Christ Centered Gamer

Now that the trilogy has ended, and Nolan is done with Batman (according to him)....a reboot is inevitable (too much money to be had).

Any ideas of what you'd like to see?

I'd like to see more of Batman's investigation skills brought in. And I think the Riddler would be good for that as a first villain, because he leaves clues...it could really show how good Batman is at solving puzzles. Especially if they approached the Riddler like mass murderers that taunt the police and not just a joker rip-off. Maybe even approach Batman at first from the perspective of Gordan to give Batman this mysterious nature to him.

If nothing else, something in the style of the Animated Series would be awesome. A direct adaptation would be even better.

Anyway, enough about what I'd like to see! And please keep in mind that this is NOT about whether there should be a reboot. Only what you'd want the reboot to be like, if they hypothetically made one. Or you can think of it this way, since they're going to make a reboot anyway, how would you do it?

I think whatever they do, they should avoid another origin story. Most of the superhero movies lately have been origin stories, even when they were remakes. Just in the last few years Spider-Man(twice), Ironman, Thor, The Incredible Hulk(twice), Captain America, The Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Batman, Wolverine, X-Men... And it looks like the upcoming Superman movie will be another origin story.

One of the things I liked about the Tim Burton Batman (the first one) was that it wasn't an origin story. It went right into a story about Batman (Although it did do the Joker origin story. bleh.) Same thing for the first X-Men movie. It wasn't an origin story, even for Wolverine... he just joined the team at that point...

...Ok.. so it was an origin story for Rogue. Bah.

On the other hand, I'm not saying Christopher Nolan was wrong to do his origin story, as his Batman was a very different take and it was necessary to see how that Batman came to be, but seriously... Spider-Man has had two origin stories done in the last few years and neither of them was particularly unique or different from the well known story we've all heard. It's almost as if most of these writes can't really figure out a good superhero story so they just do an origin story with some villain subplot as a way to fill the hour and a half.

Bad enough almost every superhero movie, origin story or not, has to do an origin story for the villain. Good grief... We all know who Joker, Magneto, Lex Luthor, etc. all are. It's why I liked the Bryan Singer Superman movie... No origins. Just a story. THANK YOU.

I would steer clear of nipple armor

@ArticFox: First of all, thank you for not saying you wouldn't reboot the series. Every time I've started this thread that's where the topic goes, haha.

That's a great point about the origin. Really all people need to know is that Batman's parents were killed. Something that can be told in what, 10 minutes at the very most? One thing great about Batman is that there's very little to his actual origin. There wasn't a freak accident or experiment.

@CCGR: haha! indeed

ccgr wrote:I would steer clear of nipple armor

I always thought it odd that Batman and Robin's body armor had the nipples, but Batgirl's didn't.

And then I realized who Joel Schumacher was.

ArcticFox wrote:

ccgr wrote:I would steer clear of nipple armor

I always thought it odd that Batman and Robin's body armor had the nipples, but Batgirl's didn't.

And then I realized who Joel Schumacher was.

I'm starting to see your point on the sort of harm Gay Marriage can do....

LOL

If you want to make me mad, go ahead and say that the Batman series has been defined by Nolan and should never be touched again. GO AHEAD. SAY IT.

Yeah, everyone's going to hold future Batman films to Nolan's standards. It's a high standard. But in no way whatsoever has Nolan scooped all that can be scooped out of the Gotham universe. I mean, for one thing you have the richest rogue gallery in any comic book series in the world. Hush wasn't even touched. And think about Hugo Strange, for goodness sake. Heck, even the Joker could be interpreted in any number of ways and, frankly, I'd love to see Harley Quinn introduced sometime in the future. My point is, Batman is vibrant and timeless. There will always be room for interpretation. If nobody else can get their foot in the door, it's on the fans for being obtuse. And that makes me pitch a fit.

