Batman : Possible Batgirl?

[Calleja]

My point here, Pez, is that they're seemingly not interested in having MORE vigilantes and focus on Batman being Batman instead. Which is a solid concept that has a lot of material to draw from. Batman by himself is interesting enough, we don't need Robin 1 or Robin 2 or Robin 3 or Batgirl 1 or Batgirl 2 or weird costume Batgirl, or Nightwing or Huntress or the Black Canary or any of the other vigilante characters that seem to pop up around Batman.

Seriously, for a man who calls himself a loner the man has more protegés and quasi-but-not-really rivals than the entire core membership of the fracking Justice League. It dilutes the original point of the character.

Think about it... Bale has said he'd QUIT the franchise if Robin was ever introduced. I don't think putting in another character that pretty much served Robin's purpose without being Robin would fool him.

-- less than a minute ago --

I should also add that the strong point in Batman's universe is the vast rogue's gallery of actually INTERESTING villains.

All future Batman movies could be like Dark Knight, with the main character pretty much being the villain and Batman being his foil... and they would be AWESOME.

 

[figmentPez]

You've got a good point there, but how seriously can we take their dedication to Batman's rogue gallery when they've taken two of the best villains and pretty much thrown them away already? The Scarecrow deserved his own movie (where he decides to make himself the new god of fear), and they totally changed Ras Al Ghul's backstory.

 

[Espy]

There will not be a Robin in Nolan's film. There can't be. He knows how dumb Robin is on film and in his universe.

 

[Chippy]

I honestly have no idea why anyone is treating this as a credible story.

 

[Calleja]

You've got a good point there, but how seriously can we take their dedication to Batman's rogue gallery when they've taken two of the best villains and pretty much thrown them away already? The Scarecrow deserved his own movie (where he decides to make himself the new god of fear), and they totally changed Ras Al Ghul's backstory.

Batman Begins was the origin story. THAT film DID have Batman as the main character. It worked well as an introduction to the man. The villains weren't as important there.

We can take their dedication to the rogue's gallery seriously by looking at Dark Knight, which is probably more how future films would be, now that the origin story is out of the way.

Their version of the Joker is still my favorite of all time. That's why I have faith that they can take other awesome villains, make them even more awesome, and make more awesome movies.

 

[fade]

My point here, Pez, is that they're seemingly not interested in having MORE vigilantes and focus on Batman being Batman instead. Which is a solid concept that has a lot of material to draw from. Batman by himself is interesting enough, we don't need Robin 1 or Robin 2 or Robin 3 or Batgirl 1 or Batgirl 2 or weird costume Batgirl, or Nightwing or Huntress or the Black Canary or any of the other vigilante characters that seem to pop up around Batman.

Seriously, for a man who calls himself a loner the man has more protegés and quasi-but-not-really rivals than the entire core membership of the fracking Justice League. It dilutes the original point of the character.

Think about it... Bale has said he'd QUIT the franchise if Robin was ever introduced. I don't think putting in another character that pretty much served Robin's purpose without being Robin would fool him.

-- less than a minute ago --

I should also add that the strong point in Batman's universe is the vast rogue's gallery of actually INTERESTING villains.

All future Batman movies could be like Dark Knight, with the main character pretty much being the villain and Batman being his foil... and they would be AWESOME.

This is really true of MOST fiction. Lee et al. talk about it in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Comics Way, among many books that talk about it. Heroes tend to be generic. You care about them, but they're not all that interesting. It's why anti-heroes are usually more popular. They're actually interesting. Who's more interesting? Batman, or the Joker? Luke or Vader? Frodo or Sauron?

 

[figmentPez]

Batman Begins was the origin story. THAT film DID have Batman as the main character. It worked well as an introduction to the man. The villains weren't as important there.

Yes, the villains weren't as important. So why didn't they use Cornelius Stirk to make the fear gas? A minor villain for a minor role. And why did they use Ras Al Ghul at all? He's not a name most people know. It's not about their treatment in the film, it's about the treatment of the characters by the director, period. If you're going to convince me that the movie makers have a good handle on Batman's rogue gallery, you're going to have to convince me that there were good reason for wasting the Scarecrow as a bit part.

 

[Calleja]

This is really true of MOST fiction. Lee et al. talk about it in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Comics Way, among many books that talk about it. Heroes tend to be generic. You care about them, but they're not all that interesting. It's why anti-heroes are usually more popular. They're actually interesting. Who's more interesting? Batman, or the Joker? Luke or Vader? Frodo or Sauron?

I find Spider-Man to be pretty damn interesting on his own. Hell, Venom works because of the CONTRAST with Spidey.

I think I found an exception to your rule. No villain in Spidey's rogue gallery is as interesting as he is. And I know my Spidey.

but yeah, in general, I'll have to agree.

