The Batman Bullshit

Nice article, though I disagree on a number of things, one of them being that Batman is the sole hero whose villains outshine him. Sorry, but that tends to be a lot of heroes, as the villains are always far more interesting in concept and design. But I do agree that the instant "go darker" approach is tired (don't get me started on the 'tards asking for things like rated R TMNT). It's pretty awful that most of the heroes we get nowadays are always anti-heroes. The mold, however, fits with Batman's tale, so I still find it appropriate. Besides, we got our taste of light-hearted Bats and where'd it get us? Back to the well, and with a great touch of realism, and it's worked out quite nicely.

Nice editorial. Dark content doesn't equal quality. You're right, Batman Begins isn't very good. He's a hard character to get right on film and I still contend that the best version of Batman we're ever going to get is the animated series, which got some of the lighter elements of the character and world without turning the whole thing into Batman and Robin or 60's camp.

Still, I think The Dark Knight looks good and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I love Nolan and I think the character and the themes fits with all of the other material he's directed so far. Here's hoping.

Yeah, but in a Frank Miller comic, can we be sure that's actually satire?

Note. Perfect. I could not agree with you more. I don't know where to start agreeing with you, because I've said these same things many times over in different arguments. It's a shame you're going to be shouted down for either being a senseless hater or "not getting it".

Hopefully this at least drives away the "Batman is the most relatable" hero argument that's so entrenched in these discussions. Much like you said, the other characters all work as metaphors for certain aspects of human nature or existence. To say Batman is more relatable by nature of the fact that he doesn't have powers makes you a sadly literal person.

I have given you lots of shit in the past for your "problems" with Batman Begins. That write up helps me understand better where you are coming from.

But also, i think that i can live with people not liking the movie or the character, what bothered me so much about your Main page Articles Batman comments was the constant bashing of the movies. It's one think to have issues with a film, another one altogether to make it worse by constantly reminding us how much you hated that third act and how much you'll be disappointed by The Dark Knight (even without having seeing it). You are assuming. You already have an opinion of the movie. And that's what bother me. You give lots of shit to people for assuming stuff about movies they haven't seen or they don't know what they are talking about. And you are partially doing the same thing.

If you see the film and you have problems with it, it's all good.

The nice thing is, the moment the comic is published, we're free to interpret it as we please. No matter how loony Miller may get, the comic does work really well as a satire of its character.

I think Devin is probably right, but reading a lot of Miller's work, I do have that nagging concern that he's playing it straight and just way off the beaten path.

Well...consider that one cleared up. I pretty much assumed this when I saw Superman running a car back across the Atlantic, but it's nice to hear it from the source.

I absolutely, positively agree that the the thing that's been missing from BATMAN on the big screen is... detective work. The man is supposed to be the World's Greatest Detective. A razor-sharp intellect honed to perfection, who can solve the unsolvable crimes that nobody else can. The guy who figured out how to take out the rest of the JLA... just in case it ever became necessary to do so. Sure, he can whip your ass, but that's only after he's tracked you down despite your best attempts to avoid him.

The World's Greatest Detective has been sorely missed in even the best of the BATMAN films made thus far. That's Batman's real superpower - the Kung Fu and the gadgets are supposed to be contingency plans.

Having said that, I mostly liked BEGINS and consider it the best attempt thus far to do a BATMAN movie... almost by default. I have little use or patience for Burton's greatly overrated BATMAN with Jack Nicholson's Prince-loving Joker, indeed, were it to feature in "You Got It All WRONG", it could be Overrated, Misunderstood, Overblown, and What The Fuck all at the same time. I was excited for it, thought Burton was a good directorial choice, was willing to give the casting the benefit of the doubt - and it mostly didn't click for me. I was most excited at the prospects for a sequel featuring Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face... we all know how that eventually turned out. However, the wild BATMAN RETURNS remains terribly underrated. There are no other live-action BATMAN films, despite what you may have heard, seen, or bought.

Batman's about pushing oneself to be the best, self-sacrifice, and making good out of a traumatic (and normally crippling) life-event.

Those are the themes that rang true to me growing up amidst my parents' messy divorce. The costumes, villains, gadgets, and psychologies offer a fun toybox to play in, but I say that the themes I mentioned are still a major part of the character, and good examples to follow.

I totally agree. Especially with the comments about how our generation, or roughly the group of kids born from 1970 on, seem to be intent on taking childhood fluff and think that by tacking on some grit or unnecessary violence, they make that fluff more adult, or it in some way validates their continued fanhood.

I don't want my super heroes to all be tortured souls with no sense of fun. I never got into them because I could relate, anyway, it's such an absurd notion to have to relate to every movie's protagonist anyway.

I think Miller has made it clear that he's fucking with fanboys who take their dark, gritty, 'adult' Batman (and other superheroes) way too seriously.
I like the comic for that reason.

