Why Do Batman Fans Hate Christopher Nolan?

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Wait, are you saying that the only 'true' King Arthur story is the historical account of the real man that the King Arthur myths came from? I.e., the one we don't even know the name of? Or are you referring to the very first known King Arthur myth, which may or may not be the first actual myth? Or maybe you mean one of the best-known tellings of the King Arthur myth?

Which one exactly is truer than the others?

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.

I'm just going to say that 'pale imitation' and 'imposter' are strong words to throw around without an IMO to clarify the expressionless communication channel of an internet forum. Especially when others very much are throwing opinions around as if those opinions are facts.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
The only "True" King Arthur is the actual King who ruled somewhere around the 5th Century.
Anything else is a legend, myth, or story, which may be losely based on the True historical person.
Now, if you want to work with the character based on the myths, fine. You may have an interpretation of the character. But will it be "True"? Strictly speaking, no. Not unless you have a time machine or are about 1600 years old and remember being there, or for some reason, have access to long lost secret historical records or such like.

I leave my earlier question open for any and all to answer. Would the Justice League I "proposed" be acceptable to you?

 

[trappedslider]

I leave my earlier question open for any and all to answer. Would the Justice League I "proposed" be acceptable to you?

If it came out of the blue with no comic story line behind it no it wouldn't be acceptable

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I just want to quote this because, in the thread that spawned this one, people mistakenly thought I was primarily making a comment on people who watch movies, rather than on movies. This quote succinctly covers my major points. People are permitted to like movies that they know are mindless entertainment.

 

[sabrinathecat]

If it came out of the blue with no comic story line behind it no it wouldn't be acceptable

So that would be one vote for "Not all interpretations are valid"?

 

[trappedslider]

So that would be one vote for "Not all interpretations are valid"?

You ignored the bold part..next time i'll underline it....Every recent batman movie has taken cues from the comics for polt points,tell me which comics your plans are pulled form and then we'll talk.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
The only "True" King Arthur is the actual King who ruled somewhere around the 5th Century.
Anything else is a legend, myth, or story, which may be losely based on the True historical person.
Now, if you want to work with the character based on the myths, fine. You may have an interpretation of the character. But will it be "True"? Strictly speaking, no. Not unless you have a time machine or are about 1600 years old and remember being there, or for some reason, have access to long lost secret historical records or such like.

So your response to Umbran's comment is that since we don't know the true story of the real King Arthur, none of the King Arthur stories are acceptable. And, by inference, only the very first author's interpretation of Batman is acceptable.

I'm just going to say that while I can see how the Christian Bale Batman taking a hiatus and then retiring from crime fighting might ring hollow for a comic book aficionado, I just can't get myself worked up about it. If anything, these things make Batman a more believable character. I mean if there are no super villains to fight after Harvey's death, Gotham doesn't need him. And if fact hates him. Sure he could spend his Saturday nights taking down petty crooks, but leaving the small fish to the cops is a perfectly reasonable decision too. Likewise, I took his retirement as the result of character growth. I know Batman is just a super hero blockbuster, but I'm not going to complain if a bit of character growth worms its way into my mindless entertainment.

I don't see Batman's hiatus and retirement as at all comparable to your parody of the Justice League, but whatever. You've clearly got The Facts all worked out for yourself, and I'm just some dude who's never read a Batman comic, so I bow to your superior wisdom.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Yes, leave the small time crooks to the cops. The small-time victims don't matter--they're only people.

(Sorry, bold formatting didn't show up in my view).

King Arthur: The problem there is that there is a real, historical person. And the word "True" was used. True to history would require historical backing (the Bruckheimer movie from about 10 years ago says that they found new records, but doesn't say anything about what they are/were, so how can we judge it? Based solely on itself, it is an inferior movie. Judged by history, it is an inferior movie.) True to the original legend would require identifying the original legend and working from there.

Yes, Batman has had dozens if not hundreds of people writing for him, and he has evolved based on how seriously the writers took the character and how times and perceptions have changed (the 1940s movies are incredibly racist and stupid).
Nolan's movies do not reflect an understanding of the character. Bale's acting does not display any character whatsoever--more of a character void.
In that regard, they are both similar to the Bay/Orci/Kurzman version of Transformers--no understanding of the characters or world (all flash, no substance).

 

[Richards]

I'm just going to say that 'pale imitation' and 'imposter' are strong words to throw around without an IMO to clarify the expressionless communication channel of an internet forum. Especially when others very much are throwing opinions around as if those opinions are facts.

Okay, fair enough. I guess I just assumed the "IMO" was assumed.

Johnathan

 

[Hussar]

Just a question. Lots of Batman stories have had Batman taking a break haven't they? Batman Beyond did I know. But aren't there several batman stories that have Bruce Wayne going into retirement?