But as for how I would reboot it... I should probably note that I do plan on becoming a director and taking the reins of Batman somewhere down the road is not at all outside my realm of possibilities. I've loved the series passionately ever since I was a kid and I'm pretty intimately familiar with it. Stylistically it's right down my alley (though I'd honestly say that the recent Batman video games fit my modus operandi more than Nolan's films in a lot of ways, save for my fierce disappointment with the ending of Arkham Asylum). I would aim to maintain the realism and believability of Nolan's interpretation while introducing a bit more... finesse, I suppose you'd say. My number one complaint with Nolan's films (and I will forever have my head bitten off for this) is what I perceive to be the somewhat sloppy handling of technicalities. I guess it doesn't exactly meet my standard, but the simple fact is that we may have different ideas of how to communicate action and suspense. I'm into a more flowing nature of filmmaking whereas I think he may be into a fragmented, chaotic feeling, which is perfectly legitimate. Both can reasonably apply to the series.

Story-wise, I agree with Arctic one hundred percent. Nolan did better than anyone at avoiding origin stories. I've yet to see Rises so I don't know about Bane and Catwoman, but the way he handled the Joker was superb, and to be honest, I think the Scarecrow is right up there, though I actually have a lot of issues with how he treated him. Crane is, without a doubt, my favorite Batman villain, even above the Joker or Two-Face. He intrigues me more than any of them and I think he's just fascinating. I felt like he became petty as Batman Begins progressed and then his practically useless appearance at the beginning of The Dark Knight just had me feeling very, very disappointed. I'd like to see Scarecrow with a more weighty presence. He may not be the oil to Batman's water like the Joker is, but he appeals to the very core of the Batman saga, which is fear. I appreciate him for that.

Anyway, I'd cut the origin story out anywhere that I possibly could. Batman Begins was an understandable necessity because we'd really never seen Bruce Wayne in that light before. I liked him as Nolan presented him to us better than any other incarnation. He was humanized. I'd like to be able to achieve that without an origin story, and I think it's possible, but it would take some serious thinking.

I'd love to make use of villains like Hush and Hugo Strange, bring the battlefield to an immensely personal level for Batman. I don't think Nolan explored the question of Wayne's sanity nearly to its end, and I think that's good. It wouldn't have fit his version. However, my version would absolutely bring that to the forefront. Batman is the closest thing we have to a truly jaded superhero, and that above all else is what intrigues me the most about the series. I would broaden that as much as I reasonably could. And, bear with me here, I want to see Harley Quinn have a very substantial role in things. You can't have Quinn without the Joker, and honestly, you can hardly have Batman without the Joker either, so all that's a given. But despite my many complaints with it, The Joker Diaries revealed to me Harley Quinn's potential in film, and it stuns me that she's never been given the chance to shine. The most we've seen of female antagonists in Batman films are Poison Ivy and Catwoman (going on Burton's here, since I have no idea what Nolan's was like), both of which I feel were handled... exceedingly poorly. Harley Quinn represents to me the most perverse thing in the entire series, and that's the loss of innocence. If I ever got my hands on the series, I would take as much advantage of that as possible. It's just such a juicy tidbit and I really can't believe it's never been squeezed before.

In summary, I suppose my vision of the perfect Batman would be a more psychological one. Nolan tapped into it more than anybody else has, and he did it with subtlety and care. But I think it can go deeper (seriously no Inception pun intended). Whatever story I could develop would grow from that. Stylistically, I can't avoid dark tones. It's inherent to my nature and I think it's inherent to Batman. I love the filth of the series and I want to be able to communicate that in a pungent way while maintaining a strong sense of realism. Gotham should feel tangible, but I think it should also feel mystical.

And of course, there's always the issue of Robin. He is, hands down, the biggest challenge to interpret. We've never seen him in a genuinely serious incarnation. I'd like to take on that challenge and make him into something real. I think Batman taking someone under his wing beautifully reflects the Joker taking in Harley Quinn. They mirror each other. Again, it would take a lot of manipulation, but I think Robin deserves a good treatment.

