Leave a comment

not_entirely March 21 2010, 16:07:25 UTC
With the current atmosphere due to the climate change debate, a Poison Ivy who is a militant environmentalist would be perfect. And Riddler would give an opportunity to show Batman's intellectual side, which has pretty much been ignored in both Nolan films. I hope it is not a hoax.

Reply

terminal83 March 23 2010, 06:25:34 UTC
Yeah I could definitely picture Ivy as some sort of psychotic environmentalist who uses poisonous toxins as a form of getting her point across sans the plant controlling and stupid ass costume. You should do a comic about something involving the new Batman movie or something. I think you'd kick ass. Just a wish.

Reply

terminal83 March 25 2010, 03:06:04 UTC
Pretty good stuff, man. I still don't think Robin would work in Nolan's films. While Robin was obviously created just to pander to kids, there's also a hidden homoerotic subtext there that has been very obvious even when the best of comic writers have tried to veer away from that. Hell Schumacher didn't even try to get away from it, he just went head first and made Bruce and Dick somewhat of a team with a palpable sexual tension. I don't know how Robin would work.

Reply

not_entirely March 25 2010, 03:28:48 UTC
I think the homoerotic subtext is entirely the fault of Wertham. Yes, they were depicted sleeping in the same bed and actively fought off advances from Batwoman and Batgirl in favor of being with each other, but Superman also had a "pal" with a special watch that only he could hear who actively fought off advances from Lois Lane. At the time the books were being targeted to boys who thought girls were gross. All of the possible homoerotic stuff has been retconned out by this point ( ... )

Reply

terminal83 March 25 2010, 03:35:41 UTC
Haha, you make a great argument as always, but I think having Robin included kind of negates the entire premise of Nolan's Batman in which in the end he always ends up alone. He lost his parents, he lost his innocence, he lost his best friends, he lost his first love, he lost the man he truly admired, and he lost the friendship of Lucius Fox. In the end he beat the Joker, but he ended up alone and as a pariah. Having Robin with him just makes him come off as fatherly and doting and ruins all mystery and depth this character has and destroys the work Nolan has built up in this series of his. Not to mention as you noted, it comes off as irresponsible. This guy accomplished so much with so little to show for it. In the end of the Dark Knight he made an immense sacrifice and we left the movie with a newfound respect for Wayne and Batman and lugging around a minor who is getting punched and thrown across the room by big thugs just comes off as reckless and irresponsible and would ruin his credibility as a character in the long run ( ... )

Reply

not_entirely March 26 2010, 11:53:00 UTC
I'll give it to Nolan for establishing a believable Gotham and his brilliant interpretations of villains, but I personally think his Batman is quite lacking. I have a number of specific issues with some of the choices they made in his character development. 1) Bruce Wayne is supposed to have trained his entire life with the sole purpose of ridding Gotham of all crime. That is an extremely childish idea - which is why it needs to be in his head from childhood. In Begins, he essentially comes up with a retarded plan to shoot someone in a COURTHOUSE at point blank range, then when that fucks up he goes on a boat for no reason, which leads to my next point 2) Nolan goes out of his way to show Bruce Wayne is not that smart. From Begins, Lucius explains how he formulated the antidote for the fear toxin Batman was exposed to; Batman (BATMAN!) says "Was I supposed to understand any of that?" This partially stems from the fact that 3) Nolan makes no effort to show Bruce going through any mental education. According to Batman Begins, all you ( ... )

Reply

terminal83 March 26 2010, 12:05:55 UTC
Yeah I'll agree that Nolan doesn't nearly emphasize enough of Batman's characteristics. Like Burton and people before Burton, he seems more fascinated by the notion of the villains and concocts rather elaborate characterizations for their personalities. I mean Ras Al Ghuul, The Scarecrow, The Joker and Dent were very complex personalities and Bruce is basically progressing but slowly and steadily ( ... )

Reply

not_entirely March 26 2010, 16:12:00 UTC
I understand Nolan's decision to make a Batman people can relate to, but what appeals to me about the character is the fact that he has devoted every moment of his life to perfection. Especially after seeing the extremely skillful depiction of Sherlock Holmes last year, it disappoints me to see Batman not piecing together evidence and being twelve steps ahead. I mean, Batman is essentially Holmes with a mask on ( ... )

Reply

terminal83 March 26 2010, 16:37:20 UTC
Yeah I can definitely understand. Batman was based on Holmes, The Shadow, and Zorro after all. A lot of people seem to be unhappy with Batman's portrayal. I think since I've never been invested in his universe, it's not much of a difference to me how he's portrayed, aside from Schumacher's bastardizations, of course.

Robin is definitely a hard nut to crack, that's for sure. I think even Nolan in his utter creativity it may difficult to insert him in to the universe. They could decide on it and make it amazing, who knows?

You're one smart motherfucker. I love debating. We have to do it more often, dude.

Reply

not_entirely March 26 2010, 21:58:16 UTC
Likewise. All of the people I can talk to about superheroes are tired of hearing me talk about superheroes. And movies. And music.

Reply

terminal83 March 26 2010, 21:59:16 UTC
Well I've yet to be bored by you.

Reply

terminal83 March 27 2010, 11:14:32 UTC
Also I'm turning this in to an article for my site. This debate is too good to leave on Livejournal. You'll get proper credit.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up