|
 |
Felix:
Either this letter an incredible hoax, or this could be
a hint as to the next Batman movie. The green indicates
that the villains could be the Riddler and Poison Ivy.
The paper at the bottom indicates it's recyclable hence
a hint toward Ivy. "Do you have questions?" could be a
hint at the Riddler. The envelope this came in is from
E. Nashton, a pseudonym of the Riddler. If this is a fan
made thing, then it's quite fantastic. |
Trevor:
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.
Felix:
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. 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.
Trevor:
I think the homoerotic subtext is entirely the fault of [Frederic]
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.
One of the most exciting things for me about the Kick-Ass trailer is
seeing that little girl beating the shit out of people because that
gives me hope that a reasonable Robin might find its way to the
screen. People are so quick to dismiss the idea of Robin but I
really feel the character is crucial to the Batman mythos. He is THE
original sidekick. In this day and age, the sidekick seems outdated
and silly, but seeing the Sherlock Holmes movie and consequently
re-reading the original stories shows me that having a sidekick is
pretty useful. Especially in a movie that doesn't have extensive
voice overs - I would LOVE to watch Batman piecing together a case
to Robin and Robin offering a little bit of abstract thinking to
assist.
If you take a look at "Dark Victory" by Loeb and Sale it really
makes a convincing argument for Robin. In the introduction, Tim Sale
talks about how he originally thought it was a bad idea and how he
was convinced. I know it will never happen in the Nolan franchise,
but this total refusal to acknowledge Robin as a concept by a lot of
people upsets me. Clearly, or I wouldn't have typed so much.
Felix:
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 in your blog entry, 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.
Now someone pitched the idea of Batgirl to me once saying that she
could be portrayed as some sort of delusional fan girl trying to
imitate Batman. SHE could definitely serve as a tragic story in the
life of Batman if Nolan has the right idea for her.
Trevor:
Look, 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.
Felix:
Shoot.Trevor:
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 have to do is learn
martial arts and you can be Batman. Batman is supposed to be a
brilliant detective and (among other things, a chemist) TDK showed
some kind of detective work, but it made no sense! Getting
fingerprints off of a bullet that has been fired by repeating the
process? What the fuck is that?
This is all to say, since he twisted Batman up so much like that, he
could force Robin to fit the world he's created quite easily.
Also, we already know what happens when people try to imitate
Batman. They get killed by the Joker and hung from a building.
Hockey Pads, indeed, provide little protection from supervillains.
Felix:
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.
I think that can be attributed to perhaps Nolan's knowledge that
Batman can be slow because he is the star while he has to firmly
speed the origins and demises of the villains because they're just
in the movie that one time.
As for the detective work I think they did it well enough, but I
agree not really enough, if that makes any sense at all. He did know
the contacts and the meeting places, he knew how to track down
Falconi, he cornered some of the officers and he also knew how to
survive in that prison.
1. Well I think the idea of vengeance by ridding crime in Gotham is
definitely a childish notion but I think it demonstrated how bent on
revenge he was that he was not thinking as clearly as he should have
been. He gets desperate at many points and is still fixated on this
idea that if he shoots one person, crime is gone. He comes to
realize that it's not that easy within these two films.
2. I don't think Nolan goes out of his way to make him less
intelligent I think personally that he makes him not as brilliant to
1. display Bruce as more average and not so super, 2. to give Lucius
(i.e. Freeman) more to do and add more assistance to the cause, and
3. to basically give Bruce a Q a la James Bond. And I disagree about
his lack of mental education. He learned survival and many many
tactics while training with that society, and I personally think it
helped to personify this more realistic Batman/Bruce Wayne in the
long run. For me the comics and animated series portray Bruce as
more than human. Like a god acting as a human. I think Nolan nails
it by making him more down to Earth and mortal and allowing the
elements around him to gradually form the mantle of Batman and his
legacy.
I will agree the bullet plot aspect is a big stretch, but I thought
it helped emphasize his detective abilities and showed how he was
learning to construct the mission rather than just bashing heads and
asking questions later.
And I still think Robin wouldn't fit. I mean he'd have to have a
colorful costume (regardless of how dark Nolan made him) and it
would transform Bruce in to a father, which sort of sets the
characterization back two steps and could turn in to "Batman and
Robin."
On your last note, I would agree but it could be an interesting bit
of continuity and somewhat of a surprise if some fan girl who
happens to be a deluded daughter of Commissioner Gordon thinks
Batman's form of justice is worth pursuing and this inevitably leads
her down a bad path near villainy that Batman could pursue as a form
of redemption for his mistakes for Harvey. Could work, if you ask
me, but I wouldn't have her as a regular.
Trevor:
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.
But that's what appeals to me about Batman, and that doesn't mean
that is the ONLY way he should be shown on screen, but it
disappoints me.
At the end of the day, I know Robin isn't going to make it into the
third film, but I think if done well it could be really compelling.
All superheroes are inherently ridiculous unless handled well. A guy
who dresses up as a bat and is supposedly so scary looking he can
use their fear against them? You could go the Burton way or the
Schumacher way. And he has a little kid sidekick? You could drop the
ball or find a way to do it well. I think it can be done well, but
it's just an opinion.
Felix:
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 outstanding,
who knows?
|