An Iron Man movie lends itself to high fantasy and adventure. It's the story of a man who builds a robot suit that can fly to fight other, evil guys in robot suits bent on world domination.

Batman isn't that and he's at his best when he is what he is at his core; a detective consumed by a crusade. The rest (the costume, the colorful villians, the batplanes) are trappings. All those make him are a psychologically tortured Dick Tracy. If you have the core of the character right you can take him in any direction you want. Batman The Animated Series did a great job of it; they found the balance between the serious and the fun of the comic media while being true to the core of the character.

I don't think Nolan did (and I loved Batman Begins) nor do I think Burton did with his take.

I hate to be the emotionally stunted little fan-boy here, but I think that the animated series, and Mask of the Phantasm movie are still the gold standard for the character.

I hear the detective complaint all the time and I don't really understand it. I mean, I understand what appeals about it, but I think it's something that seems to work far better in the medium of comics than how it will translate to the big screen. We've had detective/research elements in the Batman flicks but they never come off as anything very interesting. For awhile I thought that was just a case of poor/limited writing, but now I'm not so sure the idea translates well to begin with.

Couldn't any of those criticisms, minus the details specific to Batman, be true of all the core DC characters? Is Superman really interesting taken by himself? Wonder Woman? Green Lantern? The Flash? Aquaman?

My point being that only through context and interpretation are these characters given any real value. That doesn't diminish from the point of the article, but you could have substituted any number of characters for Batman and come to the exact same conclusion.

But anyway, good article.

Few aspects of Batman fandom drive me more nuts than people who think that there's one definitive interpretation of the character, and that any version deviating from that is wrong. I've lost track of the number of times I've had that argument. Someone around here actually called himself a "Batman purist" recently as an explanation for why he didn't like Batman Returns. I wearily tried to point out that there's no such thing, but it's like arguing with Christians at this point.

I agree completely and utterly. I fucking loved Mask of the Phantasm.

Also, excellent article. Disagreements obviously, but still. Worth my time reading just to understand where the dislike of the subject stems from.

I've always thought of Devin's jabbing at Batman Begins as nothing more than a CHUD inside joke. Sure, a lot of people didn't think it was all that funny but it was still a joke. He brought it up to rub it in. I do that in conversations all the time and people don't hate me... ... do they?

I'd love to see Batman break out some actual detective work in one of the movies. No, Bruce Wayne saying "Alfred, get me a dossier on Jack Napier" and tapping his keyboard a few times isn't detective work.

Solid article, Dev. Again, I appear to be fueling the 'only superhero/genre movie discussion' theory, so this may just be shooting myself in the foot here. Sorry.

I really don't know how or why people are still holding the Batman Begins thing against you; first of all, you admit that it was a pretty good movie until botching things in the .. 3rd act. So it's not as if you just blindly hate the character and movie franchise, or take grand pleasure in cutting down fanboys (or at least you have reasons for it). You've stated ways you think the movies could be made better, numerous times, as well as your personal feelings on the character and how he plays against other superheroes/superhero movies, all very justified.

Yes, there was a period after Begins came out that it was the source of some slamming in articles and board discussion on your behalf, but I think the problem is that the whole 3rd act thing 'caught on' as a board meme and resulted in the issue never dying off.

You're right, you've never said the Dark Knight is going to be a peice of shit or anything along those lines; anyone who got uptight about you mentioning Iron Man was going to be the best comic book movie of the year is still just bent out of shape from that. Hell, I'm a HUGE Batman fan, unabashedly love the 3/4 of Begins, and didn't take that comment as a slam against the Dark Knight. Even if I did, your reasons for thinking that are completely fair: Iron Man is a breath of fresh air in that it's a fun superhero movie, no emotional trauma baggage or trying to be dark and moody. It's all personal preference, I don't get why anyone would be so worked up over it, especially when no one has seen both films. I'm glad I've grown out of being militant about ridiculous shit like this over the years.

This is turning out to be more of an echo chamber post than insightful dialogue, so I'll wrap it up by saying there is more than enough room for two great superhero movies this summer (or more, hello Hellboy and friends) - bring em on.

Superman needs his supporting cast to lend him humanity, otherwise he's just an omnipotent god fighting supervillains or rescuing cats from trees or whatever.

I hope that Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, and Hellboy: The Golden Army are all excellent superhero films that make enough money for future sequels. I hope Punisher War Zone is a hit this winter as well.

I think part of what's been missing from the Batman movies, and I like Burton's two and Begins despite their problems, is the sense of Batman as a true underdog who has to use his brains to best his opponents. Instead he comes swooping in with all of his fancy vehicles, gadgets, and kung fu moves and you know the villain doesn't really stand a chance. Also, part of what makes the character interesting is that he's a SMART hero who uses his brains to overcome long odds and there's been very little trace of that on film.

