Google+

O Batman Where Art Thou?

I just came across this picture (left) from the upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises" movie. They're calling it "Batman," but it's so far removed from the image of classic iconic hero (right) that it's unrecognizable. Looks like Iron Man climbed out of a collapsed coal mine.

Just because a movie studio calls it "Batman," doesn't mean it's Batman.

10 comments:

Amir Avni said...

More power to you, Sherm!

Niki said...

I've actually been thinking that they should go back to an Adam West-ish Batman again. Only in costume though. I think it would be great if there was a guy smashing gangster faces running around the city streets in a leotard, and freezing off his bacon and eggs.

Though I do like this Batman too actually. I get the feeling that all the Batman must be different in some way, so this one is different by actually being thing of the Fantastic Four.

Sherm Cohen said...

I love the costume in "Batman: Year One." I also love the Adam West costume :) I know I sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but that's how I see it.

Niki said...

Batman: Year One was the very costume I had in mind.

Chuck Wells said...

Yes, and not one damn time during the modern movie era (since Burtons "Batman") has ANY studio or director at least tried to do a Batman film with the character, supposedly an Olympic-level athlete at the peak of human capability in some approximation of a "real" non-armored cloth costume. The utility belt and genius-level detective mind were supposed to off-set his lack of "super powers", but I guess Hollywood boardroom executives and others know so much better than seven decades of comics.

Coffeebot said...

Totally agree with you. I like the new Batman movies, but I've never considered them batman.
I mean, look at the joker. Everyone loved him, but he was definitely not the Joker I knew.

Bob said...

Disliked the Nolan Batman movies a great deal. If a Batman movie isn't kid-friendly (not childish, just kid-friendly, like the recent Capt. America), then what's the point?

Tekena Travis said...

Bob, considering that the original Batman was pretty violent for 1939, the Nolan Batman movies make a lot of sense. Our great detective got toned down into a kids comic, so it only makes sense that some of his movie be more rowdy.

Togotooner said...

Part of what lured me to Batman (The TV series) when I was a boy in the 60's, was the fact that he wasn't some huge muscle bound freak. He was real (to me) and could lose in a fight, but used his smarts and clever contraptions to get his foe.

That same human quality also lured me to "The Rockford Files", but I digress.

The comic book was at it's best in the late 60's too.

Just my opinion.....and it can be attributed to my being 47 years old I guess.

I stopped watching the movies after the 1st one.

Brentoons said...

First, I am a VERY big fan of the 60's Adam West Batman (I mean, staying tuned next week for giant 'Robin-eating' clam..?)/Mazzuchelli style. Visually simple, yet striking.
Batman's 'power' was his ability to out-think and out-smart the villains. If that didn't work, a little POW! BIFF! SOCK!
However, in defense of Nolan, EVERY criminal nowadays is armed to the teeth. Even The World's Greatest Detective needs help (some type body armor)dodging a hailing spray of gunfire!