George Clooney makes his Comic-Con debut, apologizes for 'Batman & Robin'

George Clooney took a break from his honeymoon to surprise the New York Comic-Con audience on opening day earlier this afternoon. It was his first time attending a Comic-Con, he was there to promote Disney's Tomorrowland. Clooney even got to meet Adam West backstage, who is there to promote the Batman: The Complete Television Series Blu-ray boxset. Once the crowd calmed down a bit from the big surprise, Clooney quickly made some Batman jokes and even apologized for Batman & Robin. All of it!

"I think since Batman that I’ve been disinvited from Comic-Con for 20 years. I see the comment sections on all you guys. I just met Adam West there [referring to behind the NYCC main stage] and I apologized to him. Sorry about the nipples on the suit. Freeze, Freeze, I apologize for that."

New York Comic-Con kicked off today and will run through October 12th. Stay tuned to Batman News for any major announcements that may come out of the event over the next few days.

SOURCE: Screen Rant

503 comments

RH3ZA

October 9, 2014

George Clooney is a nice guy who knows how bad that film was, and c'mon we know if he had a solid script he would've done a good job but Joel Schumacher can ruin anyone.

Robert James Watkins
October 9, 2014
Schumacher gets crapped on, but he's actually a very talented filmmaker, his Batman films notwithstanding.
1. AScaryGhost
  October 10, 2014
  Phone Booth is one of my favorite movies. If anything we have to blame the studio for his Batman movies. They got rid of Burton because they wanted the movies to be kiddy and lighthearted which he did pretty well.
Larry Lindsay
October 9, 2014
I blame it mostly on the studio. Yes Schumaker was the director but on a big budget film like that especially in those days when the studio asked you to do something you fucking did it! Everyone has a boss.
1. RH3ZA
  October 9, 2014
  Sounds like what happened to Man of Steel.
  1. RH3ZA
    October 10, 2014
    While Zack Snyder's visual style was there, the story was very Nolan-esque. Man of Steel was a Legendary/Syncopy movie, who produced the Nolan Batman Trilogy. Nolan was the lead producer and he co-wrote the movie with David S Goyer, who also wrote all 3 movies with Nolan. That's why when people condemn Zack Snyder to lead the Dc cinematic universe because of MOS, I say wait for Batman v Superman. Because that movie is 100% Zack's team unlike Man of Steel that was 70% Nolan's team, 30% Zack working with his constraints.
    1. El Murcielago
      October 10, 2014
      *Syncopy
    2. RH3ZA
      October 10, 2014
      *fixed
    3. AScaryGhost
      October 10, 2014
      I'd argue that BvS is 70% Synder and 30% Ben Affleck. I'm almost 100% certain that Snyder will be taking cues from Affleck. Not to mention that Chris Terrio and Scoot McNairy are there too, both of whom are known for working with Affleck.
    4. RH3ZA
      October 10, 2014
      Well I said "team," I think Zack Snyder/Chirs/Ben are part of the new DC cinimatic universe team with no attachments to Nolan's team. Except for the screenplay that Goyer started and Chris rewrote/finished.
    5. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      I feel too many people have this notion Affleck is navigating the DCCU, or that he even wants to. I'm not convinced he wants to do anything more then play Batman. He'll recommend a writer or a specific actor if asked, but I really don't believe he's consulting on this franchise.
      I haven't seen anything to convince me he's producing.
    6. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      Did you know, Nolan was against the Zod death? Goyer & Snyder felt it was necessary.
      Also, Nolan wanted this series to be independent like TDK trilogy. Studio wanted it to be the gateway to the DCCU.
    7. RH3ZA
      October 10, 2014
      Yes I did, but the other 70% of the movie was Nolan's writing. Even though the movie is independent from his trilogy it didn't stop them from shaping the movie to be a Nolan film.
    8. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      Everything I've read was that he had the idea, it was Goyer who wrote the script.
      I suspect most of the tone changed will come from a different person writing the script & plotting the story.
    9. ProgressiveDog
      October 12, 2014
      First of all, Nolan's involvement is vastly overstated. He lent his name to it for marketing and finance purposes. The biggest influence on the script came from David Goyer and it shows. He tried to plug Clark Kent into the Batman Begins formula, but it didn't work. Notice how the Dark Knight movies got better as Goyer's involvement decreased. Goyer is just a lousy writer.
MK400923
October 10, 2014
I find "Gotham" to be very Schumacher inspired, especially the FIsh Mooney character.
1. RH3ZA
  October 10, 2014
  Nah Gotham is very comic inspired, but they're portraying it right. I mean some of the characters are just comically portrayed and that's fine if you take it seriously (but not too seriously).

Matches Malone

October 9, 2014

I've got Saturday tickets! Can't wait!

Matches Malone

October 9, 2014

It was a different time, a different era... Why must we criticize?

Matches Malone
October 9, 2014
You're forgetting the fact that the Batman comics in the 60's was basically the same thing. It was a different show for a different audience in a different century.
1. Johnny Bravo5713
  October 10, 2014
  I agree with you.Batman is 75 years old and this show must be good for the people of 60's but we may not like it.For me in 90's Batman was the animated series and in 2000's it is Dark knight trilogy. So may be when we are very old after 50 years our kidsmay not like it.So respect for the classics!
  1. Arnold Palmer
    October 11, 2014
    If my children don't like B:TAS... I shall smother them in their sleep.

BatmanNewsChris

October 9, 2014

Nah, Adam West's Batman was meant to be silly. Clooney's on the other hand...

Jamie Douglas
October 9, 2014
Was meant to be just as silly.
1. BatmanNewsChris
  October 9, 2014
  It was definitely meant to be more fun... I'm not sure they intended it to be as silly as it was though.
  1. Lucas Periale
    October 9, 2014
    I think that if (for example) Nolan ahd directed those films. George Clooney would have done a great job. Both as Batman and Bruce Wayne
2. Matito
  October 9, 2014
  The problem is that the Batman TV series was a standalone, intentionally-campy version of the character, but Batman and Robin was intended to be a continuation of a dark, serious interpretation started by the '89 film.
Jerry Blank
October 9, 2014
I disagree with this, Batman and Robin was basically Batman '66 done in the 90s. If you can accept that, Batman Returns is actually a pretty enjoyable movie.
1. BatmanNewsChris
  October 9, 2014
  Batman Returns is my favorite of the Burton/Schumacher 4!
  1. Mark
    October 9, 2014
    Although Tim Burton had made several films before, Batman Returns was probably the second of what we would today call a "Tim Burton Film," after Edward Scissorhands. Even as I watched it and marveled at the Penguin he and Danny DeVito came up with (and I loved Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman), it bothered me that it's more a succession of awesome storyboards than a coherent story.
    1. BatmanNewsChris
      October 10, 2014
      I'd throw Beetlejuice on that "Tim Burton Film" list too!
    2. Ray 0006
      October 10, 2014
      I'd like to see Burton direct the upcoming SHAZAM! movie, with Dwayne Johnson. He'd really get the weirdness of a reality with evil worms and talking tigers.
  2. Potterbat
    October 10, 2014
    Over Batman '89? Is this legal?
    1. Mark
      October 10, 2014
      There are certain things one thinks of these days when talking about a "Tim Burton film," although they're hard to describe. 25 years ago when he was starting out, he was in the process of evolving that style, and I personally don't think it was there in "Batman". But, by the time he did Edward Scissorhands (his first collaboration with Johnny Depp) I think he really knew what he wanted to do, and Batman Returns is another early example. A case in point: Nicholson's Joker was, for all his departures from canon, a recognizable take on the character as he exists in the comics. DeVito's Penguin. black goo oozing from his mouth, is an undeniably Tim Burton character. Chris threw Beetlejuice onto the list of early "Tim Burton" films as well, and in some ways it might even be the prototype, but while Batman is, of course, a film by Tim Burton, it lacks some of the truly skewed outlook and wild abandon that perhaps characterize "a Tim Burton film."
Knight-Errant
October 10, 2014
Was meant to be a kids movie. Actors have stated Schumacher advised several times a day "remember, we're making a cartoon."

Shy_Guy

October 9, 2014

He doesn't have to.

Worlds Finest Comments

October 9, 2014

NOBODY MESSES WITH ADAM WE!

OptimistPrime99

October 9, 2014

He should have actually read the script, BEFORE he agreed to do the film. His Batman was too......nice! But Clooney was the bomb as Bruce Wayne, yo.

OptimistPrime99
October 9, 2014
LOL
1. BatkidGrayson
  October 9, 2014
  Haha, "good thru forever". That was a nice nod I'd never caught before!

Worlds Finest Comments

October 9, 2014

How many times has George apologized now? I'm starting to lose count.

Chsox203

October 9, 2014

We forgive you, George - Just don't ever mention that movie ever again

OptimistPrime99
October 9, 2014
Says the guy who has probably watched Batman & Robin 10-20 times, minimum.
1. Chsox203
  October 9, 2014
  How did you know? Damn
2. Matches Malone
  October 9, 2014
  I was never able to finish it. It was just that bad...
  1. OptimistPrime99
    October 9, 2014
    You've never finished watching Batman & Robin?! Excuse while I grab my phone. I gotta call BS.
    1. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      Very funny. But actually, I ran out of time and I never bothered to watch it again.
    2. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      SPOILER ALERT: Alfred dies at the end.
    3. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      I knew that. That whole subplot was ridiculous.
    4. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      The best part was how Barbara became Batgirl. Did you see that part? LOL
    5. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      Batgirl did not belong in that movie. She took a pile of shit, and shat on it even more. (Shat?)
    6. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Well yeah but, Alicia Silverstone was hot! Alfred didn't actually die, by the way. In fact, Alfred actually delivered the best bit of dialogue, in ANY Batman. It summed up the Batman character, PERFECTLY.
    7. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      I didn't think she was that hot. But I saw it maybe a few years ago, so...
    8. Mark
      October 9, 2014
      They at least gave us the equal-time ECU crotch shot of her getting her suit on, after we had already seen equally tight closeups on Batman and Robin's codpieces. And I do think she was cute.
  2. Knight-Errant
    October 10, 2014
    At least you weren't OCD; I had to see it 4 times in the theatre. Glad I cured that condition...just wished it would've been sooner.

Miguel Gaspar

October 9, 2014

Why does he apologize? Fuck those "fans".

Batman & Robin is actually a funny movie, it reminds me of 60's Batman TV show.

Jason Todd
October 9, 2014
Batman and Robin was a glorified toy commercial. The only interpretation of Batman that trumps B & R for sheer stupidity/cheesiness is the '60s show and that abomination has been dead and buried for over a half century (thank God for that). Hell, if you'd bother to watch the director's commentary by Schumacher himself you would have learned as much. It's on YouTube as well for everyone to see. Everyone that made that film regrets it. Everyone.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  Most of your comment is wrong.
  I'm not saying is a master piece, but it's nothing to apologize for, not more than what Nolan did to the characters in Rises.
  "Dead and buried" you must live under a rock.
  1. Chsox203
    October 9, 2014
    Rises is a masterpiece
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You have terribly low standards.
    2. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Keep being wrong
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Keep saying it until you can fool yourself.
2. Mark
  October 10, 2014
  Actually, there's a US network called "MeTV" whose Saturday night programming block includes not only two episodes of "Batman '66," but the entire Trinity: "The Adventures of Superman" for an hour at 6, "Batman" at 7, and the Lynda Carter "Wonder Woman" series at 8 (all times Eastern). Check your local listings, etc.
  One other thing to think about is that, for all that was going on in the world in the Sixties, most of US television was firmly in the camp of the "squares." Lots of Westerns, buttoned-up nuclear family sitcoms, etc., and even the original "Star Trek." There were, however, a few shows that captured the era once color started to become commonplace in 1965. Of those, how often do you see "Laugh-In" or "The Smothers Brothers" in syndication, or even offered in an infomercial box set? You don't; the humor, while outrageous for its time, is undeniably dated now. The only show that is so firmly "of" that era that people still watch today is Batman. Yes, it mired the public perception of the character in camp for 20 years (for all of O'Neil's and Adam's work to reverse it), and if you can't appreciate the ludicrous humor or just resent that Batman was played for laughs at all I'm sure it can be grating to watch. But if you can get your mind into that mindset it can still be enjoyable. And I'll admit, I'm saying this as someone who took the show deadly seriously when I first encountered it when I was 8. I'll even credit it for making me a Batman fan.
Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
You're the one bashing 60's Batman and mindlessly pole squatting Nolan's carbonated piss.
So pot kettle of you, kid.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  You misspelled Nolan.

Miguel Gaspar

October 9, 2014

Hell no, Adam West Batman TV show was absolutely true to the 60's Batman comics.

It was a verbatim adaption of the tone and characters.

That's something Nolan can't brag about.

If anyone should apologize for anything Batman-related, that's Nolan for Rises.

