Why Do Batman Fans Hate Christopher Nolan?

[sabrinathecat]

In The Dark Knight Returns, he had retired for 10 years while crime ran rampant. Was that not-Batman too?

Considering how bad DKR was, yes.
I know it's considered iconic, and a revolutionary change in the way the characters interacted, but DKR suffered from the same bad writing as Watchmen: overly simplified reactionary politics of the writer. (Can't go into any more detail, as my critique would certainly violate this board's rules).
Aside from the notion that Batman and Super man wouldn't be chums because their styles of fighting crime conflict, DKR has nothing: Over-rated hogwash.

Yes, I said it.

To say that calling one version of batman is right or wrong is hubris: no. The argument presented was entirely valid, and supported. Based on the character and motivations, the whole "taking 10 years off and not doing jack poop while crime ran rampant" was entirely out of character for any version of Batman. Any Version. Take the defining characteristic of a person. Remove it. Is it the same person? No.

Consider: I somehow got the rights to make Justice League: The First Movie. I do the following: Superman is an aryan, cigar-smoking, steroid enhanced leftover from WWII (remember, Superman was originally conceived of as a villain), Batman is a birth-defect with enormous ears that give him active sonar and the ability to glide from tall buildings, Aqua-man is a water elemental with the combined IQ of the aquatic animals swimming within 50 feet of him, WonderWoman is a Raging "feminist" who grew up reading Ann Rand, Green Lantern is a former call girl who got a magic ring from a sorceror who didn't have any cash on him. Would you consider this a valid interpretation of the characters? Would this be "Justice League"?
Sure, I painted an extremely ugly and offensive picture. But if "any interpretation is valid", then so is this one.
(Note: I not only would not suggest making a movie with this version of the characters, I probably wouldn't want to see a movie with any one of these characters in any way.)

 

[Jhaelen]

So I'm curious: What are these plot holes, and why all the apparent hate?

You are obviously mistaken. There is no widespread hate for the movies. Imho, they're the only good translation to the screen that has been done so far. Even if the third Batman movie was a tad disappointing.

 

[sabrinathecat]

So I'm curious: What are these plot holes, and why all the apparent hate?

Part One [video=youtube;wEa_AXZZJUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEa_AXZZJUw[/video]
and [video=youtube;QeCDTYszuho]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeCDTYszuho[/video]

Part Two [video=youtube;XUohSqT-PZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUohSqT-PZg[/video]
and [video=youtube;u843KNE-exo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u843KNE-exo[/video]
and [video=youtube;seBpXt8_6xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs[/video]

Part Three [video=youtube;j2tE-BCwZtw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tE-BCwZtw[/video]
and [video=youtube;WQJuGeqdbn4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQJuGeqdbn4[/video]
and finally [video=youtube;fLyoog562x4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyoog562x4[/video]

 

[trappedslider]

You can find those videos for almost every popular movie with in the last 5 years

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins even more than 5 years..they even did one of The Running man

EDIT II: however if it really bugs you that much, you should check out http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/TheDarkKnightSaga and then dive into each film's own headscratcher section..as a way to point out flaws with the movie.

EDIT III: As to the whole this bamtan was done wrong..there's only one true way junk..I guess someone needs to tell the editors at DC along with the writers too since they have had more different takes on batman than GRUPS has books....Golden Age bats,sliver age bats,dark age etc...and that's not even getting to Earth 2 and so on and so forth so yes there really is NO one true one way of doing bats...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In The Dark Knight Returns, he had retired for 10 years while crime ran rampant. Was that not-Batman too?

I didn't have the impression that in the movie (I don't know the comic) that crime was running rampant.

In fact, a lot was alluded to that the Harvey Dent Act cleaned up Gotham City pretty well. Batman was not needed on the streets anymore, only as the vigilante turned bad that made the person Harvey Dent shine brighter.

 

[Umbran]

To say that calling one version of batman is right or wrong is hubris: no.

Yes. Really, yes. Kick and scream if you want, shout to the skies that it is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce. Batman is modern mythology, so that saying there's only one correct Batman is like saying there's only one correct King Arthur or Zeus. In fact, specifically, multiple versions for different times is expected. Times change, and Batman *will* change with them.

