Quote:
Originally Posted by AerostarMonk
Dr. Doom wasn't really intact if you want to go by actual comics. He's more of a weak amalgam of Ultimate Fantastic Four's Victor Van Damme and Marvel-616's Victor Von Doom, and not really the best of either of them. Not to say he's not a good villain for the movie he was in. But he was a very weak representation of the character he was based on.
As for the reboot of the Batman film franchise, it was something that was needed. By the time Burton and Schumacher got done with it, while still representative of various eras in the Batman mythos it wasn't really reflective of the comics today. Something which both the studios and a lot of the fans wanted. You can argue about the changes made, but I think we can agree that changing Gotham back from a Neon-Glo East Coast city of sin to a city with a shiny exterior hiding a seedy and cancerous underbelly in some places better than others was a good direction. Not to mention that this is actually a second reboot in the past 10 years even. Whether people want to admit it or not there was absolutely no relation to Burton and Schumacher's Batmans. So instead of choosing which to go with they decided to start from scratch.
What I will say is that I'm not fond of what I've heard about Nolan. Apparently, like Burton, he also has no interest in Batman in the comics. He wants Batman to be more reminiscent of James Bond. I think they really should stop hiring directors who have no true respect for the sourrce material and only want to put their own spin on things. There's nothing wrong with having different interpretations. By all means that's what these re's are for, but at least respect your source, whether it be a comic, book, movie, song, whatever. Otherwise why bother to re-anything?
|
I agree with you about the Batman franchise going through the reboot process.
Honestly, I always thought that Batman was like that before Batma Begins, but after looking up its original source (especially Batman's character), I was surprise that, not only the movies I have watch weren't true to the source at all, but the directors themselves didn't seem to realize what Batman really is.
As much as I like Tim Burton's film, I just wish he pay more attention to the source itself (Joel Schaummer, on the other hand, made the films more akin to the 1960s Batman).
For Nolan's version of Batman, I have to say I'm glad he took the time to research what Batman is really about (including respecting and being true to the Batman mythos), as Begins makes it clear that the Dark Knight will not kill any criminals, no matter how cruel they are (most of the time, he tries to convince them to turn themselves in or seek help), as well as establishing that it
was Joe Chill,
not the Joker, who killed Bruce's parents. I'm also glad that the film went with the dark and grim atmosphere, boosted with a great plot.
Overall, I prefer Nolan's versions over the Burton/ Schaummer films (as well as looking forward to The Dark Knight and the third untitle sequel).