So... you know... VOTE FOR ME, BATMAN 2019.

I like your thoughts on this CountKrazy! And I find your comparison of Harley Quinn as a perverted version of Robin really interesting, I've never thought of it like that!

And yeah Nolan didn't fully define Batman. I think that's the issue people were having when I'd ask this question on other forums. There's still that detective Batman we've never seen fully (I think the 60's show actually captured detective Batman the best I've seen in a live action setting, and I'm not saying this for shock value). As you said, Batman such a vibrant character, and his crime solving skill is one of the many things that adds to it. He has many facets. And every good incarnation brings something new to the table.

For instance, as much as you can laugh at the 60's, Adam West Batman (most of it was intentional by its creators, I think), it captured an optimistic version of Batman. And it occurred to me, for Batman to fight crime in a scum-infested Gotham, he'd have to be optimistic. He'd have to believe that Justice would eventually prevail. And I think this quality of Batman rings truer in even darker settings like the Arkham games, Nolan and Burton films.

I think we can all agree that having widely different interpretations of Batman is a good thing, and it would be an utter disaster of the next Batman tried to mimic Nolan's Batman (As CK said)

As much as I agree with LAVA that there's a place for the campy, funny Batman of the '60s, I think it's a very tight niche and one of the mistakes made in Joel Schumacher's Batman films was trying to mix that with the Tim Burton themes. It ended in complete disaster. What Nolan did right was to utterly abandon both. So will it be with the next director.

If you make that movie, CK, I'll go see it.

ArcticFox wrote: As much as I agree with LAVA that there's a place for the campy, funny Batman of the '60s, I think it's a very tight niche and one of the mistakes made in Joel Schumacher's Batman films was trying to mix that with the Tim Burton themes. It ended in complete disaster. What Nolan did right was to utterly abandon both. So will it be with the next director.

Don't get me wrong, I never suggested that we should go back to campy Batman (for one...a mass murdering Riddler that taunts the police wouldn't fit). Only that the detective batman was better captured in the 60's show than the Nolan movies and only that the campy version showed me that Batman is actually an optimist, not some brooding loner...something that fits even more for Batman in a world where the villains are mass murderers. Only an optimist would keep fighting brutal killers like the ones in the modern movies. Its easy to be an optimist when the villains in the 60's show will, at very most, rob a bank and will never kill. So that was just an observation I made while watching the 60's show.

Overall, I would love to see a detective Batman in the tone of Burton \ Animated but the depth of Nolan. I think the definitive Batman is the Animated Series. It has it all in one package; brutal villains, an optimistic Bruce Wayne, Batman being both intimidating and able to do a fair share of crime solving and it has an atmosphere that captures me everytime I watch it. Also, Robin is done in a respective style, not some kid that would just get in Batman's way. I would love to see that show realized on screen. And its where Harley was introduced, which would fit nicely with CK's idea.

The game Arkham Asylum already re imagined the Animated show in a more realistic manner. They just need to go to the next step and put it on the silver screen.

I'll be happy so long as the actor who plays Batman DOESN'T growl every line.

Nate DaZombie wrote:I'll be happy so long as the actor who plays Batman DOESN'T growl every line.

I TOTALLY agree! Before I saw the Dark Knight Rises the 2nd time, I watched both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, just to refresh my memory (I actually forgot more of the Dark Knight). And I noticed that it wasn't until the Dark Knight where Bale really adopted the "batman smoker voice". In Begins, the batman voice wasn't perfect, but really it was just a little gruffer version of Keaton's Batman voice. The only time he really "growled" was when he was intimidating crooks, and it actually sounded intimidating.

By TDKR, his voice just got absurd. And I have no idea why Bale would adopt that style in the 2nd movie. Its really jarring and makes it hard to take him seriously.

