and didn't take itself seriously.

Batman! Why so serious?
Click to expand...

Some posters aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman begins changed the origin story from the one given in 1989. It explains that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker when he was young. Batman: Begins changes that and goes into all kinds of Dahli Lama temple training and jiujitsu crap with Quigon. Why?
Click to expand...

Just...no. You don't understand anything about the character if this irritates you. Batman is in fact a fucking ninja who traveled the world becoming more and more badass.

Your whole post just...fuck, man. You really don't have any grasp of Batman at all.
 
I don't care which one is the correct one, just stop remaking the damn movies. Figure out what you want to do with Batman movies and stick to it. Same with all the others. If they think a particular film sucked and years later want to remake it that is fine with me. But it seems like they just reboot these things to bring hype back. Its like they have to retell the story for every generation.

The first origin account, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951), revealed that the Joker had once been a criminal known as the Red Hood. In the story, he is a chemical engineer looking to steal from the company that employs him and adopts the persona of Red Hood. After committing the theft, which Batman thwarts, he falls into a vat of chemical waste. He emerges with bleached white skin, red lips, green hair and a persistent grin.[54]
Click to expand...

The most widely cited backstory, which the official DC Comics publication, Who's Who in the DC Universe credits as the most widely supported account, is featured in The Killing Joke. It depicts him as originally being an engineer at a chemical plant who quits his job...[25][26]

...leaps over a rail and plummets into a pound lock of chemicals. When he surfaces in the nearby reservoir, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and bright green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer completely insane, resulting in the birth of the Joker.[25][26]
Click to expand...
 
Ridleyscott said:
I don't care which one is the correct one, just stop remaking the damn movies. Figure out what you want to do with Batman movies and stick to it. Same with all the others. If they think a particular film sucked and years later want to remake it that is fine with me. But it seems like they just reboot these things to bring hype back. Its like they have to retell the story for every generation.
Click to expand...

It was like 10 fucking years betwen Batman and Robin and Begins.
 
Ridleyscott said:
I don't care which one is the correct one, just stop remaking the damn movies. Figure out what you want to do with Batman movies and stick to it. Same with all the others. If they think a particular film sucked and years later want to remake it that is fine with me. But it seems like they just reboot these things to bring hype back. Its like they have to retell the story for every generation.
Click to expand...

I don't see whats wrong with directors wanting to make their own interpretations. And you stated that Joker killed Batmans parents which is wrong.
 
Ridleyscott said:
I don't care which one is the correct one, just stop remaking the damn movies. Figure out what you want to do with Batman movies and stick to it. Same with all the others. If they think a particular film sucked and years later want to remake it that is fine with me. But it seems like they just reboot these things to bring hype back. Its like they have to retell the story for every generation.
Click to expand...

Have fun making a successful sequel to Batman and Robin.
 
Ridleyscott said:
I don't care which one is the correct one, just stop remaking the damn movies. Figure out what you want to do with Batman movies and stick to it. Same with all the others. If they think a particular film sucked and years later want to remake it that is fine with me. But it seems like they just reboot these things to bring hype back. Its like they have to retell the story for every generation.
Click to expand...

Batman Begins came out 16 years after Batman. Is that not long enough to remake the origin? Whose to say Christopher Nolan wasn't happy with the way the original's origin sucked and wanted to redo it? He's doing exactly what you just said is ok.
 
ChocolateCupcakes said:
I don't see whats wrong with directors wanting to make their own interpretations. And you stated that Joker killed Batmans parents which is wrong.
Click to expand...

In the 1989 I think the Joker killed Batman's parents before he became the Joker. But here is the official account which isn't far off from Batman (1989):
As a young child, Bruce Wayne watched his parents murdered before his eyes. Thomas and Martha Wayne were walking home from the Monarch Theater one night with their son, when they were held up at gunpoint by a mugger who demanded the pearl necklace that Martha was wearing. When Dr. Wayne refused to surrender it, both he and Martha were shot dead in the streets.[1] The killer was a criminal known as Joe Chill.[2]
Click to expand...

Batman Begins came out 16 years after Batman. Is that not long enough to remake the origin? Whose to say Christopher Nolan wasn't happy with the way the original's origin sucked and wanted to redo it? He's doing exactly what you just said is ok.
Click to expand...
But it didn't suck, it was very popular... And no, 16 years isn't enough for a movie like Batman(1989). More like if it was 30-40 years.
 
Ridleyscott said:
In the 1989 I think the Joker killed Batman's parents before he became the Joker. But here is the official account which isn't far off from Batman (1989):



But it didn't suck, it was very popular... And no, 16 years isn't enough for a movie like Batman(1989). More like if it was 30-40 years.
Click to expand...

First Batman 89 is horrible. Second Did you even pay attention to who shot Bruce's parents in Begins?
 
Ridleyscott said:
But it didn't suck, it was very popular... And no, 16 years isn't enough for a movie like Batman(1989). More like if it was 30-40 years.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible argument.

Obviously The Notebook, Twilight, or Transformers don't suck. They're all very popular.


Let's step back from the movie industry, and the notion of hype and buzz.