I think part of the issue is that Batman was never really designed for serial storytelling where he would grow over time. Trying to fit him for a character arc over a series of movies is perhaps futile. You can do some minor things with him, like Bond and Holmes, but at the end of the day you're left with a brooding loner. Adding Robin is the one interesting thing you can do character-wise with him that really changes the character, but ironically its the part of the franchise that fanboys most despise, even though its been there since 1940.

You know, I had a feeling you were going to do something like this, it's become so much of a thing on these boards that it became more and more likely that something "definitive" was going to be said.


I've had readers and friends alike tell me that there's no way to do Batman lighter without turning it into Batman and Robin, and I understand the fear. I just think this kind of binary thought process is wrong.

I've always said this, the problem with B & R wasn't that it was light and silly, it's that it was fucking terrible. Also, I pretty much agree with everything you said, and have said as much on on several ocassions on these boards.

I also love All-Star Batman & Robin, I think it's fantastic to see Miller breaking so violently away from espectations, and the pissing and moaning it's created among weepy fanboys is beautiful to me.

We may disagree on the merits of the character, as I think he is interesting and fun w/out his supporting characters, but overall, it's a nice editorial, and appreciated.

Besides the Batman animated series, I think a great example of how to do this kind of story is season 1 of Angel. A dark, brooding loner, who works as a detective in a grim city, etc., but it works because of the cast of sidekicks, the occasional moments of (literal) light, and the fact that show makes fun of itself all the time.

Once again you seem to be reading the film's audience more than the film itself. Nolan approaches the character and the film from a place of logic. Bruce Wayne discards his psychosis and replaces it with (or at least translates it into) positive action--your analysis here seems to fit more with Tim Burton's Batman. The Batman persona is constructed, by Nolan and by Bruce Wayne, in a linear, scrupulously logical manner. It has nothing to do with being "dark" (again, you're reading the audience, not the movie) and Nolan has said as much.

As for letting the mystical/magical back into the franchise... Well, that's all well and good, but that's not what we have, here, so why speculate?

Agree entirely on the Batman as detective thing. It does pop up occasionally in the comics, but mostly to the extent that he takes one look around a crime scene and instantly knows where the killer is.
Grant Morrison's Batman, however, is much more worth reading. It's a pity he only writes the character occasionally.

I mean, Hellboy shows it's possible to have a "dark" setting with a hero who's still the adventurous, enjoying himself type.

Why does this particular take on Batman have to fit into the "adventurous, fun mode" when it comes to the film adaptations?

2 Fantastic Four films, 3 Spider-Man films, Hellboy, Iron Man (it appears) and a new Hulk film (it seems) fit that mode. Devin's seems to think that all the films based on these characters are "dark and moody" or an anti-hero.

By my take, I count Nolan's Batman, X-Men, and Blade (in a sense).

There can be room for all different kinds. Burton's series gave us one type of take on Batman. Nolan's presenting another that fans have wanted to see for a long time. Maybe the presentation that Devin wants in Batman will come along, years down the line.

I don't really understand why some people don't think it's OK for Batman to be dark and brooding. If you don't like dark and brooding, find your entertainment with another character. It's not like you don't have any options.

Edit: Beat me to it, Don.

Bra-fucking-vo. Excellent piece, Devin. I loved the whole 3rd act meme on the boards but never understood where people took it all the way to Devin hated BB.

It always seemed quite delineated that you thought the rest of the movie was the best turn of the character but if Nolan was going to throw away his entire set-up for the schmaltz(proper word? probably not) at the end, why waste the time?

I am certain I will enjoy TDK but will forever loath the Ledger death box-office "bump" and accolades the film will receive. What happens if the film doesn't deliver? Accurately critique it? It'll never fly.

Sorta like disliking Obama for any policy reasons will automatically make you a racist throughout the upcoming election year. Lose-lose.

Maybe it's been done in the comics, but it'd be nice to see a Batman story where he finally comes to terms with the death of his parents but decides to keep being Batman because it's the right thing to do. Not that I want a Batman who tosses quips like Spider-Man, but the whole dark grim crusade thing gets old after a while.

I recently said elsewhere (specifically post #9, HERE: http://chud.com/forum/showthread.php...16#post2214316)

that Batman bothers me in movies because he is one of the LEAST realistic heroes in the sense that, if you assume someone with the powers and resources and experiences of Spider-Man or Daredevil or Superman or Batman existed in the real world, the character of Batman is the least similar to how that person would actually turn out.

Nolan fails, for me, because the efforts to make Batman more "real" just point out how false the character is without a cartoon or comic setting.

The reference to "Angel" is interesting because that series showed one way that writers could allow Batman to grow: he gradually learns to trust and love and hope, takes himself less seriously over time, and falls in love with Charisma Carpenter.

Richard,

In the films though, how many films have we had of the "dark grim crusader?"

By my count, only one. Batman '89 and Returns aren't that.

I mentioned in the Iron Man thread that Batman being a non-powered hero poses fewer obstacles for a writer and audience in terms of his experience. That's not to say that you can't do this with any other superhero, that's obviously not true, but his humanity and frailty (as compared to a guy who can bounce bullets off his chest) requires fewer contrived attempts to create tension.

He did just that in BATMAN FOREVER. You just probably blocked it out, understandably.

I don't think its that hard to see why people thought the Iron Man comment was a backhanded swipe at TDK, as it is easily the highest profile superhero movie (hell, movie, probably) coming out this summer. Very few people's minds are going to leap right to The Incredible Hulk when superhero summer movies come up at this point.

I'm not sure it's really fair to say Batman's a boring character by himself. Like Aquafresh was getting at, if you take away the villains and the supporting cast and the world, just about any superhero (heck, any character) is going to be boring. I know your point is that it's more true of him than most characters, but I don't think Begins suffered because of this at all. From other things, sure, but I thought Batman was the most interesting character in his movie for once.

Also, what are the "goth trappings" you're referring to in Begins? Dressing in black? General moodiness?

I have to disagree, the reason the character has survived is because he's so pliable, and the aesthetic of the world he inhabits is very cinematic, and reasonably easy to translate.

Bravo

This is, honestly, the most intelligent response I've read to this article yet. In fact, it's one of the most succinct, articulate and pithy responses to Devin's crusade against genres or film properties that are susceptible to fanboy-ism. Perhaps crusade is a strong word. Attitude? Indictment? Contempt? Something like that.

I've been a long time reader of this web site. I don't comment on the boards often because, frankly, I don't have the time. But, if I may derail this thread a bit, something's going wrong. The attitude of the site has become bitter--to the point that some of the main writers are biting the hand that feeds them. I can take sarcasm, and even some good-natured abuse. But outward hostility and disdain?

Maybe I'm wrong here and perhaps I'm just reacting negatively to Devin's article, furthering his point, no doubt. But am I the only one who thinks that the site has lost some of its soul and enthusiasm for the things that we all enjoy, to differing degrees?

See, I think if you look at the Batman movies, starting with Burton's in '89, the tone is all over the place from movie to movie because it's so hard to locate the character in the "real world."

No one who isn't insane would act like that in these circumstances: Use personal fortune and years of training to fight crime because your parents were murdered in front of you? Maybe. While wearing a "scary" bat outfit and driving cars and motorcycles and boats with whimsical bat wings and fins and throwing "battarangs?" Not so much.

While it isn't as tough to imagine a real life Spider-Man acting like, well, Spider-Man.

[EDIT: responding to Jacknife]

Frankly, this is as close as we'll get to a Batman adventure story on film. (Excepting Mask of the Phantasm, which I haven't seen yet.) Granted, the camp elements overwhelm everything else by film's end, but there was at least an attempt to balance the humor, unlike B&R.

Yeah, but Spider-man's outfit is pretty fucking nutty when you think about it.

I view Batman as a romantic character. (Using this definition of romantic for those who specialize in snark.

"marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized" )

In that sense, I think Nolan's Batman, while generally comic accurate, misses a lot of what I find appealling about Batman.

Name me a major super hero whose outfit doesn't look nutty?

Dr. Manhattan?

You've got to be joking.

Ummmm, Gambit! Oh wait, that's nutty. Uhhhh... Captain America! No, thats really fucking nutty. Wolverine, now there's an outfit that doesn't....ah, I guess you've got a point.

Actually, the Fantastic Four's outfits aren't that nutty. Just boring.

Great article, Devin, and as much as I've always been a Batman fan, the quoted part is especially true. Even though I love the character, I can agree - he's not an exciting guy, and the various versions of him have just made him so dark, it's almost hard to see past that. He needs his sidekicks, he needs his ultra-colorful villains. While those supporting characters might not make Batman himself any more exciting, they're essential to the story. Other superheroes don't seem to have this same issue. They're not as completely stone-serious as Batman, but nor do they have totally over-the-top villains. The other superheroes seem to have more of a balance.

Actually, that's what I like about Nolan's approach. If you read the early comics, Bill Finger describes him as a "weird figure", what Nolan is doing is creating a world where Batman sticks out, because it's effectively a world in which a Batman, or a Joker, or a whoever, shouldn't happen.

I think that's kind of cool, it's not the real world, but it's a world just removed from our own, main differenence being that in Nolan's world people marvel and shiver at the sight of Batman, whereas we would of course just piss ourselves laughing if some asshole in a gimpsuit tried to get the drop on us.