I think the Animated series has the best contrast between Bruce and Batman. And Keaton's is a close second.

"Nolan as a writer/director does not waste a single word or frame. Nothing is throwaway, everything has meaning."

Yeah, he sure doesn't. He uses as many words as he possibly can to explain what's going on. I'm not necessarily complaining, but man are his films talky. I saw Inception three times in theatres (excessive, I know) and each time I became more aware of how stuffed his films are with words. That's his style, I get it, but I'm a fan of inference, or communication through imagery, or what have you. There's a golden rule touted by Quentin Tarantino, and that's to not talk about the film (so to speak) in your dialogue as much as humanly possible. I.e.,

"WHAT ARE THOSE"

"THOSE ARE PROJECTIONS OF HIS MIND"

"ARE WE HURTING HIM"

"NAH HE ALRIGHT"

Okay, sure, Christopher Nolan is a Hitchcockian guy. The characters are slaves to the plot and the plot defines them. Quentin Tarantino is in his own camp. Story is defined by characters, and characters are defined by talking about burgers and Madonna and Nazis, and thus story is defined by hamburgers. In short, the characters define the plot. Inception needs explanation, God knows it does, but the eternal question for me is whether or not it could've been explained without lectures. I absolutely cannot stand lectures, much less in film. I don't mean to suggest Nolan should've explained Inception in a conversation about hamburgers, because that wouldn't work, but I know complex science fiction with minimal exposition. It's possible. It's hard, but it's possible.

...I digress. Concerning the article, I disagree entirely. Number one, only the most loyal individuals would see a Batman film with Batman being replaced. I believe Robin has a firm position as sidekick in almost everyone's mind. He just can't replace Batman. Sure, we accept that he probably does in the future, but most people don't care to see that. I don't think I'm being obtuse as much as factual. I'd love to see someone try it, and I think it'd be awesome, but the portion of people seeing it would be... small. Very small indeed.

Second, I cannot for the life of me understand the concept of "filling somebody else's shoes" as a director. It doesn't happen. It doesn't work. It worked with Star Wars trilogy, but arguably so, because George Lucas was the mastermind behind it all. His vision was always there, no matter who directed it. Nolan's Batman is Nolan's Batman, and whoever else comes on board would simply be tracing his style if they were to go on with his story. Maybe you could continue the story in the same universe with a different style, but that would turn fragmented and muddy before you know it. It would be a mess. There's no way to make it work. This is what makes me wonder if people truly understand directing and the sheer impossibility of deviating from what you as the filmmaker bring to any given story. Picture James Cameron trying to do Lord of the Rings in Peter Jackson's language. No. Dear God no. If Lord of the Rings goes on, it will be remade in a different style and in a different way, though that is one series that I think has been put down for good. Nobody can touch that with any hope of success. In much the same way, The Godfather is The Godfather. Sometimes a story just has to be put to bed. But hey, we've still got The Silmarillion, but that's on par with attempting to adapt the entire Bible into a series. A mammoth of narrative, to put it lightly.

No, I'm on the other side of things. People love the Batman story, and I truly believe they will continue to see it reincarnated for ages to come, as long as it's reincarnated well. Look at stories and mythologies throughout history, for goodness sake. The Queen isn't even dead and there are still multiple and varied films about her and British royalty. Zeus and the gods of Olympus are another example. And of course, Shakespeare, meant to be forever reinterpreted and translate. I'd throw Batman in the same group, and probably Spider-Man and Superman. They're fixtures of the human legacy, and to some degree, they can be a fruitful endeavor for many years to come. Sure, they will serve their time and purpose, much like the gangster films of the '70s-'80s did, and Shakespeare's era of betrayal, but Nolan has hardly marked the end. Batman will come back in a different light, and he will be accepted, because he appeals to a fundamental part of humanity. Nolan hasn't changed that.

tl;dr: Batman is James Bond. He will be reborn again and again as long as people can identify with or be entertained by him.