Jason Todd
October 9, 2014
"Verbatim interpretation" my dick. I'm trying to remember a time when the comics ever jumped the shark like the '60s show did. What are you bandwagon kids smoking these days? That show was an assault on the senses. The acting was terrible. The dialogue was downright atrocious. And the fact that it pretty much destroyed the Batman legacy/good name for over two decades is something that would cause any proper Batman fan to hold his/her head down in shame just thinking about it.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  Have you ever read 60's comics? You mustn't have.
  "Bandwagon kids" you mean the Nolanites? Damn right.
  The acting was spot on for that interpretations and the dialogue was great, you have terrible, terrible taste and a jaded soul.
  1. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    Yes I've read the comics from the 1960's. I've read both pre and post-Crisis era comics, FYI. And no, you're absolutely dead wrong son. I've read your posts and other commenters' posts on this thread and you're either high, ignorant or both. The Adam West series was satire intended to pass for a Batman series during a time when half the nation was strung out on hallucinogens and was easily amused by anything colorful. The acting was absolutely terrible, the dialogue was juvenile and you, sir, being the presumptuous ass that you are, need to have your jaw dislodged for being so fucking stupid. "Terrible, terrible taste and a jaded soul." For being so incredibly retarded I wish I could trace your ip address, come to your home (assuming it's not the public library before you sleep on the local street corner) and kick your dumb ass. Fucking inept prick.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Doesn't seem like you've read them, anyone who has knows for a fact the TV show is true to the comics.
      I'm no wrong, you are.
      The acting was on point, so was the dialogue, and it was INTENDED to be juvenile you tasteless ape.
      Kid, you couldn't kick my ass if you wanted, but I love the rage when a dumb Nolanite is frustrated by not being able to refute the truth.
2. Knight-Errant
  October 9, 2014
  I'm no fan of that series, but West saved the character. That TV series helped keep Batman relevant at the time.
  1. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    Then how come the character all but died off for over twenty years after that show ended only to be properly resurrected by post-Crisis authors (i.e. Frank Miller and Denny O'Neil)?
    Humor me, if you will sir.
    1. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      At that time, the book was selling. They revised the character from the pulp era to something more of the times.
      O'Neil revised the character in the 70s making him darker the the 60s; essentially the Bronze Age of comics.
      By the early 80s, the sales were slipping again. Moon Knight creator, Doug Moench (which was selling better then Batman), was brought on to write the title. It got a little boost.
      Crisis happened mid-80s.
      Now by this point, the title was close to being canceled. Miller's DKR made the character darker & in turn generated interest again. It's why his title wasn't renumbered following the Crisis revisions.
      After a couple years, Burton's Batman came out & his popularity continued to rise.
    2. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      The book sold because people bought into the idiotic premise that Batman was a child's figure/character. The rest of your points are ones I've already made above a few times.
      O'Neil and Moench both were responsible for the revitalization of the character in the wake of one the title's worst dry spells in the history of DC Comics. And it's important to note that Burton's character was also incredibly dark, one of the biggest reasons why the film franchise flourished prior to the Schumacher era.
    3. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      Then I don't follow what you were looking for. The 60s Batman TV series saved the character from cancellation. It was done again in the 80s.
      That's all I got on why West's Batman was important to the character; love it or dislike the interpretation (as I do.)
3. Flying Graysons Fan
  October 9, 2014
  It's just one interpretation. The character of Batman has only survived 75 years because he has re-interpreted so many times. The acting, dialogue, and situations were meant to be corny. The Adam West series was all about making fun of how ridiculous the initial concept was: a guy fighting crime dressed as bat with a bunch of cooky gadgets. It's simply the other side of the coin compared to the dark, brooding, hyper-realistic interpretations of Batman we've seen in The Dark Knight Returns and the Nolan series.
  1. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    Insulting the legacy created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane only succeeds in re-emphasizing my original point. I'll give you the alternate interpretation point. But that's it. At the end of the day, the character all but faded off into obscurity BECAUSE of Adam West's awful portrayal and the show as a whole.
    And the descriptors "dark, brooding and hyper-realistic" really are just hipster terms used to compensate for the fact that people still aren't able to grasp the fact, 75 years later, that this isn't a child-friendly character. This is a man who has been psychologically damaged by having witnessed his parents' murder right in front of him as a child. I know that people dislike Nolan's trilogy because they just can't stomach all the accolades/mountains of praise that it received. And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their hipster opinions. But at day's end, Nolan's Batman didn't almost KILL the character outright just for satire's sake. Hell, Snyder's entire current run on the character is an homage to what Nolan and company accomplished. But that is clearly lost on quite a few pseudo-fans in this brave new world we live in.
    1. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 11, 2014
      But I'm not a Nolan-hating hipster; I love the Nolan trilogy....
Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
If by "good" you mean "complete bastardization" then you're right.
1. Knight-Errant
  October 9, 2014
  We got some great Knightfall, The Cult, & DKR stuff. All good.
2. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  If you've never been exposed to anything Batman-related you're right.
  1. Bats2012
    October 9, 2014
    Almost all of TDK trilogy drew from the most respected and well received batman stories of the last two decades. To say that the TDK trilogy is a bastardized version of the character is saying that those stories that the trilogy drew from, successfully I might add, aren't part of what we consider to be Batman.
    You're cherry picking your argument by ignore the bulk of the successful batman stories, writers, illustrators and editors who's stories helped to create TDK trilogy. When many of these same individuals say "Nolan got it right" and you say he "bastardized" it this makes it look like it is not the "Nolanites," but you, who does not understand the character.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      *accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades accolades *
      Excellent well worded premise.
      Sure, he got the flashy stuff right, too bad he missed the core of what makes the character.
    2. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      Tell me, what is this core you speak of? This isn't the first time I've seen this argument from you but if you provide a description of what you think this "core" is and how TDK trilogy failed to capture it, that will be a first.
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Wrong, I've addressed it many times, and it's not what "I think" the core is, is what the core IS.
      You need to be completely unfamiliar with Batman to not know the depth of Bruce's commitment with justice, his fighting skills and his intelligence.
      Bruce has nothing less than a borderline crazy obsession with Justice and righteousness, something as pedestrian as a "normal life" isn't a goal in life for him as Nolan incorrectly represented it, Batman WILL go to the limits of his body and mind to become a better vigilante and to get the job done, his almost inhuman fight skills and intelligence is derivative of that.
      I understand Nolan's take couldn't possibly give him 127 martial arts nor genius level intelligence, but he went to the opposite extreme which is making him a pussy and a dumbass.
      And most important, the real Bruce way would NEVER quit, NEVER.
      Even if he could no longer perform as Batman he would keep doing WHATEVER HE CAN, EVERYTHING he can to keep Gotham safe, either with Wayne Enterprises, Batman INC, Batman Beyond, the Sons of Batman, whatever, anything.
      Baleman was just a lazy quitter.
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Thanks for showing you can't read.
    5. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No you can't that's beyond clear.
      That's ok, thanks for showing only people who don't know anything and don't care about Batman put the Nolan trilogy on a pedestal.
      Thanks for proving my point, as usual.
    6. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Sure, Bizarro.
    7. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      ^Derp. What a comeback. Coming from the Adam West worshiping pole-smoker, that's about your speed.
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Lol you're too dumb to even comprehend how good that comeback is, is short and clear and implies that everything he says means the opposite.
      But Nolanites need a preaching soliloquy to get their tiny dicks hard.
    9. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Everything he says means the opposite? Adam West pole-smokers sure are desperate in their short-sighted, lacking retorts. Carry on son. I know it must be hard, but West will drop his loads on your face in the meantime. Haha
    10. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Thanks for showing you don't know who Bizarro is, another proof you know nothing of comic book characters.
      You clearly come from Bizarro planet too.
      How obsessed you are with people coming on your face you project your desires on others.
      Ew, weirdo.
    11. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      The Nolan trilogy deserves all the praise it receives. It may not be perfect, but I'll watch it a million times over before I ever even glance at a single episode of that god-awful 60's abortion you and yours call a Batman series. Nolan, Goyer and company paid more homage to the source material than any other filmmakers have prior to them.
      Meanwhile, Adam West just texted me. He said that you need to gag on his cum some more tonight before he gives it to Burt Ward in the ass again for the umpteenth time.
    12. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No it doesn't.
      Then you're no Batman fan.
      If you respect Goyer you're even less of a comic book fan.
      I think that text was meant for you, I'm not a male on male prostitute, buddy, that's your line of work, go get'em tiger.
    13. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Coming from the guy who blows Adam West daily, that last statement isn't much of an insult.
      And yes, it clearly does. The trilogy stands on its own as the sole reason why the Batman film franchise didn't remain in production hell for two decades or more. You, sir, are just a pseudo-fan/hipster who thinks that his opinion is the end all opinion.
      And I respect Goyer because the man has been a comic book writer and a fan his whole life. That you didn't know this is a testament to your ignorance and discredits everything you've posted up until this point.
    14. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Keep the self-projecting homosexual slurs, keep confessing your fantasies.
      You're the pesudo-fan hipster, I'm just a fan.
      And I'm not complaining about it being self contained you brainless monkey.
      Goyer, the guy who made Superman give up his American nationality, the man who said SheHulk was a whore, the man who said Martian Manhunter fans were virgins.
      That's who you "respect".
      Thank you for showcasing the kind of fascist comic bookcharacter-haters Nolanites bend over for.
      Keep telling me how ignorant I am, while showing your own ignorance, please, you're doing a great job.
      Fucking kids.
    15. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      You just sound upset that the story is over. TDK trilogy showed us what was important to the story; there's plenty of Batman that happens in between the scenes (and films).
      These films, LITERALLY, show someone who's run his body into the ground and keeps fighting. Do you remember the long list of injuries the doctor lists? Do you remember him fighting Bane's henchmen while rehabilitating his knee? Do you remember him making a climb that no one else could after fighting back from near fatal injuries? Or all of the scenes where he used his intelligence, technology, or fighting skills to do the things that Batman does? Are you even familiar with these films you're criticizing? Or have you lived so much of your life out of touch with reality that you need over the top exaggeration in order to find anything "badass" enough for you.
      You've criticized him wanting a normal life, the films show everyone but him wanting a normal life for him. If you really believe the character from those three films is NEVER going back to Gotham at the end, thats a seriously depressing viewpoint. It is also a viewpoint that you have chosen yourself. However, if we do allow ourselves to believe Bruce quit, its only because his job was done.
      You seem to idolize a version of the character that is, by definition, less successful than Batman in TDK films. This Batman was smart enough to know that you don't stop crime by punching people but by creating social change, for example his use of symbols, his lobbying (as Bruce Wayne) for the election of public officials that want to fundamentally change the causes of criminality in Gotham. Once he did this, at the end of TDK, he has no reason to continue fighting crime; Gotham was sustaining itself. I shouldn't have to remind you this was Bruce's goal: to stop crime. Not to endlessly and meaninglessly fight it.
    16. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm not upset that it was over, I just despise HOW it ended.
      Yeah, and he chose to go on vacation when it ended, he didn't need to be Batman forever, he just need to be obsessed with Justice and Gotham's well being, he didn't, period, if you don't plan to move the argument forward just concede the point.
      Wrong, HE wanted a normal life, did you even watch the movies?
      If you believe if Baleman is ever going back to Gotham, that's marijuana because nothing of the sort was even hinted in the movie.
      And more smoke, you have absolutely no foundation to stating your last paragraph, nothing, you don't use the movies ACTUAL merits to support your argument, just your imagination.
      And you missed the End of Rises if you think Gotham was sustaining itself.
      Also you must not know Bruce if you think he doesn't do politics in comics.
    17. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      You seem to literally make up what ever you think will support your argument. I don't smoke marijuana because I'm not in 8th grade anymore and I have more important shit to do.
      "You don't use the movies ACTUAL merits to support your argument, just your imagination," this rebuttal is fundamentally a mischaracterization of my argument. I didn't list details from the film since I assumed one who attacks them has seen them.
      Batman Begins: Bruce says his mission is to inspire people, he never mentions a desire to fight criminals forever, he says he wants to create something everlasting. I should also remind you that no one in these films is immortal, so the solution could never be Bruce. The solution could however be the symbol - Batman. Batman creates "social change" through his symbol of incorruptible and everlasting justice.
      The Dark Knight: The mob is scared. Crime as a whole is down. People like Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent are beginning to have a more powerful ability to perform their jobs. Inspired by, and aided by, Batman, Gordon and Dent remove many of Gotham's major organized crime leaders and upper level enforcers. Social Change. Dent's death creates even further social change when his "white knight" image, made prevalent by Bruce/Batman, is used to keep even more criminals out of the streets.
      The Dark Knight Rises: Batman's influence is still strong at work. It has fundamentally eliminated crime in Gotham, it takes incredibly drastic acts to even reduce shake Gotham when Bane arrives. Batman stops Bane and we can see that people have been inspired by him, he has become "more than just a man". As the film shows children look up to him and Blake uses Batman to denounce the confines of law enforcement and fight for true justice. Batman becomes the ideal he wishes to instill in the people of Gotham: do the right thing no matter the cost.
      All of these things are evidenced in, and supported by the film's dialogue alone. it doesn't take any imagination or reading between the lines. It does however take the most basic level of understanding of language and imagery.
      It was not made clear whether Bruce would return or not, more evidence points to his eventual return than his perpetual vacationing.
      To your final point, we aren't discussing comics, I never said he doesn't use politics in comics. Your claim that there is such a similarity actually stands to support my argument that the films do capture the character.
    18. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Your delusional unfounded claims about the aftermath of Rises says otherwise.
      And no, the very things that were established in the ACTUAL movie support my argument, your argument is based on nothing but assumption.
      Yeah great, but nothing on the 2nd part of your paragraph is based on actual movie information.
      I don't see how inspiring people is mutually exclusive with obsession with Justice.
      Again, read carefully, I'm not suggesting Bruce should live forever, and nothing in my claims is based on that.
      In TDK peace is achieve by an immoral lie.
      None of those things you listed detracts from my argument, not a bit.
      Wrong, the fact that he uses comics serves to make your implication that somehow Nolan's Batman is deeper than the comics' invalid.
      Again, read carefully, sure, Nolan copy/pastes random superficial traits but lets the core out.
    19. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      Im trying my best to make sense of this argument without creating a caricature of it.
      Your first sentence is too vague. I get that your first instinct is to call anyone you don't agree with delusional. I don't get what point of my own you believe I defeated with my summarization of TDKR ending.
      Your second sentence flies in the face of the ACTUAL DIALOGUE, script, plot, story and theme of the films. Every claim I have made in my previous post can be backed up with quotes and scenes from the film. If you would like to question any of my ACTUAL claims I will be glad to defend them with their related quotes.
      You're third claim, "Yeah great, but nothing on the 2nd part of your paragraph is based on actual movie information" is somewhat repeating your second sentence. I'm also not sure what you're speaking of since I have several paragraphs in my previous post. Once again, all of my conclusions can be directly sourced from the script of the film.
      You're fourth claim. Not everyone shares your belief in an "obsession with justice". Some of us just want to see Batman fight crime and be successful. Batman is a hero, a moral exemplar, obsession is a vice.
      "I'm not suggesting Bruce should live forever, and nothing in my claims is based on that." I may have altered your argument in my response but this wasn't my intention. What I was intending to say is that a realistic take on Batman can't have him fighting crime forever, the final film leaves off rather open ended. We don't know if Bruce is coming back to be Batman again, or coming back to train Blake, or planning to stay retired. Any assumptions that one of these is the case is not supported by the context of the film, it's left vague on purpose. You're responsible for what you believe to happen after the credits roll, not the director.
      Claims that TDK ends in an immoral lie are a bit difficult to establish. There are various moral systems that would find the actions taken by Gordon and Batman morally permissible or even morally obligatory! My personal favorite code of ethics, virtue ethics, could quite possibly make the lie an action that a wise person, or moral exemplar, would take. The lie honors the memory of Harvey Dent as who he really was. The joker's plan, in real world legal proceedings, would have put Harvey Dent in a psychological state unfit to stand trial. He also would likely be found not culpable for his actions after 1) the murder of his would be fiancé 2) having his face burned half off 3) receiving no treatment (medicinal or psychological). Legally and morally it would be difficult to hold someone in dent's position responsible for their actions. Because of this, Dent's friends (Batman/Bruce and Gordon) chose to honor his memory as he lived, not as the monster that the joker turned him into. This also preserves his good deeds and creates the greatest good for the greatest number, a fundamentally consequentialist outcome, but none the less a good one.
      You say my argument is null, yet I have shown that my argument is based on the actual content of the films. You have not provided any proof or convincing argument to the contrary. If you do I will rebut it with contextual evidence.
      Your second to last claim is confusing, maybe reword it. I assume you mean that Nolan's use of themes and ideas from the comics make his films weaker for not being original. This is a strange argument coming from someone who's initial argument was that Nolan's films were not ENOUGH like the comics.
      Finally, you rely on the claim that Nolan misses the core of the character without even having a well laid out definition of this "core". Since I have refuted most of your objections to the character's "core" you have changed your arguments to avoid the fact that they were indefensible or poorly structured arguments from the beginning.
      It appears you have a very bleak interpretation of an overwhelmingly well received film. In the end Batman saves the day, goes to Europe with a pretty lady, and the rest is up to the imagination. Don't blame the director, the writers, the actors, or the fans of the film who truly enjoyed it for your choice to adopt the worst possible interpretation of the film.
    20. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No, I called you delusional because your claims WERE delusional.
      You don't get that everything in the last paragraph is all an imaginary assumption of Rises aftermath based on absolutely nothing?
      Ok, how is Batman NOT devoid of his core inherent nature? Defend that, what in the movie, what lines, which scenes, support that claim?
      Have you already forgot how you expressed yourself about Batman coming back to Gotham after Rises and all that? Really? Ok, how can you back that up with the film?
      That's not an opinion, that's the nature of the character, that's not subjective, it's like saying Sherlock Holmes natural curiosity is optional.
      "The ending leaves it open ended paragraph" Assumption, based on nothing, excuses.
      No, you have not shown anything that the films back up that refutes my arguments.
      I can't believe my initial premise is that hard to comprehend, I refuse to waste time "rewording it".
      I have laid down the definition of "core", multiple times, and you're kidding yourself if you think you've refuted anything I've said, you have refuted nothing.
      Batman is still a quitter, Batman is still a selfish bastard, Batman is still dumb, Batman is still a bad fighter, among other things, those claims remain intact.
      And I have not changed your arguments, you're struggling to follow the conversation.
      And your whole point rests in the arms of your mindless accolade filled last paragraph.
    21. Bats2012
      October 10, 2014
      Yeah you're desperately flailing here.
    22. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      If desperately failing means irrevocably winning, then yes.
    23. Bats2012
      October 10, 2014
      That you think you can "win" an argument where your opponent points out facts and you consistently confirm your bias for chosen beliefs which lie outside of the content of the films you are criticizing shows that you don't even know what "winning" an argument is.
      Take a class on critical thinking or public discourse and rethink this comment afterwards.
      "Winning" an argument is about reaching understanding, not making someone else look stupid. By the way, if you're thinking you have made anyone look stupid it's only been yourself. I've laid out an actual argument and you've consistently said nothing more than "you're wrong and I am wright therefor I win" without giving any evidence that supports your viewpoint.
      Since it seems to be the underlying theme of all your arguments, answer this one question:
      How do you know Batman quit?
    24. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No one, not a single person has pointed towards a single fact that even slightly begins to refute anything I've said, that's all I've been doing, critical thinking.
      You and others, have just been irrationally ranting without even touching my arguments.
      Wrong, I've made every single dumb Nolanite who comes my way with slurs and vomiting nonsense look like a complete fool, you saying otherwise to appease your discomfort doesn't make it so.
      What argument have you laid that I have not directly addressed and refuted? Go ahead, quote it and quote me, I dare you.
      How do I know Batman quit?
      Because he did? Did you even watch Rises, or would you prefer to have wishful thinking based on absolutely nothing rather than going by what the movie itself shows you?
      That's the argument of every single Nolanite, imagination.
    25. Bats2012
      October 11, 2014
      Here's what we ACTUALLY know at the end of Rises:
      1. Batman saved Gotham and it appears he died in the explosion
      2. Bruce Wayne left a will that included clues to his faking his death
      3. The bat-signal has been rebuilt on top of GCPD
      4. The bat-cave still exists, and for reasons unknown to us Bruce has led Blake to find it
      5. Bruce Wayne is still alive and is presently in Florence.
      THESE are the facts. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE FILM.
      I'll restate this one last time, you're projecting your interpretation of the film onto the film to such a degree that you actually believe the things your mind created exist in the real it of the film. THEY DO NOT.
      There are several plausible interpretations of these ending scenes. One of them is that Bruce Wayne "quit" however it is just as plausible that he will return to train blake or to fight along side of him. The film neither confirms or denies this, that you deny it doesn't change the content of the film.
    26. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      Correct about those facts and about not knowing what happens afterwards, which is what most Nolanites based their argument on, the after math.
      Wrong, I'm not projecting anything, I'm stating what Batman IS and Nolan FAILED to capture.
      No, the film established that Alfred had a dream that when he saw Bruce in a cafe with his significant other that'd mean that he made it, implying that he had left Batman behind, then the movie later showcases that, implying there's a possibility of return is wishful thinking and it negates what the movie already established, and THAT is your OWN interpretation based on NOTHING, don't call me out on that when you're the one doing it.
    27. Bats2012
      October 11, 2014
      I see no reason this discussion should become toxic. I apologize, I know I have contributed to that. We have already found some common ground, we agree that we do not know what happens after the film ends. We disagree on what significance is carried by Alfred's dream.
      To refresh our memories this is what Alfred says:
      "I had this fantasy, that I would look across the tables and I'd see you there, with a wife and maybe a couple of kids. You wouldn't say anything to me, nor me to you. But we'd both know that you'd made it, that you were happy. I never wanted you to come back to Gotham. I always knew there was nothing here for you, except pain and tragedy. And I wanted something more for you than that. I still do."
      It's important to remember that Alfred had this dream when Bruce was missing in Batman Begins and before Batman was even an idea (we see Bruce create the persona after arriving back in Gotham), so it's safe to say that Alfred had made no considerations for Bruce's plans as Batman while he was having this fantasy. It's difficult in my mind to say that this implies Bruce had left Batman behind when Alfred was not even aware of Batman at the time of the dream.
      Since Batman, and his quest's ability to bring happiness to Bruce, is not a consideration of the dream, it stands to reason that Alfred may simply be saying he wants a life for Bruce that is more than JUST Batman. He believed that Gotham held nothing but pain and tragedy, were this to be untrue, there is no reason Bruce could not return to Gotham and be happy.
      While Batman retiring is a reasonable interpretation of the film, there is a flawed logic in saying that Alfred's dream proves it. You're using dialogue from earlier in the film; Alfred saying, "We'd both know that you'd made it" and that bruce had found a normal life, to explain things not contained in the film.
      This is problematic in several ways that I will try to explain.
      Firstly, Alfred was simply describing a daydream of his to Bruce. Even in the context of the film Alfred's comments are not based in reality, they are simply descriptions of his dream. If we assume that Bruce did quit, and in fact the film made it expressly clear that he had quit, this would not be known to us because Alfred had a dream of him quitting but because Batman committed the act of quitting. These are entirely different phenomena. Suppose I were to have a dream that I won the lottery and then I in fact won the lottery. We wouldn't know that I won the lottery because of my dream but because we can verify that I won the lottery. In the case of Bruce we cannot verify that he retired for good.
      If we look at Batman Begins, Bruce leaves for 7 years, is declared dead, and returns to Gotham. Everyone seems to treat this rather normally. With the events that occurred at the end of Rises it is perfectly reasonable that Bruce could return to Gotham. Someone of his wealth and status would have been likely able to take hiding in secret during such a siege. Him coming back once Bane's threat was gone would not seem unreasonable.
      If Bruce decided not to seek a public life in Gotham again, he would still certainly be capable of returning in secret as Batman, leaving the public to continue thinking Bruce was dead (a perfect cover I might add).
      It would seem more logical to believe that Bruce would have to inevitably return. It would be out of character for him to not keep a watchful eye on the city from afar, if things went wrong and Gotham needed Batman, Bruce could always come back (as he did in the beginning of Rises). If things stayed calm and Gotham no longer needed Batman then Bruce would be free to live his life. At the beginning of the film he becomes a recluse when Batman is no longer needed. At the end the difference is that he can hang up his cape and cowl and have a life outside of batman.
      So how is all of this related to Alfred's dream? How does any of this disprove any possible correlation between Alfred's dream and Bruce's reality? As we said, Alfred's dream was just that, a dream. Not only are dreams intangible, but these were desires for Bruce that are projected onto him by Alfred. We don't know that Bruce, internally, would be happiest without Batman entirely, but he may be happier with a normal life AND Batman. Because of this, it is equally rational to assume that Bruce, remembering Alfred's dream, may have simply decided to reveal his survival to Alfred in a creative way. It's plausible to think this was his way of saying, I can be batman when needed AND have a normal life as well.
      This whole debate has come up for me before and a good friend of mine simply said "He's Batman of course he would go back". It's a surprisingly simple answer but I think it's true. If Gotham needed Bruce he would be there in a heart beat, if it didn't this simply proves he did his job well and we should all be happy for that.
      This is my take and, as a Batman fan, I find it much more positive than yours. I've seen that you found Batman Begins and The Dark Knight to be excellent, I hope that you can see where I am coming from. If so, you may be able to allow yourself to enjoy The Dark Knight Rises as well.
    28. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      That's big of you man, thanks, I respect that, I apologize for my part as well.
      Let me compliment you for being the very first person to even formulate a coherent retort to one of my claims, without the slightest hint of anger nor personal alienation, bravo for that, if people actually did what you did instead of loosing their shit like Nolan's ape minions, we would have more constructive debates going on instead of attacking others for expressing themselves.
      Point being, you are right about Alfred's dream having no relation to Batman since it happened before the concept even existed.
      However, the ending was a clear and blatant nod to that dream, acknowledging that Bruce left Gotham, and it would make no sense for Bruce Wayne to fake his death or to leave a replacement if he was planning to return (that is why it's not logical to think that), since by leaving a replacement indicates that Gotham STILL needs to be looked after, and since Batman's "retirement" was completely voluntary, that means Bruce KNEW there was still stuff to be done, and left Gotham anyway.
      Why not stay as Bruce? He can always be of more help to his city by being Bruce Wayne, that's what I mean by the nonstop talk about the "core", Batman would always be there for his city, either as Bruce, Batman or anyway he could.
      Besides, it would be naive to think that with the bomb gone, the army just came in and instantly fixed everything and Gotham turned into a perfect Utopia, the whole thing comes across as if Bruce went "aaah fuck this, I'm out".
      And let me explain why Bruce's death isn't the perfect cover, the mere fact that Bruce and Batman died the same day, even if Batman returned later, it would arouse more suspicion that if Bruce Wayne kept doing his thing after Batman "died" and have Batman return hypothetically.
      Referring to your "I can be Batman and have a normal life as well", I wouldn't have a problem with that juxtaposition, but the movies (all of them) indicate that juxtaposition isn't possible.
      Overall, I find the assumption of Batman ever returning to be wishful thinking, and that alone, since the movies don't provided nods to that possibility,
      Man, I'm perfectly fine with you or any one else loving Rises, but I don't think I'll ever share that praise since it ignores characterization so much.
    29. Bats2012
      October 11, 2014
      See I saw Blake finding the bat cave as a bit of a head start on his training. To me it makes no sense to leave blake with all that responsibility and no special training. There weren't even "bat-vehicles" in the batcave, no way for Blake to get around. What was he going to do? Drive around as batman in his police interceptor? As funny as that sounds, if we didn't KNOW that this was the last film, we would expect either 1) A Batman and Robin type sequel or 2) a Nightwing sequel to be coming next because the film, we can both admit, leave a lot of loose ends. The only way the ending even makes sense is if Bruce at least goes back to train Blake, and that isn't a Bastardization of the character.
      Nolan's goal was to create a realistic Batman story, and while a short lived Batman (in term's of Bruce Wayne's actions as Batman) may be somewhat disappointing to us diehard fans, it is the only "realistic" take on the character. Though you object to it, I find it perfectly reasonable to think that Gotham would have stabilized after the events in Rises. Batman's mission, above all else in this trilogy, was to inspire the ORDINARY people of Gotham. We can see that he did this in several ways. He inspires the police to action at the end of the film and further he inspires individuals like the kids in the orphanage and especially Blake.
      I wrote a college level philosophy paper on Batman as a moral exemplar because we see him inspire Blake to not only be a damn good cop/person, but to even question his exemplars (The key to a great moral exemplar is to not only inspire greatness in others but to inspire free moral thinking in them as well). So when Blake questions Bruce for not acting like Batman anymore, or when he throws his badge in the river, it is showing that Batman not only inspired Blake to greatness but ALSO inspired him to question those he considers great! Because even great people can make mistakes!
      This ability to inspire Gotham to take care of itself is THIS Batman's obsession. Based on the culmination of events at the end it seems perfectly reasonable (if not a bit overly-optimistic, but hey its a superhero film!) to believe Gotham has been inspired by Batman's personal sacrifice (even if he didn't actually die he had still "given these people everything"). In a realistic world like that of these films the National Guard would have a prompt response once the bomb was removed, they were already there in fact they simply couldn't enter under threat of detonation.
      So whether Batman quit or not, the overall goal of this incarnation, to inspire the people of Gotham, was achieved. As an amateur philosopher, and someone who considers himself a wanna-be intellectual, I find this approach of creating an inspirational symbol more appealing than a Batman who simply fights criminals forever. One man, no matter how great, can only do so much but "If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely... A legend."
    30. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      But we DID know it was the final movie, I never said they bastardized Nightwing, nor Robin, they were not even present in this franchise.
      I've never complained about the pseudo-realistic take nor the different designs or anything of the sort, not once, and I keep thinking it's not logical to think Gotham sorted itself out and stayed a perfect Utopia.
      You see? Then have no fear to question Nolan, he's not perfect, neither is Rises.
      You still don't understand that I'm perfectly fine with "this" Batman, or "that" other Batman, this isn't about "versions" or "different takes", this is about the core of the character that I've mentioned tirelessly and endlessly from the start that people so very love to ignore, because they KNOW it is an essential part of the character, the core that ALL versions MUST be based on, for without it, he is simply not Batman.
      It would be like taking away Sherlock Holmes' famous scientific curiosity and still pretend it's the same character.
      Batman inspires people in every incarnation, comics, animated movies, animated series, and they also deal with mortality and the concept of "there's only so much one man can do", that doesn't make this "version" stand apart.
    31. Bats2012
      October 12, 2014
      To your initial claim, my point was that people have been overly critical of the ending because they know there would be no more to the story. Had the people involved in production not clearly said "this is the end" most viewers would likely assume that Batman would come back in some shape or form, likely with Wayne behind the Cowl. Imagine seeing that final scene, with Wayne being alive, the Batman theme kicking in, and thinking there would be another film we would all assume he would come back somehow. I think we overestimate how much knowing the story is over affects our judgement of the ending.
      No one has argued that Gotham would be a utopia, but these films showed a Batman that focused on major crime. Even at the beginning of rises we see that all major crime has essentially been eliminated. Bane's threat was isolated to the league of shadows, once removed it would not be a lasting problem. With Batman eliminating the remnants of The League of Shadows we have no reason to believe that the city couldn't return to the state it was in at the beginning of the film. Sure the Dent act might get renamed with Dent's secret being revealed, but it likely would be upheld in Batman's memory. This Batman's goal has never been to help with banal tasks like policing and enforcing laws but with eliminating criminal organizations, which is part of the realistic treatment. One real person wouldn't help the police much if they were only fighting the kind of criminals that were left after the end of Rises. They could however do things the police couldn't, like stopping Ras Al Ghul, capturing Lau, stopping the joker or removing the bomb from the city. It's safe to say major threats like this were eliminated by the end of Rises and the city was left in a state where if it could self regulate through laws and law enforcement. Batman (whether Bruce or Blake) would only function further to stop any future major threats where they to surface.
      I understand your argument, that all Batman stories must be normalized to a specified set of goals and characteristics. I was not saying that Batman's ability to inspire others makes this version stand apart but that it is in fact normative of all other incarnations. This is what shows that this Batman does capture the "core" of the character. He still inspires others, still eliminates or greatly reduces all of Gotham's crime. Don't hold his happy ending against him because as we both admitted, we don't know what his future could hold if the story continued.
    32. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      I don't see people being critical of the ending, I don't see people being critical about anything in the movie, and you're saying that if people didn't know it was the end, they would feel different about it? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that it WAS the ending, I don't see how you can get around that.
      But and the end of Begins he supposedly killed the head of the League of Shadows, but they returned, with the exact same MO and exact same plot, Joker wasn't dead, nor any other of the previous rogues but Dent, there's absolutely no reason to believe Gotham would NOT be on jeopardy again and it's not safe to assume that more threats would not pop up, that's again, wishful thinking not based on what the movies feed you.
      I don't see how the Dent act could be brought back when it was a clear immoral method to ignore the civil rights of criminals.
      You're still saying "this" Batman as if the traits you list only apply to Nolan Batman, every Batman has as goal the major criminal organizations and leaves the petty crimes to the police as is with most Superheroes.
      Except that's not what the "core" of the character is, you see how you too ignored what the core is? Inspiring people is not a unique trait of Batman, EVERY Superhero has as one of their goals to inspire, the core is what I mentioned previously, how Batman decides to tackle injustice and with what magnitude and to what extend.
      I'm not holding the happy ending (lol pun) against it, please stop putting words in my mouth, I have very clearly stated ad nauseam what the errors of this movie are.
    33. Bats2012
      October 11, 2014
      P.S. a couple of rebuttals to some of your claims:
      -Death as a cover: The siege on Gotham lasted 5 months, I assume that Bruce was declared dead after never being found after Bane's control. This was probably the case for quite a few people during the same time frame since there were the "trials" done by Crane. People would be in disarray due to the whole thing. We focus on Wayne due to the story being about him, the people of Gotham would likely be more focussed on themselves and all the other people who went missing in the same time frame.
      -Batman AND a normal life: I assumed that by finding someone on a similar mental/physical level to himself, that Bruce found a "normal life" with someone who could keep up with his "nightlife".
      -Wishful thinking: I find most of the events of the film require wishful thinking to believe, you hold me at fault because this instance isn't clearly spelled out in the film. I have shown that your rather bleak thinking on the ending isn't clearly spelled out either. It seems obvious to me that we're both willfully interpreting the film differently. I think it's impossible to definitively say either of us are right or wrong. This is why I say that the film deserves more credit from some; those who didn't like it often have a more negative interpretation of the ending.
    34. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      Those are replies, not rebuttals.
      -Except there was never a trail for Bruce Wayne and no one every saw him during the siege, AND, a headstone in Wayne manor suddenly and conveniently appeared immediately after the Batman died.
      -I don't see how that's a rebuttal.
      -No, it's not that it isn't "clearly spelled out" is that nothing gives hints to Batman coming back or anything else you were claiming. and I have shown how my realistic (not bleak) "take" is logical and it goes by what the movie establishes.
      Please don't try to undermine my analysis by implying I hate the movie it and that's why I "interpret it" that way, I used to LOVE the film when it came out, I watched it 3 times at the theater, I even bought Hot Toys' Batman and Bane (which I later sold), I was infatuated by Nolan like all the rest of the herd, until I started analyzing it and finding it's several deep errors and mistakes with the story and characterization.
      If you dare to question the movie and to analyze it, you will find these are actual errors in characterization and not just subject to personal perception.
      It may be an ok movie, but it's a bad Batman movie.
    35. Bats2012
      October 12, 2014
      We're at an impasse. I've provided just as much evidence to support my interpretation if not more than you have provided to support yours. I have in fact conceded that you're interpretation is valid, yet you refuse to accept any alternate explanations of the ending. You are impossibly convinced that the things you extrapolate from the film are somehow more valid than what others walk away with.
      There's no arguing with someone who is so convinced of themselves; there's no discussion with those who simply seek to reconfirm their preconceived notions. You're arguments come off as biased attempts to convince yourself that you're right and no one else is.
      Here I am, being charitable, accepting that there are multiple correct interpretations of the film, as with any media, and yet you can't accept the same reality. You can't accept that someone could walk away from the film with a positive attitude and a correct understanding of the film.
      For these reason's I digress, just know that the only person you are convincing is yourself.
    36. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      You're naive if you think you blindly optimistic, hypothetical and baseless scenarios are evidence of anything.
      I'm not seeking confirmation of anything, I know I'm right, you're seeking confirmation of the genius of your beloved Nolan and by not finding it with me, you resort to the usual pot kettle.
      And is to be expected you need to twist all the conversation for your skewed views to make sense.
      I'm perfectly fine with anyone enjoying Rises, I've told you that, but I know you ignore everything that refutes any of your claims, but if you tell me that Nolan got Batman right with Rises and that that is a "correct" understanding, that is simply a lie, it's wrong and I've proved it, you failed to refute that.
      I don't need to convince anyone else, I know I'm right, YOU are the one who came in and tried to convince ME to get some kind of acceptance.
      Sorry, you're wrong, if you ever dare to question your god Nolan, you'll see.
      Rises may be an ok movie, but is a bad Batman movie, the end.
    37. Bats2012
      October 12, 2014
      All you've proved is my point and your inability to maintain intelligent discussion, thank you for the effort I guess.
    38. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      You're right, it's completely impossible to maintain an intelligent discussion when my interlocutor is an impeded Nolanite completely willing to deny the flaws of a bad movie.
      You're welcome, I'm always open to try to enlighten disoriented Nolanites.
    39. Bats2012
      October 12, 2014
      Your dismissive attitude towards others, name calling, and reliance on rhetoric will only alienate. Good luck in your future endeavors, as I'm sure you will stand alone in those as well.
    40. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      Ah, predictable, when all is lost, resort to being a last word Lucy.
      You're a hypocrite buddy, you dismiss me but you'll get offended when I dismiss you back, the MO of the regular Nolanite.
      And I'm not standing alone in this, a lot of people have agreed with me but the Nolanite trolls will repress, suffocate and insult whoever dares question daddy Nolan.
      Good thing I can slaughter poindexters all day.
      Bye now.
    41. Bats2012
      October 12, 2014
      The only thing I find offensive is your thick skull.
    42. Miguel Gaspar
      October 12, 2014
      That's the dumbest comeback I've read all day.
      I'm not impressed, you get a 0.5/10, try harder champ.
      Thanks for proving my point about being a last word Lucy and being the 1st to resort to insults like the usual dense Nolanite.
    43. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      By the very end of The Dark Knight Rises Gotham WAS sustaining itself. Which film did you watch? Or were you too busy deep-throating Adam West to actually pay attention?
      Within the elseworlds tale that was Nolan's trilogy, Gotham had been saved. Organized crime had been all but stamped out, The League of Shadows was, for all intents and purposes, dead (as was clarified by the death of its two remaining leaders) and Batman was no longer needed.
      Nolan's trilogy wasn't meant to be an endless, cyclical tale. It was a self-contained elseworlds interpretation. But, again, you clearly HAVEN'T read a single goddamn comic a day in you life as you sincerely believe that the Adam West interpretation was some sort of masterpiece (as opposed to the absolute disaster/insult to Batman that it ended up being).
    44. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      *your life. Damn "r" key...
    45. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No it wasn't.
      Wrong, all that is assumption, the same thing happened in Begins and we got Rises anyway, thanks for showing how shortsighted you are, monkey.
      The fact that it had to end doesn't have anything to do with anything I've said you uneducated iliterate ape.
      I've never stated 60'S Batman was a masterpiece, lol you can't read.
      I said the TV show was closer to the comics of that time than Nolan's can ever hope to be to it's respective sources.
      Dumbo.
    46. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Yes, it was. Nothing I said was even close to an assumption. You, sir, are a troglodyte and a Adam West pole-smoker.
      But please, do ignore my points in favor of whatever baseless, uneducated nonsense comes to your mind. I appreciate the laughs at your expense.
    47. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No it wasn't.
      All assumption, you are just a oligophrenic primate who's complete ignorance has you imagining assumptions are facts.
      I haven't ignored your points, there's nothing to ignore.
      It's hilarious that you call me out on that, yet you've NEVER, NOT ONCE have addressed a SINGLE one of my points, AT ALL.
      Keep crying, kid.
    48. Knight Falcon
      October 10, 2014
      Because super powers are totally logical for every other superhero
    49. David Brown
      October 10, 2014
      in my Jamaican accent!!! "SAME SO"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    50. Potterbat
      October 10, 2014
      So you basically want a cartoon or a sin city type batman?
    51. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Batman never quit? Ever? REALLLLY???
      Read Knightfall. Particularly past part 11. Just how safe was he keeping Gotham in the immediate wake of Batman #497? Oh wait... you don't read comics. You just presume that the 60's show is the end-all, be-all interpretation of Batman.
      How does it feel to be verbally tea-bagged? DICK.
    52. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wouldn't know, I've never been verbally teabagged, you tell me, I do it you every time.
      Also, you're wrong and obviously didn't read that comic becase a) He didn't quit, b) he came back.
      Thanks you for proving my point like every dumb ignorant does every time.
    53. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "I do it you every time/"
      You and your grammar check clearly do.
      He DID quit. What the fuck is the definition of quitting, according to you? He wasn't Batman for two years (from Knighfall all the way until KnightsEnd, which you haven't read and you just made it crystal clear to me that you haven't).
      Jesus fucking Christ, who the hell am I dealing with here, an overgrown, undereducated toddler? Fuck's sake man...
    54. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Ultimate pettiness to worry about typos and mistyping errors when your arguments have failed, pathetic, as usual.
      He wasn't Batman, but he didn't quit, besides there were CAPABLE replacements in his place.
      No, I have read it, judging by how you're ignoring those facts is obvious you've never read it.
      You're dealing with someone who isn't afraid to criticize a glorified turd while everyone else is eating it, based on knowledge of the mythos, which you completely lack.
      Overgrown under-educated toddler, pot kettle is your thing, I see.
    55. Guest
      October 10, 2014
      Enlighten us on the "core"....
    56. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "he got the flashy stuff right, too bad he missed the core of what makes the character."
      Read Batman: Year One; Knightfall; No Man's Land; The Dark Knight Returns and then talk. Or better yet: KILL YOURSELF. You're not a Batman fan so much as you are just some pole-smoking hipster who thinks that by being a fan of a shitty, poorly written satirical crap-fest that passed for a Batman show when people were collectively high as a mother-fucking kite, that you think you know Batman. You. Don't. Know. SHIT. SON.
    57. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I'm more a Batman fan that you will ever hope to be, you blatant undesexed dumb poindexter, it's clear to anyone that you're completely and irrevocably alien to the Batman characer.
      I won't kill myself, since my presence is too damn important, yours otherwise, there is a thousand mindless Nolanites more from the toilet you came from, you're insignificant and pathetic.
      And your reply refuted nothing, Adam West Batman > RIses, and that is a fact, let that sink in.
    58. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Undersexed? Is that really all you've got son. Man, you need your hair tussled after you're done guzzling Adam West's cum.
      Adam West's Batman is better than The Dark Knight Rises. Meanwhile, the box office, critics the world over and fans the world over staunchly disagree with you.
      I've read every major Bat-family title since I was eight years old. Whereas I'd bet dollars to donuts that you don't even know anything about the character outside of that shitty, underwhelming, over-rated 60's show. So you, sir, are the one who is infinitesimal and worthless in the grand scheme of things.
      At the end of the day, you're nothing more than a crying pussy who didn't get the interpretation of a 75 year old character that you so clearly thought you were entitled to. Shame on you kid. You're the type of moron I've stood in direct opposition to my entire life. Baseless conjecture from you and yours is the reason why I'll always hand you your ass. Suck it long. Suck it hard son.
    59. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      See how much "undersexed" pisses you off? Must be true then.
      Ah, box office, the last refuge of the fanboy.
      It's obvious you've never read a Batman comic, judging by your definitive ignorance about the character, I have.
      I'm not crying, you're crying due not being able to handle the truth.
      You're the kind of poindexter boy I stand against (and win) every single day of my life, Nolanites are cancer to the Batman mythos and cinematography in general, you parasites, with your utter misunderstanding and complete ignorance lower the bar of movie and storytelling quality standards since the day you drank Nolan's carbonated piss, thanks to the likes of you, a poorly written, worse characterized botched up mess like Rises is called no a "master piece".
      Every single one of your tantrums is an allegory for the proverbial kid covering your ears while yelling "LALALALALALALA".
      All my arguments, every single one of them is based on common sense and analysis to the moronic debacle that is Rises, and all of them, every single one of them have remained UNTOUCHED by you or any other dumb poindexter who dedicated to insult me rather than to prove me wrong.
      At the end of the day, I'm still right and you are wrong.
  2. Potterbat
    October 10, 2014
    Exposed to pretty much everything batman related since I was 5, I am now 27. And I can say nolans trilogy was far from bastardized.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      It's not "core", you can lose the quotation marks since it's the actual core.
      For someone who claims to have been exposed to everything Batman related you seem to be oblivious to what makes Batman what he is, hmm maybe you're lying.
      A borderline crazy obsession with justice and righteousness, selflessness, etc etc, that's the core of Batman that was absent in Rises, let's not forget his intelligence and fighting skills, I did not expect 127 martial arts nor genius level intelligence, but I certainly didn't expect a retard who can't fight either.
      So no, Nolan did a great job bastardizing Batman, by just putting any other random average hero with bat motifs.
      It's funny how many so called Batman fans come and praise Rises when it shits on the character.
      I don't expect a cartoon nor a sin city Batman, Can you read? Otherwise I don't understand your confusion or what could have possibly given you that idea.
      PS: I've repeated the core part several times now, and no one, not even one single Nolanite has been capable of refuting any of it, nada, so if you reply with the same old bad arguments I've been reading this entire afternoon, I'm just gonna tell you I've already gone through them, sorry.
  3. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    If you've never been exposed to anything Batman-related then you're more than likely one of the many inept fucks who made Adam West a celebrity (as opposed to the homeless wash-out he deserves to be).
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wrong, as usual.
    2. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Wrong as usual? Keep telling yourself that son. Your retorts are weak as always. Adam West's nuts are clearly teabagging your face and you don't even realize it.
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No they're not, they're short and effective, you ARE wrong as usual.
      Ew, thanks for showing the average Nolanite is a sexual deviant.
3. Jason Todd
  October 10, 2014
  Dude... Get back to sucking Adam West's shriveled up, hairy balls and stroking his shaft. You hate good film-making enough to where that's pretty much all you deserve to be doing. "Complete bastardization." That;s cute. What other baseless bullshit are you going to spew forth before the week is over you fucking nimrod? Haha
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 10, 2014
    I'm not surprised you recur to sexual slurs, it was obvious you're nothing but an undersexed kid from the begining.
    I don't hate good film-making, I hate Rises.
    It's not bullshit, it's fact, but I know dumb Nolanites have a hard time accepting it.
    Haha.
    1. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Undersexed my ass. Coming from what is no doubt a closet pedophile, your insults are about as hurtful as someone spraying me with silly string.
      It is bullshit. Everything you've presented on this thread constitutes baseless conjecture and nonsensical BULLSHIT at day's end. You're so ignorant that you don't even know what an elseworlds tale is. Batman fan my ass. Good heavens you're fucking stupid.
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      A paedophile? Eww dude you have the filthiest mind.
      Don't worry, I don't mind your insults at all, how low a Nolanite can get never ceases to amuse.
      Not at all, I've presented solid arguments.
      Keep the rants coming, they're easier to handle than dumb ignorant Nolanite mindless baseless praise, that one's easy too though.
Craig Curry
October 9, 2014
You DO realize that the 60s show saved Batman from cancellation right? Back then when a comic was cancelled, they didn't come back! You don't have to like, but if you're really a Batman fan, you should at least respect it.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  He's no Batman fan, he's a dumb Nolanite.
  He could never refute a single one of my critiques to rises, it was all mindless praise to "da god Nolan".
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    You're a dumber non-Batman fan.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Now say it like you believe it.
  2. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    Calling someone a "dumb Nolanite" when refusing to acknowledge that Nolan's trilogy was solely responsible for resurrecting Warner Brother's most successful comic book franchise is just foolish. Then again, I'm acknowledging a Adam West pole-smoker, so I must be mad. Haha
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      At least you admit you're mad.
      And yeah, you're dumb if you think Batman popularity depended on Nolan and you clearly don't know Batman, but you've shown that over and over in every comment you time.
      Haha.
    2. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Derp. Batman's popularity in film was CO-DEPENDENT on Nolan's franchise. I know Batman better than you know your right hand/everlasting sex partner you inept fuck. Haha
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I'm sure if you've never been exposed to anything Batman-related, it seems that way and Nolan is really god.
2. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  So you're finally getting the hang of Rises.
  Good.
Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
100% correct.
Raaj Chheda
October 9, 2014
A good film let alone a perfect film needs to have the following:
-good characters
-good development to back up those good characters
-interesting villain-not one to make us think that he was the villain, but turns out he is someone's bitch.
-should have zero QUESTIONABLE plotholes
-a good story.
Rises was an okay film, the story was alright, the action was at the right pace, the finale was well paid off. However, Rises was essentially Batman Begins again-especially with the film's villains. Also, the films dialogue came off as a bit pretentious. As for Bale as Batman...he wasn't bad, not perfect. He just doesn't seem like the best Batman. He looked pretty skinny in the costume, his character lacked the basis of the "world's greatest detective," he had the annoying ass fucking voice that makes me wanna impale him in the eye with a pencil, also he didn't get the idea of hiding his duality properly. With Keaton, I would say Conroy as well, but he is a voice actor and those don't really count to me even though I think he has THE Batman voice, but I digress. With Keaton, his Bruce Wayne seemed like an average guy and not someone who acts like an asshat to make people suspicious of him. You don't need to hide your other identity by acting like a tool, you just need to be natural. Acting like Bale did would probably turn a few heads wouldn't it? Keaton didn't even need to conceal his voice like Bale did either. It was just a deepened, but every natural version of his normal voice. When Bale does it, it's not scary, it's fucking silly. Keaton might not have had the athleticism like Bale did, but he sure did get the CHARACTER of Batman AND Bruce Wayne right.
Adam West on the other hand represented a Batman that wasn't part of our time. His batman fit the theme and setting of the 1960s. If you think that is horse crap, then you should be a shamed to call yourself a Batman fan becuase not only aren't just sticking up a middle finger towards history-something that Batman has always been apart of, but a middle finger to Batman and every other fan of him.
I don't wanna bash on your opinions. I really don't. I actually respect all opinion, but I respect them if they bring up some pretty valid points to support said opinion. If you just say I like Bale better or West/Clooney was shit and not give me or anyone a valid reason as to why you are saying these things, then people are gonna come after you.
1. Knight-Errant
  October 9, 2014
  Well, you could say the same about Kent. He wouldn't necessarily have to act clumsy.
  Also, it was only Bale's voice in the first movie. It was digitally altered in the sequels; Rises not as much though.
2. Raaj Chheda
  October 9, 2014
  Okay what does pretentious mean? You tell me?
3. Raaj Chheda
  October 9, 2014
  Because the last I checked pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, than is actually possessed. and that is what the Nolan Batman films mainly posses.
  1. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, than is actually possessed."
    -The best reviewed Batman franchise to date, through and through.
    -The highest grossing Batman franchise to date (with ease).
    -The most influential Batman franchise to date (see the current Batman/Detective comics run for clarification).
    So yeah... you don't know what pretentious means. Or you're using it in the wrong context son.
4. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  100% right!
  Rises was all pompous exposition with no pay off.
  Don't mind Dickless Man, he can't hurt your correct premises, he'll just rant in frustration for not being able to refute them.
  And brilliant analogy of TDKR = Begins.
  Same villain MO, Same doomsday plot device.
  Minus the good writing and cool Batman voice.
  1. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    Rises brought Begins full circle. So yeah.. the villains were going to be somewhat similar. The idea was for the League of Shadows to carry out its mission and they did right up until the end.
    "Correct premises." Man, you really are the most inept pseudo-fan/hipster I've ever encountered. How does Adam West's salty jizz taste dripping down your throat? Haha
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I'm not hipster, those are correct premises and no one has been able to refute them.
      I' not gay, why are you so fixated on that? Get out of the closet already.
5. Jason Todd
  October 10, 2014
  It's not giving a middle finger to the Batman legacy/history by stating that the Adam West interpretation literally set the character back by two decades.
  So what if the series reignited interest in the comic? The title, as a whole, went backwards in favor of campy renditions and utterly idiotic narratives (no seriously, look up anything that was released prior to Denny O'Neil's arrival and just after the Adam West series died and faded off into obscurity). Many pseudo-fans refuse to acknowledge this because West has become so big in recent years due to his overlong stint on Family Guy and... well... that's it. The man's a wash-out who should have died years ago, but still keeps living for some sad, unfortunate reason.
  Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer and like-minded individuals saw fit to resurrect the character on film and did so with finesse. People take issue with the franchise because it's not campy, doesn't have 8+ hours of detective work and has a gravely Batman voice (which the comics have actually described Batman's voice as being many times over, but who reads the comics in the Adam West school of thought, amirite?). Nolan's franchise was intended to be a self-contained, semi-realistic/grounded take on the character right from the start. It sprinkled homages to the source material throughout with references to The Long Halloween, Year One, Knightfall, No Man's Land and many other arcs. Yet it gets ripped a new asshole by every single pseudo-fan (closet hipster) and his brother because they think they know comics.
  Based on all of the above, Adam West and George Clooney were terrible Batman/men. Thinking otherwise is, itself, a GENUINE slap in the face to the history of the character. Sorry to disillusion you and yours, but, at day's end, there's a reason why Batman and Robin killed the franchise for almost a decade much like West's interpretation literally set back the character by TWO decades. Batman is not now, nor has he EVER been a campy character. How pseudo-fans don't realize this is an indictment of the education system both in the States and abroad.
  So there's your elaboration sir. What else do you need?
ClintJ
October 9, 2014
You're absolutely right. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought it. It's the reason the 60s Batman movie is still the best Batman movie to date and Adam West the best Batman/Bruce Wayne. And Batman and Robin (intentional or not) is the closest thing we've had to it, I think people just missed the link.
I do have a feeling, however, that BvS could top everything we've seen so far...
1. Guest
  October 9, 2014
  There's too many dumb ass comments on this thread. Yours being #1
  1. ClintJ
    October 9, 2014
    Oh wow, so all comments on any given thread have to be in line with your own opinions? Well don't you sound just lovely...
2. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  You have to at least respect it, 60's Batman has been the closest Batman rendition to it's respective source ever.
  But that's a concept much too grand for Virgin Man.
3. Knight-Errant
  October 9, 2014
  You're not alone. It's become trendy to crap on Nolan's interpretation, what with the new movie coming out.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    It's only cause everybody is shaking their heads out of the dizziness caused by the turd's stench.
    1. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      I keep forgetting you've had that powwow with the authoritative experts on Batman who've stated Nolan's story has bastardized the character.
      I'm surprised the character has dropped in popularity.
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Nothing to do with experts, I just know the character, as anyone's who's read the comics.
      Lol you think Batman's popularity depended on Nolan?
    3. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      No more then Nolan ruined the character by telling his story.
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Oh no, he didn't ruin the character at all, the character stands in comics and animation.
      And if you like it, great, power to you.
      Just don't ask me to share your praise.
      I myself LOVE Begins and TDK, just despise Rises.
    5. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      I never stated you had to like, dislike, appreciate, or anything about anything.
      Never stated Nolan's trilogy was the best comic book movies, my favorite, or a true representation of the character. Also never stated I wanted the interpretation in the source material. In fact, if I stated any of those, it'd be a lie.
    6. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Great, so, yeah, lmao.
      I apologize for the English mockery.
      You're the only person giving intelligent counter arguments.
      Almost all the rest are mindless Nolanites.
    7. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      I appreciate that. No worries about the mockery (my wife will attest I'm a huge ball buster.)
      I prefer having conversations to pissing matches. I don't have to agree with dissenting opinions, but I always try to understand how they came about. I can't do that if I'm not (trying to) provide an intelligential point of view.
      I've been lumped with the Nolanites in the past. I liked the movies, but I'm not blind to the flaws.
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Actually, I wouldn't lump you with the Nolanites at all.
    9. Sam
      October 9, 2014
      If you stop talking to this dumbass he will go away. He is not worth the effort man.
  2. ClintJ
    October 9, 2014
    I thought it was trendy to like them. Don't get me wrong, I think they're great movies, but they're not great Batman movies. Except for Begins... That was a pretty good take on Batman, before Nolan went all 'anti-comic book movies'
    1. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      I enjoyed them for what they were. They were perfect, but a good story arc. As much as I like the trilogy (its my favorite trilogy), I'd never want to see aspect carry over into the source material.
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Aww man this, THIS! people!
      This man is right!
4. Matches Malone
  October 9, 2014
  I'm surprised a Batman fan in this day and age really appreciates the 60's movie like you do.
  1. ClintJ
    October 9, 2014
    Life long Batman fan and I was born in 1980 so there were a few years there that that was the only version of Batman to watch. Plus I think the more Batman comics you read, the more you appreciate it.
ChelFCsea
October 10, 2014
Rises is the worst of the Nolan Batman movies, and still it's a good movie on it's own.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 10, 2014
  That's an opinion I can respect.

Miguel Gaspar

October 9, 2014

If you don't like 60's Batman TV show, but are perfectly fine with Nolan's take... You're no Batman fan.

Jason Todd
October 9, 2014
I've been reading Batman, Detective, Robin, Nightwing, you name it... for over twenty years and I absolutely DETEST the '60s show. Your statement is both baseless and presumptuous. Nolan's take on the character was a coagulation of homages to the source material, regardless of its flaws. Whereas the '60s show was nothing more than a campy interpretation that only served to set the character back by over two decades. Were it not for Frank Miller, Tim Burton, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Grant Morrison, Christopher Nolan and like-minded men (and women), Batman would have faded off into obscurity.
So the correct statement would be: if you're a 60's Batman TV show enthusiast and have anything negative to say about Nolan's Batman trilogy at all, you just might be a bandwagon Batman fan. Food for thought.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  Over 20 years doesn't reach all the way to the 60's, not so keen on numbers huh?
  And no, my statement ended up being truth by your own admision.
  Oh really, What interpretation of Batman quit so he could go on a nice Italian vacation while Gotham was crawling with criminals after a bomb of his own making exploded?
  60's TV was was a VERBATIM adaptation of the 60's comics.
  And that last analogy is wrong.
  If you have nothing negative to say about Nolan's trilogy and diss 60's Batman you're no Batman fan, period.
  1. Knight-Errant
    October 9, 2014
    Didn't Bruce quit following the death of a mayor Grange and go on a trip to Paris?
    What about when he quit after using a gun to intimidate a criminal who was kicking his ass?
    Didn't he fake his death after saving Gotham following a retirement? He went underground with some protégés.
    It was no different then any specific story written by a creator. A beginning, middle, & end.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Wrong on all points.
      - He came back
      -He also came back.
      . He didn't quit, he faked his death and PERSONALLY trained a squad of vigilantes to keep Gotham safe.
      In Rises he just quit.
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Ah good, I can also add "Illiterate" to "dumb" and "poor taste" to your list of qualities, lol.
      in Returns he kept doing his job.
      In Rises he was having a latte.
      Just keep the excuses coming, I've corrected you in every dumb thing you've vomited before and I can do it again.
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm sure that makes sense in your dialect.
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      So, for logical thinking people "quitting" = "continuing to perform one's duty"? My bad.
    5. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah, that's logical.
      Here:
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k...
    6. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Hey uh, Miguel. After Bruce Wayne "retired" in The Dark Knight Rises, he was having A LOT MORE than a latte!
    7. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      While Gotham's on fire.
      What a stud.
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      http://cdn.meme.li/instance...
    9. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Ever so wrong
    10. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      All your comments have been wrong so far, buddy.
    11. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Robin Blake, had it covered. Now how about you show some respect for Mr. Nolan, and his Dark Knight Trilogy!
    12. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hey, obscure fanfic, that's a new low.
    13. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Seriously, though. What's your problem with the Nolan Batman flicks? It was BASICALLY Batman: Earth One. Which is an actual comic book, that's published by DC Comics, by the way!
    14. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Copy/pasting random out of context moments from several arcs but missing the core part of the character doesn't make it good.
      Don't get me wrong I love Begins and TDK.
      But Rises is The Godfather 3 on meth.
    15. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      I would go with marijuana. Because when you Rise, you are pretty...
      High.
    16. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Lmao.
      That would explain the mindless praise towards Rises, thanks for that.
    17. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      I liked Rises simply by the message. "One can rise from oppression." That's a simple but powerful theme. Plus, I admit, I got a little excited in the last fight.
    18. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah the theme was great, the execution and characterization though....
    19. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "Yeah the theme was great, the execution and characterization though...."
      ... was even better. And you're still a pole-smoking pseudo-fan/hipster. Just throwing that out there for emphasis.
    20. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wrong on every single point, as usual.
      Thanks for participating.
    21. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Mindless praise my dick. It rounded off the elseworlds tale/arc that Nolan and Goyer were trying to tell with ease. Get back to gagging on Adam West's ballsack while Burt Ward gives it to you doggy-style.
    22. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      You're so hilariously fixated on male genitalia and homosexuality.
      Mindless praise your imaginary dick indeed.
    23. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      So your issue is with ONE of the three movies? Okay. I'll agree that the story was......messy. But the core part of the character was captured. Him "rising" out of the pit. SOMEHOW getting back to Gotham, to stop Bane and Talia.
    24. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Pretty much, he built such a beautiful thing with Begins and expanded with TDK.
      And no, the core was not captured.
    25. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah, the core was kinda captured.
      i.minus.com/ibrAw512eUzUFr.gif
    26. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No it wasn't, you must not know anything about Batman to say that.
      It's hilarious that they needed to speed up that fight scene GIF so it looked slightly interesting instead of the poorly choreographed quinceañera dance off it actually was.
    27. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      You do know that Batman isn't real person, right? Whoever said that Nolan's Batman HAD to be exactly like a comic book version?! It's cool if you didn't like The Dark Knight Rises. But crying about how Batman's characterization, differed from the comics, is pathetic. Batman persevered, banged his enemy's daughter, kicked butt, saved the day, and then retired. End of trilogy.
    28. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      That's the dumbest excuse.
      So, you're saying because it's fiction I should not care if someone takes a crap on one of my beloved characters? Do you even care about the popular arts? I guess you're the reason Michael Bay still has a job.
      AGAIN, read ffs, I'm not saying Nolan's version should be a carbon copy of the comics, the problem is that it's not Batman at all.
      I'm not crying, I'm mocking and bashing, Nolanites are crying.
      How a very tepid and shortsighted view, buddy.
    29. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Keep crying little baby. A movie disappointed you. I know. It's tough. You just got "Rise" up and dry your eyes.
    30. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You confused my pooping sounds with crying noises, I was having severe diarrhea after Rises.
      So I will "Rise" and wipe my butt with a picture of Nolan.
    31. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md1...
    32. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Even Batman's disgusted at Rises.
    33. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      I bet you've watched The Dark Knight Rises, multiple times, and own the Blu-ray. Since you're calling yourself a Batman fan. I'm sure that you loved how the movie ended... imagizer.imageshack.us/a/im...
    34. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I do watch it whenever I'm constipated, how did you know?
      Yes, I love how the movie ended, I just imagine it was an inception ending and Batman really died.
    35. Johnny Bravo5713
      October 10, 2014
      You want Batman dead.But Nolan brother's vision was different.
      "Batman is a symbol and not a person,
      As said by Ra's al ghul in Batman Begins" as a person you'll be destroyed but if you make yourself more than just a man which is called legend mister wayne"
      So the whole idea is Batman is a symbol and legend which will continue to put fear in the criminals hearts.So the cape was passed on to someone else because Bruce Wayne as a normal human is dead someday or the other just like we'll be.
      And the great thing about rises is its a redemption story for Bruce Wayne Which completed the Dark Knight trilogy :)
    36. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Yeah, that's all great, it's no against anything I've said, but great.
    37. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Adam West wipes his ass with your face daily, clearly. He texted me again. He said this time he's filming a bukkake scene with you on the receiving end, on your knees. Better be ready for it son.
    38. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Uh, you'e into black kisses and Bukkake too aren't you? Aren't you open minded.
      No thanks, I don't like your line of work.
    39. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Mocking and bashing my dick. You've posted on any opinion contrary to your own out of desperation and then retaliated with baseless nonsense and conjecture every single time someone has handed you your hipster ass (repeatedly).
    40. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      You're really obsessed with dicks huh?
      Anyway, I'm sure you believe that.
      But no, kid, no one has handed my ass back to me, every single one of my statement stands to make Nolanites like you cry like little pansies.
    41. Johnny Bravo5713
      October 10, 2014
      I agree with you on this.They need better fight scenes in BvS which is for sure!
    42. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      ^Derp. Poorly choreographed my nuts. You have little to no knowledge of cinematography/filming techniques as a whole. Such ignorance... the brave new world we live in, sadly.
    43. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      If you think that was a good exciting well choreographed fight scene you must think the Donnie Yen has nothing on the power rangers.
      Sigggh, ignorant Nolanites like you lower the bar of Movie quality standards.
    44. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      The last comment - please quite talking out of your ass... SHUT IT UP
    45. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Ultimate denial rant! Love it, thanks for that.
    46. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      You seem uptight - here, take care of yourself
    47. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hnnngh.
      Thanks, you too seem uptight, here:
      http://cinedork.com/wp-cont...
    48. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^And that award for most idiotic comparison of the day goes to THIS guys right here.
    49. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      If by idiotic you mean completely accurate, then great, thanks!
    50. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Obscure my dick? What was the very last shot of the film genius? Oh wait... you're a detractor just for the sheer sake of being one. I completely forgot. Carry on.
    51. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Oh that obscure fanfic was the last shot of the film? Damn, I missed it.
    52. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Gotham was on fire? REALLLY? Dude... which hallucinogens are you on? I really want to know because they have to be particularly strong after making an idiotic statement like that one. Haha
    53. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wow, you're really impervious to analogies and allegories huh?
    54. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      He was tapping that ass
    55. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      HAha. All day and all Knight!
    56. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      Wordplay. I love it.
    57. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      The Dark Knight "Rises"
    58. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      After seeing Sex & Other Drugs, the Dark Knight isn't the only one.
    59. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Then you missed the theme of the trilogy & misinterpreted the ending.
      There's no indication the city was filled with criminals when he left either.
      And Bruce didn't come back in Beyond, he passed on the mantle.
    60. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I missed nothing that wasn't there, it's just a bad movie, period.
      I guess all the black gate prisoners just went back to their cells voluntarily huh? Silly me.
      Exactly, Bruce was still on the job, not as Batman, but still doing his part.
      In Rises, nada, thanks for proving my point.
    61. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      How many survived the onslaught battle at the end?
      Whose to say he start up Batman, Inc?!
    62. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Ok, show me where that is established.
    63. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Show me where it didn't.
      In DKR there's no indication he was going to take up the mantle, just that he was going to teach the kids.
    64. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      That's the point, ugh dear god, do you speak English?
      It doesn't matter if in Returns he doesn't come back as Batman, he's training a squad, giving them infrastructure PERSONALLY to make them CAPABLE of fighting crime when he CANNOT do it any longer.
      And there's a little thing called TDKStrikes Again.
      In Rises he just pissed himself and went to Italy.
      Why is that so hard to comprehend.
    65. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Let's do a recap on Robin.
      -He got beat by Gordon in a hospital rob and a catheter.
      -Got absolutely nothing even remotely comparable to Bruce's years of training.
      -Has zero resources.
      Yeah, that makes up for everything.
      Aaaaah Nolan fanboyizm, always making me giggle.
    66. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Oh god, it's not like he struggled to read a map in the movie.
      The Batcomputer, piece of cake.
      Lol keep the jokes coming.
    67. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      If Strikes Again never was released (if only) then there was no guarantee.
      If there would've been a scene of Wayne teaching Blake, then you'd still be complaining he quit following TDK (already read your prior posts.)
      Its a story. Simple & self contained. I listened to several podcasts following the movies release from people that didn't even realize Blake doesn't know Bruce survived.
      You cannot confirm what happens next anymore then I can.
      And I believe the question should be "do you understand English", not "do you speak English."
    68. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No, don't get confused, Strikes Again is only ONE DEFINITIVE Proof that Bats didn't quit.
      Read carefully, I said if he trained Blake and DIED in the explosion, because if he didn't die, the real Batman would've done ANYTHING in his power to keep helping Gotham.
      No I can, I can only rely on what the movie shows, and that supports my claims more than yours.
      Oh, trying to correct me on that last question is just petty and pointless, and not in fact a correction, the original question was appropriate.
    69. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Asking if I speak English when I clearly do isn't petty & pointless?
      How much training did he really need to give Blake? The exact same? Whose to say his Batman would be the exact same?
      Bruce actually did help Gotham. He saved them from the explosion (at the same time radiating the bay), gave the manor to orphans, inspired Blake & left Gotham a new protector. Not to mention inspiring a city much like they were when it was believed Dent was a hero.
    70. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Please tell me you didn't confuse the mockery for pettiness there...
      You're missing the point, just show Bruce getting Blake ready, period.
      None of that takes any weight off my argument.
    71. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm sure you're right, these were men driven by steel hard moral fiber.
    72. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "I guess all the black gate prisoners just went back to their cells voluntarily huh? Silly me."
      Nope. They were arrested on site. There's even a scene depicting as much.
      Clearly, you didn't pay attention and just passed judgment like every other pseudo-fan/hipster. Get back to guzzling Adam West's cum kid.
    73. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Oh there's a magic scene is there?
      Stop getting high on dog food, kid.
    74. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "In Rises he just quit."
      -After the League of Shadows was taken down in its entirety.
      -And organized crime in Gotham, was snuffed out almost completely.
      -And...
      Wait... I'm disproving the troll above me again. Oh dear. What am I to do with my time? Haha
    75. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      -Assumption.
      -Wrong,
      Lol you're delusional if you think you've disproven a single thing I've said.
      You can use it to read some Batman comics, Haha.
    76. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      This guy makes no sense! He also doesn't seem to understand what an analogy is, since I don't see you comparing anything to anything. Does he understand english?
      I agree with you arguments about certain individuals breathing life into Batman. TDK films brought him back to such an amazing level that I think there are people who really don't remember just how horrible it was for Batman in mainstream media during the mid-ninetees and early 2000s.
      P.S. I would add Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale to that list.
    77. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Its an opinion just like anyone else has.
      What I got out of the movie isn't what he did. It is what it is.
    78. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      But what you got out of the film is supported by it and aligns with what a vast majority of viewers, even on a professional and critical level, got out of the film as well.
    79. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm making sense, you're just illiterate.
      I understand what an analogy is, I'm using them left and right, if you missed that, you're the one failing to understand.
      >"How terrible Batman was in mainstream media"
      >The animated series, Justice League, etc etc.
      Thanks for that.
    80. Bats2012
      October 9, 2014
      If you're going to quote me: 1) quote me correctly 2) don't change the context
      The time frame I mentioned excludes the best of The Animated Series' run.
    81. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      1) You didn't say anything different.
      2) No you don't exclude it.
      You're simply wrong in that comment.
    82. Bats2012
      October 10, 2014
      You really don't exist in the same reality as the rest of us do you? I can't believe I got into a discussion with someone with such poor analytical skills, do yourself a favor and get a little more education.
      You're coming off stupid right now.
    83. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      You're the one getting upset over truths about Rises and forgetting what you wrote, so don't call my analytical skills out nor my education.
      I love when dumb illiterate Nolanites resort to random insults to avoid failing at refuting anything I've said, it's delightful.
    84. Bats2012
      October 10, 2014
      That saddest part of your arguments is that you actually believe they're well founded. All you've said is, "your arguments and evidence from the actual films does not count but my ranting does."
    85. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      The saddest part is that you are in denial about my arguments being, in fact, well founded.
      That's not what I've said, at all.
      Go back to school.
    86. Bats2012
      October 11, 2014
      Thats exactly what you just did, AGAIN! Please do yourself a favor and stop.
    87. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      No I didn't, cause you've not brought any sort of evidence nor I have been ranting, pot kettle, as usual.
      Why do you want me to stop? Because you're incapable of proving me wrong? Mhmm figures.
  2. Jason Todd
    October 10, 2014
    I've been reading comics for over twenty years you illiterate fucking cunt. That doesn't mean that I've only read the last twenty years of comics. I've read both pre and post Crisis titles. Way to be a presumptuous hipster/pseudo fan. Next point...
    Actually, it didn't... but thanks for playing son.
    That particular interpretation was a self-contained elseworlds tale. Anyone who has ever read a comic would know what one is, but you, sir, are a troglodyte with the intellectual capacity of a bag of bricks.
    Verbatim my dick. The 60s comics were never that fucking campy. Which comics were you really reading when you came up with such an astute observation? Archie?
    That last analogy was spot on. Saying it was wrong out of desperation only further reinforces how much of a pseudo-fan you are. Get back to trolling Reddit or whatever it is you pot-smoking hipsters do nowadays.
    And I never once said that Nolan's series was perfect. No Batman film has been, save for Mask of the Phantasm. But you attack The Dark Knight Rises like you think the film is an absolute disaster, only to turn around and heap praise on a series that literally and figuratively set back the character of Batman for over twenty years.
    Get bent kid.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      It's obvious you haven't.
      It did.
      It's weird that someone who claims to have read 60's (I don't believe you) comics seems so ignorant about them.
      They were.
      It was true though.
      It is an absolute disaster.
      No thanks, go fuck a goat, weirdo.
Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
Ha, kid, I've already educated you on the Nolan fiasco, you apologized and I can do it all again, so roll your dumb fanboyism and put it back in your anus.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  Buddy, you've shown to have absolutely no knowledge of Batman nor comic book characters in general.
  So your best bet is to stop talking.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    Hahahahahahaha omg virgin slurs? Hahahaha oh god you're desperate now.
    Whatever kid, once pot kettle, always pot kettle, keep it coming.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      That's easy without a phallic member.
      The penis envy is palpable, buddy, I'm sorry.
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      So it's true.
      http://files.riffsy.com/ima...
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm sorry for your loss.
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hahaha oh you're weak, you can call me virgin, call me a woman, whatever you want, I have no Freudian complexes the way you do, Dickless.
    5. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Anyone with more than half a brain would diagnose me with superiority complex if anything, still better than having no dick, Eunuch.
    6. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      It wasn't a joke.
      And says the virgin who called me a virgin, lol.
      U fail.
    7. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I guess that makes you a passive, since you have no penis.
      Congrats.
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      The sad part is that you think they're jokes.
    9. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Sure, whatever helps ease the pain.
    10. Actual Intelligent Human
      October 9, 2014
      Just curious, how can one remove internal genitalia?
    11. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      An "Actual Intelligent Human" is just curious? Shouldn't you know these things?
  2. Actual Intelligent Human
    October 9, 2014
    Anyone who uses the "virgin" card shows themselves to think being a virgin is a bad thing. And the only people who think being a virgin is a bad thing is... you guessed it... Virgins!!!
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hahah I love how nobody respects Eunuch Man.
    2. BatkidGrayson
      October 9, 2014
      Oooor you two could stop bickering, accept that you have different tastes, hug it out, and move on. Batman hate is the last thing any Batfan wants to see whilst reading a Batman fan page...
Knight-Errant
October 9, 2014
Is that written somewhere? I'm pretty sure after 75 years, he's gone through several interpretations. Liking any of them means you're a fan.
1. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  Read carefully.
  I said that if you dislike 60's Batman and the TV show but are ok with Nolan, you're no fan, and that's true.
  60's tv show was closer to those days comics than Rises every was to anything.
  1. Knight-Errant
    October 9, 2014
    I've known for a while you didn't get the trilogy you wanted by Nolan. I dislike the 60s series, but understand why it was done.
    TDK trilogy was highly entertaining for me. In the context of the story being told, I was highly satisfied with each movie.
    Disliking what you like & liking what you dislike doesn't alter my fan of Batman status. Still a fan after all these decades.
    1. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No, it wasn't about "The Batman I wanted" It's about Nolan bastardizing the VERY principles that make Batman WHO HE IS.
      It's not about me not getting "a very specific version", it's about Nolan getting Batman's intrinsic nature wrong.
    2. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Only, it was wrong based on what you wanted. It fit the story he was telling. Just like when, say Morrison writes the series and takes liberties to tell his specific story.
    3. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      No, it was wrong based on what Batman IS, not what I wanted, this has nothing to do with what I wanted or any specific version.
      Do you speak English?
    4. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah, apparently you're the only one who grasps what Batman really is.
      I feel sorry for us peons.
    5. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Not really, anyone who's ever read a Batman comic book knows.
    6. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      That Nolan's is an interpretation of the character for his specific story? I would say anyone who's read 1 character during different creator runs should know it.
    7. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      And yet you failed to provide a single example of an interpretation Batman quitting.
      I guess that's Nolan's contribution to the lore, making Batman a pussy.
    8. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Only...I have. You just don't want to accept it. In the comic books they have to keep it going. They can't to wrap up this movie trilogy.
      I never stated I wanted the interpretation in the books. I just liked it for the specific story.
    9. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      They didn't have to keep it going, just show Bruce training Blake and have Batman die in the explosion instead of quitting like a pussy.
      Nolan got Batman wrong, period.
    10. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You've already admitted to like to eat hot steaming turds, you don't have to emphasize it by showing you don't care about Batman.
    11. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Too bad Nolan did.
    12. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      wrong
    13. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      Mom! Dad! Please stop fighting!
    14. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      *Says the Nolan fanboy who's always wrong
    15. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Okay, Bizarro.
    16. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Nolan raised Batman from the dead. The proof in the pudding... (Please stop lying to yourself)
    17. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Lol you're naive if you think Batman's popularity depended on Nolan.
      I'm not lying to myself, you're in denial.
    18. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Who's in denial?
      - Nolan brought the highest critic rating in the history of Bat movie's
      - Nolan smashed box office ratings with the Trilogy
      the proof is in the pudding
    19. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You are in denial, as you
      -Hides behind accolades, besides Rises isn't the highest rated.
      -Thinks Box office is a standard for quality, you must think Transformers is Oscar material.
      Indeed, the proof.
    20. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      I was talking about the trilogy it's self, not just Rises -
      well TDKR did see a billion
    21. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      How much did Transformers 4 see?
    22. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Plenty - my point is that before Nolan, none of the live action Batman movies have seen numbers like this
    23. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Including Rises, mhmmmm how interesting.
      Besides, the older Batman movies did about the same, you're being fooled by ticket price inflation.
    24. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Then prove it to me.... How many fanny's were in the seats?
    25. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      So, your last resort is to hide behind the box office? I guess Iron Man 3 or Transformers are better than the Nolan trilogy by your logic.
      You can go back to posting dumb gifs now, those have more traction than your arguments.
      And BTW, what I said about ticket price inflation was true, don't be a lazy ass and go to box office mojo or at least google the damn thing.
    26. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      No proof? Figured
    27. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Orly?
      http://www.boxofficemojo.co...
      Notice Batman in the 2nd spot, above Begins, don't you love it?
      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to prove you're the liar, it was delicious, I savored it, loved it.
      I'm even happier cause I know you cannot prove me wrong if you wanted to.
    28. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      OMG... Gulf clap) so after Batman it went downhill from there, and after Batman Begins it sky rocketed from there - proves that Nolan saved the Batman franchise
    29. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Are you illiterate?
      It shows you were wrong, Batman 1989 made more than Begins, which proves your claim of "Batman not making that kind of money before Nolan" completely wrong.
      Thanks for showing you're also in denial.
      I guess that leaves no doubt that you're a liar and a skitzo.
    30. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      And I said (maybe Batman89' was most likely the only one that came close) and it's true, but the fact that the franchise went downhill from there is disappointing
    31. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm sure smart talking sound like gibberish to you, hence your confusion.
      After all, you're dumb enough to get offended by the truth of the Nolan fiasco.
    32. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      The truth is, that Nolans success made you butthurt
    33. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You're right, the fact that bad movies succeed does make me butthurt, that's insightful.
      At least I'm not butthurt for being Nolan's passive lover like all the Nolanites.
    34. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      I wouldn't class myself as a Nolanite, considering that I want Afflecks Batman to do better than Bale's Batman
    35. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I wasn't calling you a Nolanite, you might as well be one due to the way you get offended at Rises truth telling.
      I'm sure Affleck with do better.
    36. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Rises lie telling .... There's a difference
    37. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hmmm since you're the one telling lies here, that's a double denial.
      Thanks for admitting I'm right.
    38. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Can't ever convince a compulsive liar the truth - good luck living in denial stage
    39. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      At least you admit to be a compulsive liar, big step! Champ!
      And I told you you were in denial first, be strong, don't re-lapse!
    40. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      I'm hurt cause Miguel is turning it around on me :(
      My day is now ruined, thanks Miguel
    41. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Truth does that.
      You'll thank me later.
    42. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Manipulation - case closed everyone lol
    43. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Good sport.
    44. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Well your the lonely 20 percent that is butthurt and that is calling this movie bad
    45. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I'm not butthurt, Nolan isn't butt fucking me like it's buttfucking you, guys, so, enjoy the "company".
      That's ok, I'm perfectly fine being in the 20% who's right.
    46. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      You sound sore - I'd figure you'd be use to it by now
    47. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      At least you admit you're so used to being butt fucked by Nolan that you no longer feel pain lol.
    48. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      You want Nolan to fail, and Nolan says NOPE (turn around son - your about to get Butthurt) lol
    49. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I want Nolan to succeed, and he did, sadly he to a dump on Batman.
      Look I know Nolan is your God and your sugar Daddy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have flaws, it's perfectly ok to like the turd Rises is.
    50. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Come on Affleck - I want to see you succeed the Batman role past Bale.
      But I'm being told that ( Nolan is my God, and sugar Daddy)
    51. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Shhhh he'll pimp slap you if he finds out you're cheating Bale with Affleck.
    52. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Damn dude I was just playing with you - how bad did Nolan screw you? How did it feel that he put all eight inches up into your Booty hole, and said to people like Miguel (it's my way or the highway) , and successfully did it?
      #miguelbootyhurt
    53. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I been telling how much Nolan has butt fucked you and your comeback to that is telling me the exact same thing? Pot Kettle lmao
      I bet there are no puppets that can show the anal abuse Nolan has put you through.
      You know what gives it way? The fact that you know Nolan's 8 inches, LMAO, poooooor kid.
      #ChsoxNolanPassive
    54. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Lol you've already proven that it's that big, cause your limping around here on Batman-news telling us how big he is. How he hurt your bottom
      #miguelbootyhurt
    55. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Lol I bet you love those 8 inches, don't you? You love your daddy Nolan.
      I'm not butthurt, but you look at you go! Sharing your Nolan twink fantasies.
      #ChsoxNolananalslave.
      Face it, kid, I've won on everything, you were proven wrong and a liar, you've been proven to be Nolan's anal slave, and now you're so desperate trying to shake off the tag.
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA.
    56. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Okay this is getting weird - have a good day, Miguel
    57. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      You started it.
      You too, buddy.
    58. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      This twink ^ asked for more than he can handle.
    59. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      You admit you're a twink, good progress, don't worry, you'll learn from this defeat.
    60. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      typical fanboy, saying that you won an Internet debate... lol
    61. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Sorry for being honest.
    62. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Lmao - see ya around, Miguel
    63. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I've never stated anything I've said as fact, but Nolan getting Batman wrong is a fact, that's not an opinion subject, yet, I'm perfectly fine with people liking Rises.
      And that has nothing to do with ignorance, but as usual, dumb Nolanites always jump on the ad hominem hate train first, instead of trying to prove me wrong.
    64. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wrong, I insult people who insult me, I never insult first.
      I'm never accused people of being a hater.
      I don't assume I'm right, I am right in this case, and people can't prove me wrong.
    65. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I've never proven your point, the likes of you and other blind Nolanites constantly prove mine.
      Always failing to debunk my claims or avoiding to address them altogether in favor of random self projecting personal attacks.
      So no, thank you, cheers!
    66. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      When you make the claims your making, you better have something to back them up with.
      I'm not infatuated by my vision, I wish I was wrong in this one, it's not that you don't need to debunk them, is that you can't, so indeed, why waste your time, continue through life blindfolded, eating whatever crap people tell you it's good.
      I don't want to grow up, just got laid, thanks, I hope you're good on your word and you go with your tail between your legs.
      You're not awesome, not for me, for other Nolanites, maybe.
      I'm not whiny, you're the one who did nothing but to sob, cry and rant at my claims.
      Bye, Nancy.
    67. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      Yup. How dare Nolan tell a story that cannot be adapted into the source material. I guess Dante didn't see the level of Hell Nolan is headed!
    68. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Oh, spare me the dumb excuse "Oh Nolanz madez a differentz interpratattions".
      I'm not complaining about ANYTHING that makes Nolan's a "different" take, I'm not complaining about the "realism" nor the character designs, those are ALL fine and I like them.
      I'm complaining about the ONE THING you CANNOT change or it CEASES being Batman, and that's what I already mentioned.
    69. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      I recall watching the Tim Burton movie in 1989 & thinking "Batman doesn't use guns." He's used them cinematically since.
      I think THATS a pretty important aspect of the character.
      It's no excuse, its accepting that the movies, cartoons, & games aren't going to be the source material. They'll always be certain liberties taken. Some good, some okay, some bad. They all represent a specific interpretation for the story being told. Nolan's version is no different.
    70. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Probably, not as important as what Nolan missed on Rises, after all, there's precedent of Batman using guns and killing, there's no precedent of him quitting.
      No, it IS an excuse.
      Yes, Nolan's version's very different, he took away Batman most important trait.
    71. Knight-Errant
      October 9, 2014
      No excuse. Its a variation just like when he wore glasses, needed a love interest, had Joker kill his parents, killed, etc. just like when Batman took a camping trip with Robin or took the year off.
      Batman doesn't take nights off. Batman also doesn't worry about losing cartilage, a bad leg, or any other shortcomings of being a man...like dying & being ripped through time. Its a non-stop war on crime.
    72. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Those are variations, none of those removed the deep motivation for Batman like Nolan's did, like I said, all those small superficial changes are fine by me.
      Actually Batman does take nights off, and he does worry about injuries, it just so happens that medicine is one of his fields of expertise.
      It's an excuse.
    73. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 9, 2014
      Actually, that one thing is being dressed as a bat. After 75 years of comics, that seems to be the only persistent aspect of the character. His personality, methods, and very identity have changed depending on the writers. There is no one objectively correct Batman.
    74. Mr. Giggles
      October 9, 2014
      You're 100% correct.
    75. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Wrong.
      Besides the bat motifs, the other thing consistent with over 75 years, is Bruce's obsession with justice, righteousness and selflessness which are completely absent in Rises.
    76. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 9, 2014
      What about Golden Age Batman marrying Catwoman and retiring? What about "Batman Forever," where he considers giving up the mantle to be with Chase? What about him impregnating Barbara Gordon in "Batman Beyond 2.0"? What about him getting married and giving up the mantle in "Chemistry" in "The New Batman Adventures?" What about him being willing to give up his fight on crime in the flashbacks of "Mask of the Phantasm"? What about him blowing up a warehouse of henchmen in the 1989 movie? What about Bruce becoming a murderous vampire in "Batman & Dracula: Red Rain"?
      Bruce is OFTEN obsessed with justice, righteousness, and selflessness. But not ALWAYS.
    77. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Oh my god, in all of those iterations either Batman comes back, he leaves a CAPABLE replacement, or he continues his work in some other way, or he just does not quit at all.
      In Rises there's nothing.
      Have you actually read or know anything about Batman, or are you just googling your answers?
      And a love interest has nothing to do with my argument.
      And what about the warehouse? What does that have to do with anything?
      Wrong, Batman's drive is almost insane and relentless, period.
    78. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 10, 2014
      Just becomes he comes back does not mean he did not fully intend at the time to quit entirely. All of the love interests I listed at least temporarily convinced Bruce to leave the mantle behind, negating your point about selflessness and obsession. The warehouse shows that he is not 100% dedicated to justice (letting criminals see their day in court). Impregnating Barbara shows a break in his self-righteousness. All of the instances illustrate that his relentless drive can be stopped and would have stayed stopped except for extenuating circumstances.
      At the end of Rises, Gotham does not immediately need Batman. The mob is gone, the cops are clean, and the major threat is gone. Blake may not be the most qualified, but he stands as a "just in case" solution with time for training.
      Plus, if you have a problem with his decision to retire in Rises, what do you think about his desire to retire (after one year of his war on crime) and be with Rachel in TDK? You can't criticize his behavior in Rises without also criticizing his desired behavior in TDK.
    79. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      That's irrelevant, if he comes back, his obsession with justice has won.
      And all his love interests have failed, all of them, thus proving my point right and yours wrong.
      There's precedent of Batman killing and using guns, not of him quitting.
      There's precedent of Batman having a child, too, no point.
      None of that interferes with his characterization.
      Gotham is left crawling in chaos with every single black gate prisoner on the loose, yeah, they don't need Batman immediately...
      Yes I can, because he didn't quit on TDK, did he?
      "It's not what you are underneath, it's what you do, that defines you".
    80. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 10, 2014
      His obsession with justice did not win in all of those cases. In "Mask of the Phantasm," circumstances won. If Andrea didn't run off, he would have married her and never have become Batman. Her love would have succeeded.
      The precedent of him killing and using guns illustrates he has not always been committed to true justice.
      Him having a child with Barbara is the point because it shows a breakdown in Bruce's moral foundation (his self-righteousness).
      Bruce originally became Batman in the Nolan series because the system was broken. Now that the system is fixed, it didn't need him. The cops could take care of the Black Gate prisoners.
      And your point is the personality traits of Batman, right? Well, wanting to quit in TDK is just as much a personality trait/desire in TDK as in TDKR. He just didn't get a chance to act on it because Rachel died. Even then, he was willing to quit because he believed Harvey could clean up Gotham.
      More importantly, because he is a fictitious character with more stories produced every week, precedent can easily be broken. If Superman is defined by his commitment to truth, justice, and the American way, Earth 2 and Injustice: Gods Among Us show that these traits are not set in stone. Who's to say that a comic won't be released a month from now that totally contradicts the attributes you say he always has.
      "The idea was to be a symbol. Batman could be anybody, that was the point."
    81. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Wrong, Bruce was already doing vigilante work before he met Andrea.
      Killing was his own sense of justice back then, you don't see me complaining about Baleman killing Dent do you? It negates nothing, still, he didn't quit.
      How is having a child with Barbara wrong? Flimsy arguments you have there.
      Except the system was nowhere near being fixed, it was patched by a lie in TDK and the bubble burst in Rises, another bad argument.
      No, the point is that he DID quit, not that he wanted to quit, Batman has wanted to quit MANY times in the comics, contemplating at his own purpose, but his pursuit of justice ALWAYS wins and he never quits, don't try to distort my words to fit your skewed incorrect perceptions.
      When he wanted to quit in TDK the city was in real good shape and he was leaving a good replacement (Dent), plus he'd continue to help Gotham with Wayne enterprises, that's even comparable to the disaster of a city Gotham was at the end of Rises, another bad example-
      Wrong, you cannot break that precedent, make Batman a quitter not obsessed with Justice, are you kidding me? You might as well make him a completely different character.
      Bad examples, in Injustice the REAL Superman came at the end to save the day, there's also a comic where Superman is a communist, and another where he's British, the fact that you use such elseworlds tales to back up your argument shows how far Nolan's Batman is from the real Batman.
      It's so stupid that Nolanites try break and distort the Batman character to unrecognizable shapes just so they can fit Nolan's stupid Rises nonsense in the canons, no, it doesn't fit, Nolan got Batman wrong, Rises is a bad movie, period.
      How does you last quote make Batman quitting acceptable? It doesn't.
      My quote was a direct rebuttal to your post, your quote is just random.
    82. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 11, 2014
      This argument is going in circles. Peace.
    83. Miguel Gaspar
      October 11, 2014
      Actually no, I directly addressed all the points you threw at me, the argument was going forward, you're just forfeiting.
      I'm assuming cause you ran out of arguments.
      kthxbye
    84. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 15, 2014
      Even if you are right and there are no precedents of Batman 100% quitting and/or not being obsessed with justice, his own self-righteousness, and selflessness, these qualities do not have to define Batman. As a fictional character, he can be and do whatever writers want. There is no essence to his character because he is infinitely malleable. So while I contend that my points are still accurate (though perhaps not particularly well stated or organized), they are not the crux of my argument. Batman MAY have exemplified all of the traits you proposed in the first 75 years of his existence, but he MAY NOT consistently exemplify all of those traits in the next 75 years of his existence.
      For clarification purposes, my argument is that Batman does not inherently have any personality traits.
    85. Miguel Gaspar
      October 15, 2014
      No, those qualities do define Batman, and the writers can modify them as much as they want without messing with those or they might as well create a new character, if you remove some of those traits you have a Moon-knight, an Iron Man, a Thomas Wayne Batman etc etc, if you remove those traits then you no longer have Bruce Wayne Batman.
      Wrong, there IS an essence to the character, there IS an essence to all characters, what would it be of Sherlock Holmes without his endless curiosity or deductive skills?
      So no, you're wrong, sorry, Batman DOES inherently have those personal traits.
    86. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 16, 2014
      So your argument is I'm wrong about Batman not having essential traits because he has essential traits? Pretty circular logic.
      I think we should make a distinction between Bruce Wayne and Batman though. I think you can agree that those traits don't necessarily describe Dick Grayson, Jean-Paul Valley, or Thomas Wayne.
      My question for you now is why those traits define Batman. The title itself only implies a bat motif, so where do these inherent traits supposedly originate and why must they always be in place?
      Just because a character has always been portrayed a certain way, does that mean they a new take on the character is impossible? If we have a Sherlock Holmes that stumbles around and accidentally finds clues more like Scooby Doo but is still a Victorian era detective named Sherlock Holmes, is he no longer Sherlock Holmes? Who is he then? He may not be the ideal or usual (99.9% of interpretations) portrayal of the character, but wouldn't it be valid to call him a different take on the character?
      That's the point: you can have different takes on different characters. There may be a James Bond that is not suave, a Superman that does not stand for truth or justice, a Santa Claus that isn't jolly. As long as the central motif stands, though, they can be identified as that character (albeit a different version). That is part of the charm of the DC multiverse and Marvel's Ultimate universe. You can get into arguments about canon and prime versions, but that is partially a matter of perspective because (in the end) all of these universes and characters are fictional. Moreover, what's considered canon and official can change whenever the writers and their bosses choose.
      Final point: even real life people can be changed to become something other than their objective self. Abraham Lincoln can slay vampires, Hitler could be portrayed as comical or heroic (as messed up as that is), etc. Creativity and subjectivity make these changes possible. Of course, we can say they were real people and have true personality traits. But can we fall back onto the same reasoning for fictional characters? I say no.
    87. Miguel Gaspar
      October 16, 2014
      I don't see how that's circular, you say Batman doesn't have essential traits, I told you you were wrong and told you why, it's pretty straight forward.
      I made that distinction long ago, I didn't think it would've been necessary to spoon fed it to you since we are talking about Bruce Wayne Batman, not anyone else, I even made a comment about how if you remove certain traits you no longer have Batman but you have Moon Knight, Iron Man or Thomas Wayne Batman, are you even reading?
      I was very clearly meaning Bruce Wayne Batman, THE Batman, not any other obscure variation.
      No, you can have "new takes" or whatever, AS LONG as it's BASED on the character itself, if the character itself isn't based on his own characterization, then you don't have a "new take" you have an entirely different character.
      It's astonishing how hard that concept is to grasp.
      Simple, if said Sherlock Holmes has that insatiable curiosity and the scientific knowledge that characterizes him, what does it matter HOW he finds the clues?
      If he lacks those traits, then he is NOT Sherlock Holmes, the end.
      You can't have a Garfield that likes Mondays and is a proactive member of society.
      You can't have a Wolverine that isn't an ill tempered sarcastic smart ass.
      You can't have a Wonder Woman who is a damsel in distress.
      You can't have a Batman who isn't selfless and isn't obsessed with Justice.
      There's a reason they're called CHARACTERS.
    88. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 17, 2014
      You still aren't adding anything new to the argument. You failed to rebuttal any of the points in my last post with anything more than a "because." And geez, no need to get hostile just because we disagree.
    89. Miguel Gaspar
      October 17, 2014
      I'm not getting hostile, but I can't use bold letters, or italic or underlining here, so I use caps to emphasize.
      And no, I keep adding points to my favor, and refuting every single thing you've said, you can disagree all you want, but you're wrong, the fact is that characters have CHARACTERistics.
      You want to irrationally rationalize (yes, it's an oxymoron) the fact that you have a Batman that's missing essential traits, and still be able to call it Batman, sorry, nope.
    90. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 28, 2014
      I would qualify asking me if I can read as being hostile.
      And of course characters have characteristics. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm arguing that those characteristics are fluid and can change depending on the interpretation. Whether or not Batman still has these traits in every comic book, movie, TV show, etc. is an artistic decision.
      This is ultimately an argument about identity. When is a person no longer him or herself? Is personality concrete or fluid? These questions may be easy to answer when a character only has one iteration (Walter White, Jack Bauer, etc.) or a few (Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, etc.), but it becomes much more complicated when the character spawns multiple stories and media (James Bond, Batman, etc.).
      And you say you've refuted every single thing I've said, but you definitely never countered my points about future stories changing existing formulas and multiple universes (a la the main Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Universe).
    91. Miguel Gaspar
      October 28, 2014
      Qualify it as you want, condescending =/= hostile.
      No, those characteristics are not fluid, and no, those very specific set of characteristics cannot change, what I'm referring as the core.
      No, it's not complicated, at all, every single interpretation of Batman (except apparently Nolan's) Is selfless, a genius and completely obsessed with Justice.
      I did.
    92. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 28, 2014
      Condescending, hostile, whatever. You're acting me as a person instead of my argument. Never a good idea.
      So your comeback to my arguments is "no"? No evidence, reasoning, logic that isn't circular? Not much of an argument on your part.
      And really? You did? Please refresh my memory?
    93. Miguel Gaspar
      October 28, 2014
      I don't care, if you have that thin of a skin, the internet it's not for you.
      I've given my arguments, you haven't been able to refute them, the ONLY thing you do is restate your arguments or paraphrase them WITHOUT any logic to back them up, so my reply to your "re-statements (not arguments)" is simply, to deny them, since I've long proven them wrong.
      The whole conversation is there, read it.
    94. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 28, 2014
      Here's an idea: let's apply your theory to one of the most important and long-standing characters in Western Civilization, Satan.
      Off the bat, I can think of 4 primary characteristics that "always" apply to Satan: he is a liar, a tempter, pure evil, and diametrically opposed to God. Those seem pretty consistent, right?
      Not exactly. Those traits are frequently applied to Satan, but not always. In Milton's "Paradise Lost," Satan is a tragic hero rather than a villain of pure evil. In the Book of Job, Satan and God bet on Job's ability to stay true to God, but their willingness to chit-chat suggests a relationship other than complete animosity. Lucifer in "Supernatural" doesn't lie and, is once again, relatively sympathetic. Can you think of any instances where Satan is not depicted as a tempter?
      Thoughts?
    95. Miguel Gaspar
      October 28, 2014
      If you want to consider Satan as a character you have to tell me who created said character and with what intentions, I know where the name Satan comes from, and how it changed with time, do you?
      Off the bat, you're wrong, evil is not an intrinsic characteristic of Satan.
      So by your own logic but flawed foundation, they're not changing Satan as he's not always been evil.
      How he is represented in pop culture is completely irrelevant.
      It's like taking "Evan Almighty" as a legit representation of Noah.
      No, Batman (and any other character) has a core of characteristics that CANNOT change if you want it to be the same character, period.
    96. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 28, 2014
      I do know. Thank you for the further condescension. You just set up a straw man argument. That wasn't my logic at all. Even I were to give you the whole "not intrinsically evil" excuse (which I never said), you are ignoring the three other points.
      And I've never heard anyone refer to "Paradise Lost" as pop culture. Interesting. Even so, we're talking about characters in any media they appear in. Pop culture is include in tha
      And if "how he is represented in pop culture is completely irrelevant," why bother making an argument about Batman?
      You're avoiding the questions and undermining your own argument.
    97. Miguel Gaspar
      October 28, 2014
      That's wasn't condescending, if you want to cry about everything, stop replying now, it's tiresome and boring.
      I'm setting straw man arguments? Lol no, YOU set those up, every time.
      I didn't ignore any of your points, read, I addressed them-
      Oh so Supernatural isn't pop-culture? Dear lord.
      Not in the case of Satan, Satan wasn't born in pop culture, don't lump everything together in means to give your skewed argument the slightest coherence.
      Because Batman WAS born in Pop-culture and LIVES in pop-culture.
      I'm not avoiding anything and I'm not undermining anything, you lack comprehension.
      I've discarded your Satan comparison because it' flawed, therefore your entire construction based on that, wrong, explain how that is "avoiding your questions and undermining my own argument?" What conversation are you in?
      My own argument remains untouched and standing solid, you haven't been able to even move it.
    98. Johnny Bravo5713
      October 10, 2014
      i loved Mask of Phantasm especially joker.
      Classic
    99. Mr. Giggles
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah, but. WHICH Batman, did Nolan get wrong? There's been a few different ones, over the past 75 years! Nolan's Batman had an endgame. So what?! That doesn't erase his past heroic acts. And he didn't quit like a pussy. He quit to get some pussy, start a family, and contribute to the world, in other ways. YOU MAD BRO?
    100. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Wrong on every point.
      I'm not mad, it's depressing kids are still using that meme.
      It's not about "which" Batman Nolan got wrong, Batman has changed in over 75 years yes, but among the things that remained with the character are his obsession with Justice and righteousness, and selflessness.
      None of which is present in Rises.
      So, go be mad somewhere else, you little poindexter.
    101. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Go watch The Dark Knight Rises, you big baby.
    102. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Ew no thanks, I'm eating here.
      Geez.
      And no thanks, I don't do drugs, although seems Nolanites do.
    103. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 9, 2014
      Give this man a prize! He gets it!
    104. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      He might as well made a new character cause that wasn't Batman.
      It's ok, you're proving right now you don't care about Batman and you're ok with whatever hot garbage Nolan serves you.
      Keep at it, baby.
    105. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      At least you admit you don't care and you don't know nothing,
      Your opinions are no longer valid.
    106. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Who's being serious? Just stating facts.
      The funny part is that you can't handle truths.
    107. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      None of that adds anything to your Nolanite tomfoolery nor refutes anything I've said.
      As usual.
    108. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Ok, point out to me how that irrevocably refutes everything I've said.
      I'm not wrong and you know it, you've admitted defeat before, now you're just being the pigeon of pigeon chess.
    109. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Nah, you did.
    110. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      You've Alzheimer.
    111. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      The guy will never admit that he's wrong. He just has easy access to an online thesaurus/dictionary at the library he is frequenting before sleeping on the nearest street corner, so he thinks that his argument is worth a damn or has actual merit anywhere outside his narrow-minded, inept brain (or lack thereof). Just keep fucking with him. As long as pseudo-fans/hipsters like Miguel Gaspar exist, I'll always have a reason to laugh my ass off at their brand of stupidity. HAHA
    112. Knight-Errant
      October 10, 2014
      Can we back up here a little; how do you mean "there's no point in being this serious about a fictitious character." I understand this conversation (and some of the others on the forum) has gone waaaaay beyond the level of seriousness for virtually any topic, but you don't have qualms with taking fictitious characters serious at all, do you?
      I think about my favorite book, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. I don't go to the extremes some people do about Batman, but I take the theme of the book seriously. Its something for self reflection.
    113. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      "You don't know nothing."
      Ah, double-negatives. You, sir, are a scholar... clearly.
    114. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Doesn't compare to your dick fixation but thanks, I am.
      If your random ignorant shallow homosexual desperate insult diarrhea is over, I hope you know that among all your irrational and sobbing ranting you managed to keep every single one of my claims, completely intact.
      Thanks.
    115. OptimistPrime99
      October 9, 2014
      Hey uh, Miguel?
    116. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      What a coincidence.
    117. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      Wow! Nolan actually smiled? I'm shocked.
    118. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Hot garbage? Dude... are you even hearing these thoughts in your head before you convey them to other people this thread? Your particular breed of ignorance is depressing, even to those of us who understand it and why it exists. For shame son, for shame...
    119. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I do, they're great.
      You got me confused, I'm a particular breed of knowledge and critical thinking, you're the other one, all the Nolanites are.
      For shame indeed.
    120. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Except that he didn't. Batman saved Gotham in Nolan's elseworlds tale****
      You clearly have no concept of what a self-contained arc is, do you? It's okay son. Someone will tussle your hair and get you re-enrolled in elementary school eventually. For now, ignorance is bliss.
    121. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      No, he did.
      I do understand that concept, and I'm not complaining about it being self contained, I don't know where you got that from, perhaps cause you're illiterate.
      At least you admit to be having a bliss.
Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
I'm an actual fan, anyone who falls under my original comment is not.
I'm not sorry for my existence, I'm sorry for the poor brainless herd that are the Nolanites who think the Nolan trilogy is perfect and Nolan is their god.

King T'Challa

October 9, 2014

That's funny.

Dmerle

October 9, 2014

I feel sorry for Clooney, he seems like a decent dude and you can tell this still haunts him.

Kane52630

October 9, 2014

He shouldn't apologize for anything, it's a undeniable masterpiece.

Jason Todd
October 9, 2014
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Oh wait... you might have actually been serious.
Raaj Chheda
October 9, 2014
Yeah, Batman and Robin wasn't a straight up Batman film. It was a legit parody of it and it was fucking hilarious.

Mr. Giggles

October 9, 2014

Summer 2019

Matches Malone
October 9, 2014
God help us all.
Holy Mary, mother of god............................................(x1000)
Carson
October 9, 2014
Madonna LOL!!!

Nolan is a Hack

October 9, 2014

I even liked Clooney more than Bale.

Miguel Gaspar
October 9, 2014
Yup, after Begins, Bale was a crap Batman.
1. Nolan is a Hack
  October 9, 2014
  Begins was the only Nolan Batman movie I liked at all.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    SWEAR TO ME!
  2. Chsox203
    October 9, 2014
    You must be joking
    1. Nolan is a Hack
      October 9, 2014
      Nope.
    2. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Andre?
    3. Nolan is a Hack
      October 9, 2014
      Who?
    4. Chsox203
      October 10, 2014
      Andre
    5. Nolan is a Hack
      October 10, 2014
      I have no idea who Andre is.
2. Chsox203
  October 9, 2014
  lies
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    Thanks for showcasing textbook Nolanite denial.
    1. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      I'm sorry that you actually had to think watching his trilogy
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Yeah, kept thinking how could it be so bad.
      There are Batman comics, way more intricate, more intelligently written, more deep than Reeses.
      If Rises was thought provoking for you.... that speaks ill of you, not me.
    3. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      You've said it all with your lack of movie knowledge - Thanks
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      If you idolize Rises, your movie knowledge is non-existent compared to mine.
      And your common sense is in negative numbers.
    5. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      Miguel Gaspar = a compulsive liar
    6. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      *Says the kid who's always wrong.
    7. Chsox203
      October 9, 2014
      And it continues
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      That's the 1st thing you've said that's correct.
3. Matches Malone
  October 9, 2014
  I'm just curious why you think that. I'm not acting offensively, it's just surprising to me that someone dislikes him so much.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    -Voice
    -Shitty fighter
    -Shittier detective
    -Quitter
    1. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      -I'll give you that.
      -He trained very hard for the role and I doubt Clooney trained more than he did (Educated guess).
      -They rarely used detective work in the movies so we don't really know.
      -How?
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      -Thanks.
      -Oh he had great physique, but a very basic muay thai fighting style.
      -Ooooh not really, Bats looks bad many times.
      -Oh don't get me started lol
    3. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      I think Nolan trained him in one specific style which is like some new age martial art.
      And yeah, the bullet thing in TDK was a little ridiculous.
    4. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      I think that bullet part was of the handful that made him looks like a good detective.
      You can't beat 10 criminals with a sports variation of Muay Thai.
      That's like saying an MMA fighter can be a superhero.
    5. Matches Malone
      October 9, 2014
      That's like saying some corn sucking hick from Texas could be president.
      Oh, wait...
    6. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Hahahaha Check mate.
    7. Flying Graysons Fan
      October 9, 2014
      Why does everyone always hate on the voice? I've always been a fan....
    8. Miguel Gaspar
      October 9, 2014
      Batman under a REAL realistic approach wouldn't exist not it would heal a back injury in 3 months nor it would survive a fall from a skyscraper.
    9. JS
      October 10, 2014
      Absolutely. Bad fighter+not even a detective+abandons his mission= not Batman.
    10. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Ah, so it's not difficult to understand right?
      Damn Nolanites man, they had me thinking I was speaking Chinese or something. lol
    11. JS
      October 10, 2014
      I do have my problems with the trilogy. I like the Joker but I'm not crazy about it.
    12. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      I think the 1st 2 movies have flaws, yet they accomplish too damn much.
      The Joker blew my mind but I understand why some people may not like him, after all he's just an impression of Tom Waits, but man, that execution, the psychology of the character, Ledger took it to another level.
      I even liked the beginning in Rises, Bane was awesome until he was turnned into Talia's friendzoned puppet, and well, the end is what kills it for me.
      Catwoman was on point.
      The only way I can enjoy it, is if I imagine Batman died in the explosion and Alfred is just imagining him in the cafe, sort of like an inception ending.
4. Enzo
  October 9, 2014
  Agreed. A Batman that gets completely overshadowed by both his villains and Gordon is not a good Batman.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    Precisely.
    A give a pass for getting overshadowed by Ledger's Joker though, that performance was mind bending.
Chsox203
October 9, 2014
lol

Gothamite1939

October 9, 2014

Funny, if we get an apology from anyone is should be Schumacher/and the Studio.

Knight-Errant
October 9, 2014
He has actually. On the special edition, he specifically apologized for the movie
Matches Malone
October 9, 2014
Finally! It's like the Daredevil dilemma. Ben Affleck wasn't the problem, it was the inexperienced director/writer and the studio having the testicular fortitude to move forward with a crap script.
BatmanNewsChris
October 9, 2014
That actually happened! https://www.youtube.com/wat...
1. Gothamite1939
  October 10, 2014
  Lol, never saw that! Now I know, thanks.

Mr. Warshaw

October 9, 2014

Newsflash: George Clooney apologizes for Batman and Robin; meanwhile, Batman-News comment thread ruled by angry children

Jerry Blank

October 9, 2014

i feel bad for the folks that can't get into the Batman series from the 60s. i'm definitely getting that box set when it comes out. that shit is classic, and any true Batman fan would be able to appreciate that series

Matches Malone
October 9, 2014
Explanation?
Carrie Kelly
October 9, 2014
I've read your other comments, you're just a shitty troll with little knowledge of Batman.
1. Jerry Blank
  October 9, 2014
  you're just as weird as those people. seriously look how much time you're spending on doing that. It's really immature and you sound really uneducated on the topic.
  my diagnosis? spend your time more productively, spend it discussing something that you're more educated on. This is just a waste of your time and everyone else's that reads your comments...
  Batman is a fun thing to talk about and who cares if people take it seriously.. it's important to a lot of people.
  Quit being a troll
  1. BatkidGrayson
    October 9, 2014
    I see absolutely no problem. Let people take him as seriously as they want to.
    As you are so fond of saying, "everyone has their own opinion."
    Likewise, everyone has their own value system. Batman might not mean much to you, but it could mean a lot to someone else. Please respect that.
2. Miguel Gaspar
  October 9, 2014
  By detouring the mockery towards you? What a Martyr!
  It's ok, I don't take Nolan seriously.
  1. Miguel Gaspar
    October 9, 2014
    He is, he just crapped on Batman.
    1. Jason Todd
      October 10, 2014
      Crapped on Batman? Dude... are you high? How does someone ignore this fucking troll?????
    2. Miguel Gaspar
      October 10, 2014
      Just stating fact.

MetzFest

October 9, 2014

Took ya long enough but wasn't necessary haha

Matches Malone

October 9, 2014

I am so done with comments...

*Continues writing comments*

Enzo

October 9, 2014

Batman and Robin isn't even bad, it's hilarious. Far more entertaining than shit like Superman Returns or Iron Man 3.

The Schumacher Kid

October 10, 2014

Nobody should apologize for Batman and Robin. That was one of the most important superhero movies of all time. That was the watershed moment where the studios were finally shown that we wanted serious movies, not this kiddie corny bullshit. That was the moment where the studios realized we were mad as hell and we weren't going to take it anymore. That epic fail is as responsible for us getting the Nolan trilogy as anything else is because WB realized they had to do this thing right and not just throw shit at a wall.

Plus it's hilarious. It's by far the most entertaining of that series even though it didn't mean to be.

ED
October 10, 2014
Outstanding. Bravo. You'll have to answer for that last part though.

Charlie Burklund

October 10, 2014

Am I the only one who thinks he could've been a decent Batman if he had a script that wasn't written so ludicrously?

October 10, 2014

Finally. He apologized. Now we can all go back to not remembering that Batman & Robin was such an awful movie.

guest

October 10, 2014

He has nothing to be sorry for. We should be thanking Schumacher, Clooney, Schwarzenegger and everyone else involved with that turkey. No Batman & Robin = no Batman Begins. No Batman Begins = no The Dark Knight. No The Dark Knight = no Man Of Steel, Batman v Superman and whatever may come next. Batman & Robin did more for Batman, Superman and, no doubt, the other D.C. characters that will finally have their chance on film than it will ever be given credit for.

Guest

October 10, 2014

Miguel Gaspar:

Eres un pendejo ignorante.