Based on the character and motivations, the whole "taking 10 years off and not doing jack poop while crime ran rampant" was entirely out of character for any version of Batman. Any Version. Take the defining characteristic of a person. Remove it. Is it the same person? No.

Real people, however, are not static. They do, in fact, change. None of us is "the same person" forever. Humans cannot take combat level stress indefinitely and remain sane and operational. Now, Bats isn't a real person, but he exists in part to address and reflect real-world things under guise of fiction. If he fails to eventually bend, he ceases to be plausible to the modern mind, and then ceases to be a useful vehicle for much of anything. Thus, the authors go with it and write a story in which any person, even the monomaniacal Batman, can burn out.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I thought the Nolan stuff was pretty damned good for what it is: A superhero movie. Srsly, if you wanna dissect this stuff to hell and back I can't see the point in it. It's summer movie trash, not cinema. In that respect it does its job quite well - better than any previous version, that's for damned sure. I mean, really. It's Batman, not Being John Malkovich.

At any rate, I did have some problems with the series. I liked the first one fine, loved Ledger's joker but also got fed up with the exaggerated voice BS. Eventually I stopped caring about the series. The only reason I was even remotely interested in seeing the third was to leer at Anne Hathaway in a skintight suit. I've still only seen minutes of it and don't plan on watching it any time soon. But yeah, best of the bunch by far. That may not say a lot but ... Batman, not The Deer Hunter.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Yeah, actually there is only one real, true King Arthur.
Everything else is a legend or "inspired by" story. Mostly borrowing from the French legends of Lancelot.

Is Batman Sane? Are you sure?

 

[Richards]

There are thousands of versions of Batman. Every writer, artist, or filmmaker interprets the character differently. He's been around nearly a century, through a thousand interpretations. To pick one and declare it "wrong" is the height of hubris. Every version of Batman is valid, from Kane's gun-toting, wisecracking Zorro-like figure through the camp crusaders of the 60s, the grim interpretations of the Dark Knight Returns, the animated versions of the 90s, through the various modern films. Nolan's interpretation of this character is perfectly valid, whether if be to your personal taste or not. Batman is grim, camp, hi-tech, low-tech, detective, action hero, gothic, procedural, hero, anti-hero, mysterious, popular, flashy, circumspect, and a hundred other things.

If that description of yours is "the Batman [you] know" you are being extremely selective. It's sure as heck not the Batman plenty of other people know, including the character's creators.

Well thank you, Morrus, for the lesson on, and accusation of, hubris.

Go back to the original post, though. The question was asked: "Why are Batman fans unhappy with the Christopher Nolan movies?" I provided my answer as to why I didn't like them. And just because different artists can present their own interpretations on Batman doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or enjoy them. The answer I gave was simply my own personal opinion on how Batman should be, not a universal "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong" line in the sand.

Otherwise, every reply in this thread would have to be variations of "I didn't agree with Christopher Nolan's take on Batman, although his take was a perfectly viable one and it would certainly be wrong of me not to have enjoyed it." And that doesn't sound like much fun at all.

Johnathan
AKA: "The New Measuring Stick for the Height of Hubris"

 

[Ahnehnois]

Go back to the original post, though. The question was asked: "Why are Batman fans unhappy with the Christopher Nolan movies?" I provided my answer as to why I didn't like them. And just because different artists can present their own interpretations on Batman doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or enjoy them.

The way I see it, it's simply post-9/11 Batman. It's not an interpretation that Bob Kane or Frank Miller would have come up with, but it makes sense for this generation. To me, reading The Dark Knight returns used the character to capture the zeitgeist of the '80's. It's pop art. The Dark Knight poster with the Batman standing in front of a skyscraper with his symbol set upon it in flame is the same: it's something I can show to people twenty years from now and say "that's what it felt like to live in that era".

To me, it is different than anything before it, but it is entirely the real Batman. To say that it isn't, period, does seem impertinent. If it didn't seem right to you personally, that's fine, but that wasn't what came across from your earlier posts.