Are you against the idea of an artist making different interpretation of the same subject?
Would you be mad if, say, Matise wanted to paint a picture of a certain model. Then, years later, Picasso painted his own picture of the same model. Would that not be acceptable? Isn't Christopher Nolan just offering a different interpretation of the same model that Tim Burton used?
 
Origin stories are contrived and stupid more often than not.

I'm glad the Joker didn't have one, and I'm glad Batman's only spanned one film.
 
Alright, I want to point out one thing here with the Joker that will just blow your mind Ridley. He has no real origin. There have been multiple stories about the jokers origin. All of them never really true, but all sharing the same point: I.E. The Joker became the Joker for no real reason. Hell, he even said it himself in The Killing Joke "If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice". Also, if you read Batman R.I.P. You'll learn that the Joker reinvents himself often. Hence why in the comics the Joker has gone from being a clown, to a criminal mastermind who just kills people for no real point.

And Nolan's movies are very aware of this aspect of the Joker. It's why his story for his scars changes. And any person with knowledge of the Batman mythos and whatnot will tell you the same thing.
 
Tim Burton admitted to never reading a single comic book in his life, well after he made Batman. I think that is pretty obvious to anyone who watched his Batman films.
 
CaptYamato said:
First Batman 89 is horrible. Second Did you even pay attention to who shot Bruce's parents in Begins?
Click to expand...

Batman:Begins does show his parents being shot - fine. I didn't remember that scene. My beef was more with the fact that both movies show an origin when there should just be one film with an origin and that film should not be redone unless significant technological updates can help more accurately tell the story. Example... Batman:Begins could have been a "prequel" to Batman (1989) rather than an attempt to take its place. Same with Dark Knight - make it a sequel to the story of the Joker in Batman (1989) rather than an origin to the Joker. This could have been the second time Batman ran into the Joker and the movie would have been just as good.
 
Batman 1989 and Christopher Reeve Superman are best left in your memory. Watching them now just makes you wonder what made you think they were ever good
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman:Begins does show his parents being shot - fine. I didn't remember that scene. My beef was more with the fact that both movies show an origin when there should just be one film with an origin and that film should not be redone unless significant technological updates can help more accurately tell the story. Example... Batman:Begins could have been a "prequel" to Batman (1989) rather than an attempt to take its place. Same with Dark Knight - make it a sequel to the story of the Joker in Batman (1989) rather than an origin to the Joker. This could have been the second time Batman ran into the Joker and the movie would have been just as good.
Click to expand...

Joker died at end of Batman '89. Just throwing that out there.
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman:Begins does show his parents being shot - fine. I didn't remember that scene. My beef was more with the fact that both movies show an origin when there should just be one film with an origin and that film should not be redone unless significant technological updates can help more accurately tell the story. Example... Batman:Begins could have been a "prequel" to Batman (1989) rather than an attempt to take its place. Same with Dark Knight - make it a sequel to the story of the Joker in Batman (1989) rather than an origin to the Joker. This could have been the second time Batman ran into the Joker and the movie would have been just as good.
Click to expand...

JZ3lL.gif
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman:Begins does show his parents being shot - fine. I didn't remember that scene. My beef was more with the fact that both movies show an origin when there should just be one film with an origin and that film should not be redone unless significant technological updates can help more accurately tell the story. Example... Batman:Begins could have been a "prequel" to Batman (1989) rather than an attempt to take its place. Same with Dark Knight - make it a sequel to the story of the Joker in Batman (1989) rather than an origin to the Joker. This could have been the second time Batman ran into the Joker and the movie would have been just as good.
Click to expand...

7Mp83.gif
 
Ridleyscott said:
Batman:Begins does show his parents being shot - fine. I didn't remember that scene. My beef was more with the fact that both movies show an origin when there should just be one film with an origin and that film should not be redone unless significant technological updates can help more accurately tell the story. Example... Batman:Begins could have been a "prequel" to Batman (1989) rather than an attempt to take its place. Same with Dark Knight - make it a sequel to the story of the Joker in Batman (1989) rather than an origin to the Joker. This could have been the second time Batman ran into the Joker and the movie would have been just as good.
Click to expand...

The Dark Knight is hardly a Joker origin tale. He just appears, fucks shit up, and gets caught by Batman. Nolan did the great thing and never told his origin. Also, why do you even fucking care about continuity between these movies. Nolan made a self contained trilogy and did a fantastic job. Being beholden to those horrible films of the 90's would of held them back.

Biggest-Geek-Ever said:
One of my dreams is to get Burton and Frank Miller in the same room to discuss Batman and record the results.
Click to expand...

This would make for a great thing, or a horrible thing. Either way I would watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

In the Dark Knight Franchise: Does Bruce have any defense against embezzlement (spoilers for the Dark Knight series)
17
1K
Raven117 replied
DC Studios: Pattinson will not be the DCU Batman
2
54
3K
Doom85 replied
The Batman Part 2 Delayed a Year to 2027
2
62
3K
FunkMiller replied
Dark/light mode Neogaf feature request
20
885
Danknugz replied
FDA bans the use of controversial food dye Red No. 3
2
85
5K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom