“Because your vision is wrong.”
Boo-hoo
If loving “gritty believable, interesting Batman and Superman” is wrong, I don’t wanna be right"
You know the melody.
Sure, your opinion is as good as anyone’s. I still haven’t heard the “why?” Why is this vision better? Why remake comic book heroes into ordinary people, when we already have thousands of ordinary heroes? What do you gain by taking the comicbook out of comicbook? That’s what everybody is baffled by, and what they are really asking.
The problem isn’t your “artistic sensibilities.” The problem is your changes are destroying the very elements that define these characters. I mean, generally, if there’s a character I don’t like, I just avoid stories about him. I don’t spend pages arguing that he should be some other character entirely.
I think you’re actually hinting at an interesting point: if you walked into a costume party decked out in a brightly-colored cape-and-tights ensemble, people would no longer think “circus performer,” because they’d of course think “superhero.”
Yeah, I’m not googling that at work. But I’m sure if you plug “Catwoman as Betty Page” into a Google Image Search you’ll find what you seek.
Art is truth, the artist tells a “truth”. It can be that people and objects can be envisioned as cubes, or seen from more than one perspective at a time, even in a two-dimensional medium. It can be that a Crucifix displayed in a jar of yellow liquid challenges widely revered beliefs.
I’m actually an artist, it’s my day job … I address ideas in visual and musical terms. In my opinion, there are aspects of a super-human, who may have to hide in plain sight in an alter-ego masquerade, that can’t suitably be explored when said super-human is portrayed in a 1930s circus stongman suit … even if the story takes place in the 30s. I think the iconic images of Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, and the rest, have been exploited to their full potential. In my opinion, it’s time for skilled writers and directors (and effects techs) to draw a different picture of these heroes.
If you ask, “Why change a Comic Book Hero’s appearance?”, you may as well ask, "Why portray Jesus as a “dark skinned Mediterranean Semite with kinky wooly hair and a beak nose” when we’re all so comfortable with his “Blondish hair, Anglo featured, blue eyed” portraits. Yes, I know what you’re already familiar with … I think something further contributes to the saga. There’s more truth for Art to tell.
I hate to keep harping on this, but you can’t do that. You can’t change the fundamental basis of a character, everything about them that makes them who they are, and still say they’re the same character. And as others have said, you’re hung up on the 1930s strongman outfit being outdated, but that’s not what tights and a cape are anymore. On top of that, few movie adaptations use “tights.” It’s either changed to a wetsuit or a military-style battle suit or something else.
The changes and updates you want are happening, but somehow this is still unacceptable and I don’t understand why.
I disagree. What’s important about a hero is their power and their heroism. The iconic Robin Hood, a legendary warrior, but not likely a real historical figure, was for decades envisioned as a grown-up Peter Pan, in green tights and a jaunty cap with a feather in it … Errol Flynn in a ballet outfit. I respect that idea as a piece of cinematic history, but I enjoy the idea of Robin Hood in a medieval hunters garb, with a dark hooded cloak, sort of a historically accurate Aragorn, more.
To me, these heroes are not defined by their costumes, it’s just a convention of the time they were conceived. What changes and updates do you refer to in your post? If they match my stated ideas, they may be acceptable, but if they miss the mark, I’ll suggest changes that I believe are for the better.
Robin Hood and Jesus were not originally conceived in a visual medium. They started out as stories, that were later interpreted by visual artists. Comic books are primarily a visual medium, and the characters in question were created by visual artists. Their look is much more tightly tied to their identity than characters who originally existed in strictly narrative (in some cases, entirely oral) traditions. While there’s always room for interpretation, there’s a point where if you stray to far, you’re no longer working with the same character in any meaningful way.
In your case, this is exacerbated by making fundamental changes not just to the look of these characters, but to their personalities, as well. If you take Batman, and remove the costume, and the moral code against killing, and the hatred of guns, you haven’t reinterpreted the character, you’ve invented an entirely new character and clumsily pasted the name “Batman” on it. If you’re going to change the character that drastically, why not just invent a new one entirely? Why try to change an established character when you’re throwing out everything that made him an established character in the first place?
To be fair, in your scenario, you wouldn’t have created a new character so much as ripped off The Punisher.
His scenario, please, not mine.
I disagree that a character is tied to his/ her appearance by virtue of being conceived by graphic artists. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to have to disagree regarding how much room exists for interpretation and what is meaningful to us respectively.
Batman originally had a gun and used it. He was re-imagined and changed fundamentally, I believe in 1939 or 1940. I’m not moved by the fact that he became more Doc Savage and less The Phantom (both characters pre-date Batman), and it doesn’t matter to me how long Batman settled into his anti-gun ways. I’m not throwing out his gadgetry, his genius, his physical dominance, his vigilante spirit, nor his dark mood. These are, IMO, the most interesting and defining elements of the character.
With Batman, all of the aspects of his suit have shown that they have a use. The symbol on his chest is an actual target. The gauntlets on his gloves are for catching blades. The cape is so he can use it as a glider/parachute. The mask not only hides his face, but works as a helmet. The suit has to be tight. You don’t see many gymnasts, wrestlers, or anyone that has to move a lot in loose clothes because they restrict movement.
I don’t really care about Superman, but Batman has a logical reason for every part of his suit.
So, what differentiates your ideal Batman from the Punisher?
Well, if the Punisher covered his face with a mask, sailed into the fray with a black combat chute or glider, had numerous compact gadgets in belt pouches, and was a billionaire scientific genius and inventor, then they’d be awful close … but since the Punisher isn’t any of those things, not so much.
Because it’s well-done double entendre. There’s nothing to slip past anyone, except the kiddies.
For me, what “ruined Batman” wasn’t the Nolan films, but rather Frank Miller. I don’t really read comics, I missed all the stuff of the '80s and '90s, haven’t read the source material for the Nolan films. But someone handed me a copy of All-Star Batman and Robin so I took a read. It also has Superman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern in it, and Miller has a pretty dismal view of superheroes in general. Superman is an idiot who doesn’t even know he can fly, Wonder Woman is a man-hating lesbian, and Green Latern is a goofy clown too stupid to live.
In this incarnation, Gotham is really bad, and Batman is a psychopath whose only distinction from The Joker is apparently is goals, certainly not his methods or approach. For example,
Bruce Wayne is at the circus with Vicky Vale. The bad guys attack, kill Dick Grayson’s parents, and abduct Dick. Bruce dumps Vicky on Alfred to run off and be Batman. All fine so far. Batman shows up to rescue Dick, but Vicky Vale and Alfred are hiding nearby watching the cops, who are the bad guys about to kill Dick Grayson. So Batman busts in, drives through with his car, recklessly smashes through not only probably killing the (evil) cops, but also smashes up the car that Vicky Vale and Alfred are in and nearly kills Vicky Vale. He goes about his business dragging Dick Grayson off to the cave, where he thinks it’s a good idea to leave Dick huddling in the cave in the dark to fend for himself and find his own dinner. Meanwhile, Vicky only survives because Alfred is a former SAS medic or something. And even then, it takes further intervention later when Bruce finally does show up, he then persuades Superman to run across the ocean to get some specialist doctor and run back across the ocean carrying the doctor’s car.
Did I mention the utter contempt Miller seems to have for superheroes?
For me, I loved what Nolan did in Batman Begins. For me, it recast Batman into a world that felt like our own, for the first time it made Batman believable, not cartoony. Sure, there are some stretches of reality, but everything with an effort to show connection to reality. I loved that movie, I loved the idea. It was what the first half of the Burton Batman kinda felt like. To me, the first half of that film tried to have a realistic world, and then it took a left turn half way through to a different kind of film. The sequels took it further afield. I wanted the feel of the first half. I finally got that with Batman Begins.
I’m less happy with the sequels, but overall they are entertaining to me.
No, he wants it to be even more concrete and grounded in reality.
Because people will go to a Batman movie?
To be fair, I kinda see what SirGalahad means, if not wanting to go quite that far. Consider the revamping of James Bond, away from the old school Bond of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan to a new, gritty reality Bond. I like it. A lot of people don’t, they want Bond to be the old quippy gadgety superspy.
I can at least see the appeal of reimaging Superman away from the tights and cape to a more subdued look. I don’t need the stupid “that’s not an S” story, either. Own it, or just drop it. I can see the appeal of trying to make Batman more realistic. For me, the Nolan version did that. The reason for the plastic cowl was not only to hide his identity, but to add protection. The outfit was supposed to be body armor - the fact that the knife penetrated was the needs of drama over consistency. I don’t need Batman to give up every aspect of the image, keep the bat symbol and bat iconography. It would have been nice if the rambler hadn’t had that batpod as an ejection seat thing, and the batpod’s tumbling was a bit much. The cape is used as much for dramatic intimidation as functional.
As for a Superman movie, how about a movie about problems on Earth, not some civil war from Krypton dragged over and fought on our planet. I liked the element of Clark Kent learning what it meant to be Superman, and the planet learning to accept him.
Miller was fine in the 80s. His more recent stuff has been terrible. I don’t recommend The Dark Knight Strikes Again. At all.
Amid all this *‘what to do about Batman to make him compelling again’ *discussion, I can’t help recalling the standard joke over at Cracked about everything “getting a gritty reboot.”
I do understand that “The Batman” is a touchstone for more than one generation. But even so…
…the predictability of these revamps: it burns!
Not necessarily even that. A lot of anti-ballistic body armor is ineffective against knives.
I vaguely recall from the first movie the body suit was special climbing gear for cavers, and it was supposed to be puncture resistant. But that was two movies back, so it’s like it never happened.