 

[fade]

There will not be a Robin in Nolan's film. There can't be. He knows how dumb Robin is on film and in his universe.

Well, really any costumed superhero is pretty stupid on film. The more realistic Nolan makes his world, the less Batman feels like he fits. He kind of sticks out like a sore thumb already. I can't imagine a costumed helper would feel any more incongruent.

 

[Calleja]

Yes, the villains weren't as important. So why didn't they use Cornelius Stirk to make the fear gas? A minor villain for a minor role. And why did they use Ras Al Ghul at all? He's not a name most people know. It's not about their treatment in the film, it's about the treatment of the characters by the director, period. If you're going to convince me that the movie makers have a good handle on Batman's rogue gallery, you're going to have to convince me that there were good reason for wasting the Scarecrow as a bit part.

You answered your own question with why they used Ras Al Ghul.

And the Scarecrow... honestly... he's not that interesting of a character. His thing is instilling fear. Fair enough... but that's what Batman is trying to do himself. Get the point? They added a villain whose schtick is fear to serve as the other side of what Batman was trying to do. That way, I think they used him pretty effing well in Batman Begins. He's not a bit part at all, just not the main focus of the origin story.

And, again, look at the rogue's gallery... there are TONS of villains more interesting than Scarecrow. They didn't use the big guns for the origin story, and I applaud that.

And I shouldn't need to convince you they have a good handle on Batman's villains... didn't Dark Knight do that on its own?

 

[JCM]

My point here, Pez, is that they're seemingly not interested in having MORE vigilantes and focus on Batman being Batman instead. Which is a solid concept that has a lot of material to draw from. Batman by himself is interesting enough, we don't need Robin 1 or Robin 2 or Robin 3 or Batgirl 1 or Batgirl 2 or weird costume Batgirl, or Nightwing or Huntress or the Black Canary or any of the other vigilante characters that seem to pop up around Batman.

Seriously, for a man who calls himself a loner the man has more protegés and quasi-but-not-really rivals than the entire core membership of the fracking Justice League. It dilutes the original point of the character.

Think about it... Bale has said he'd QUIT the franchise if Robin was ever introduced. I don't think putting in another character that pretty much served Robin's purpose without being Robin would fool him.

Pretty much everything Calleja said.

Really, its better this way, the way Bale and the director wants it, who the hell wants 3 robins (ex, dead but revived and the current one) , 2 batgirls (a disabled ex and current one), a previous Batman (Azrael), Batwoman, Ace the Bat-hound

And this guy?

Let Batman movies keep being about Batman.

 

[Le Quack]

Catwoman is batman's best rival/ally.


I wish they'd put her in the next one.

 

[Calleja]

Catwoman is batman's best rival/ally.


I wish they'd put her in the next one.

Yeah, Catwoman is the one I'd definitely love to see next. And since apparently they're pretty much sticking to the two villains formula, add the Riddler... he doesn't have that much of a backstory or depth that would rob Catwoman of camera time, but is still one of the most iconic and awesome Batman villains. I'd love to see what Nolan would do to the Riddler.

 

[Shegokigo]

I'll take the Huntress path please:

 

[CynicismKills]

Her and Question in JLU was pure win.

 

[fade]

It annoys me when comic artists draw nipples on female characters. It's so unnecessary. I mean, I love boobies, but it just seems stupid and objectifying.

 

[Hailey Knight]

This is really true of MOST fiction. Lee et al. talk about it in How to Draw Comics the Marvel Comics Way, among many books that talk about it. Heroes tend to be generic. You care about them, but they're not all that interesting. It's why anti-heroes are usually more popular. They're actually interesting. Who's more interesting? Batman, or the Joker? Luke or Vader? Frodo or Sauron?

I find Spider-Man to be pretty damn interesting on his own. Hell, Venom works because of the CONTRAST with Spidey.

I think I found an exception to your rule. No villain in Spidey's rogue gallery is as interesting as he is. And I know my Spidey.

but yeah, in general, I'll have to agree.

Frodo is more interesting than Sauron.

Spider-man has it that way because he kind of lacks an arch-nemesis. There's no Lex Luthor or Joker for him. Venom is the closest you might get, and he's a friggin' good guy. Spider-man has some classics like Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus. Even his lower-tier villains like Chameleon were interesting. But none of them has ever had a central crown against Spidey, which is why there's always a struggle in who to pit him against. Like making Spencer Smythe the main villain of the 90s cartoon. Why him? Because he can work in the background. Not because he's the established prime villain to Spider-man.

I also think Hulk is more interesting than any of his villains.

 

[JCM]

It annoys me when comic artists draw nipples on female characters. It's so unnecessary. I mean, I love boobies, but it just seems stupid and objectifying.

Have you seen the average comic-shop goer?

Its probably the only nipples they'll see outside porn and prostitute. *I kid, I kid*