Review and news hub for movies, music and video games

4032 guests and 22 members online

The LA Times did a comprehensive three-part interview with The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan upon his return to the city after a much-needed vacation on the nature of the movie's success, the popularity of the superhero genre, and the future of the franchise.

Naturally, the age-old question of Superman vs Batman and the possibility of a Justice League movie is mentioned, especially when Marvel has confirmed that they are definitely aiming for an Avengers movie in a couple of years. Nolan's answer is interesting, because he didn't just answer with the same old "Our Batman just don't fit into a supernatural world" reply. He actually proposes that superheroes and comic books (or at least superhero comic books) don't exist at all in the Batman Begins universe.

Is this a world in which comic books already exist? Is this a world in which superheroes already exist? If you think of "Batman Begins" and you think of the philosophy of this character trying to reinvent himself as a symbol, we took the position -- we didn’t address it directly in the film, but we did take the position philosophically -- that superheroes simply don’t exist. If they did, if Bruce knew of Superman or even of comic books, then that’s a completely different decision that he’s making when he puts on a costume in an attempt to become a symbol. It’s a paradox and a conundrum, but what we did is go back to the very original concept and idea of the character. In his first appearances, he invents himself as a totally original creation.

This even answers the question as to why Nolan and David Goyer decided to rewrite Batman's origin as a night of watching a theatrical performance of Die Fledermause as opposed to the comics' common depiction of the Waynes going to see a Zorro movie. In Nolan's version, Zorro—as pop culture goes—doesn't even exist.

We didn’t have young Bruce going to see Zorro because a character in a movie watching a movie is very different than a character in a comic book watching a movie. A comic-book character reading a comic book is more analogous to a character in a movie watching a movie. It creates a deconstructionist thing that we were trying to avoid. That was one reason. But another reason was to remove Zorro as a role model. We wanted nothing that would undermine the idea that Bruce came up with this crazy plan of putting on a mask all by himself. That allowed us to treat it on our own terms. So we replaced the Zorro idea with the bats to cement that idea of fear and symbolism associated with bats.

If so, then that gives a very interesting context to the whole "symbol" talk in the first movie. Bruce Wayne is actually a revolutionist, in a sense.

Maybe this can be that theme that Nolan is looking for in order to do a third movie. The nature of masks and their purpose. The Dark Knight touched on this briefly with the whole "Gotham needs a hero without a mask" thing. Regardless of superheroes or pulp heroes or masked adventurers (whatever you wanna call 'em), there is a history with masked people in history. What about the KKK? What about Kabuki theater? There's a history associated with masks and identities and how the public perceive them. That would be a good continuation of The Dark Knight's ending, no?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12)

November 04, 2008, ahimaz said:

	Nolan's vision of Batman knocks down Alan Moore's reaction (replying to his The Killing Joke theme) that the character only exists in fiction only and cannot be placed in reality. Can't wait to see what Nolan has in store for the third film.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 06, 2008, chloe said:

	why was batman invented :s p.s batman begins was s**t i had to watch it in my english lesson my teacher is obssessed why batman now i have to right an essay on it ARRRRGGHHHHH :angry:
	Votes: -1 report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2008, Lex Walker said:

	Batman isn't a superhero. He's a super hero. But he has no superpowers to speak of - thus, just a hero. But he is SUPER at being a hero. Nolan, love you, but directing a kicka*s Batman flick or two doesn't really give you the authority to make sweeping statements like that.
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

	I don't get it. What's yer point, bub?
	Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

On where exactly he stepped over his boundaries. He was saying that his version of Batman exists in a world where comic books and superheroes don't exist (not in the way that there's no Superman and Green Lantern flying around, but that the idea of the "superhero" was literally non-existent in its society, even in fiction), therefore when Bruce Wayne invented Batman in Batman Begins, he was becoming something that had no precedent, unlike in the comics where there are figures like Zorro inspiring Bruce in creating Batman. Seeing how he wrote the movie and that nothing in the two movies contradict this (no one ever refers to Batman as a superhero, or crack any jokes about him resembling The Shadow, or any lame dialogue like "he looked like he just stepped out of a comic book", etc.), it's probably safe to say that what Nolan says goes.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2008, Lex Walker said:

	On Batman not being a Superhero? Or Nolan's lack of authority? On him not being a superhero that makes Nolan's statement of "Batman inventing superheroes false". On Nolan's lack of authority he's talking out of his a*s. Ego trip. Just arguing with his choice of words
	Votes: -1 report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2008, Lex Walker said:

But even then - IN context - he's not inventing SUPERheroes per se. He's inventing a unique brand of vigilantism. Even if in the Nolanverse there exist no people or even stories of people with superpowers, that doesn't remove the overall definition of superhero just because Nolan wants it to. Certainly the Batman Begins/Dark Knight Batman has invented his own archetype - but that archetype can't be defined as superhero but merely as a super hero as I said. Since the archetype has been previously defined within a larger scope - one that includes the Nolanverse within it - the term superhero can't be so easily subverted the way Nolan did otherwise in talking about Nolan's Batman in a larger all-comic book encompa*sing discussion the concept of Batman inventing "Superheroes" (instead of the actual term that more accurately applies to the Nolanverse Batman) would attempt to force "Superheroes" to be split between two definitions - the larger and more prevalent of which has more basis and truth.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 08, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

Now we're crossing into semantics, but I don't think the term itself is as literal as you're proposing. look at it from a pop history standpoint, the term merely refers to the archetype of a costumed crimefighter. It has been for a long time, replacing "pulp hero" ever since characters like Lone Ranger, The Shadow and Doc Savage fell out of flavor and Stan Lee came into the picture. Prodding into it too much would require a strict definition of what "superpower" constitutes, which we don't really have. What about merely peak-human characters like Captain America? Is he not a superhero? What about the technologically equipped, like Iron Man? Is he a superhero because he has extraordinary abilities once he put on his armor? America is known as a superpower because of its great influence on the world. We possess a power that few can imitate, which gives us dominance. Then so is Batman, with his myriad of advanced gadgets and impossible-to-comprehend wealth. Even more so in the comics, where he's portrayed as the best detective in the world, a genius scientific mind, a brilliant strategist and a master of 126 different martial arts. That's borderline supernatural. It sounds cool to say Batman's really a pulp hero, he's really a masked vigilante, whatever, but who are you going to kid? No one is going to mistake what cla*sification Batman belongs to in comics and movies. He's part of a cultural bracket.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 08, 2008, Lex Walker said:

I would have to disagree - defining the terms is not a case of semantics it's the first legitimate step in a rational argument. In the case of the Lone Ranger are we saying that exceptional aim is a superpower? Well, s**t, we've got an army of superpowered soldiers. Clearly "superpower" entails an ability outside the natural realm. Captain America isn't merely "peak-human" he has enhanced strength - superpowered strength if you will. And no Iron Man, like Batman, is no superhero. In fact I think that's why they're too of the best and most accessible characters. There's a clear line between the "superpower" of a superhero and a world power - in fact the two terms are wholly unrelated, representing the duality of words (that's why language is fun). Yes we ARE a superpower of a country, but we are not a country WITH superpowers. Certain martial arts masters are capable of feats few others can imitate - do we consider them superhuman? No. Do we for a second say they have superpowers? No. In drawing these comparisons between two wholly unrelated concepts of "superpower" we're in fact weakening the argument for Batman's "superhero" status as we must acknowledge that NOTHING he's capable of is beyond human ingenuity - even if it is an above average. But by no means supernatural. We lump Batman into the "superhero" genre because of his comic book possessing key traits (hidden identity, strengths, weaknesses, villains) but only because it's easier to do that than make the distinction each and every time.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 08, 2008, Arya Ponto said:

"Captain America isn't merely "peak-human" he has enhanced strength - superpowered strength if you will." Incorrect, sir. The Super-Soldier formula doesn't give you superhuman abilities. It just helps you reach the highest human potential. Cap is 100% human. "We lump Batman into the "superhero" genre because of his comic book possessing key traits (hidden identity, strengths, weaknesses, villains) but only because it's easier to do that than make the distinction each and every time." That's my entire argument. Who cares? To do this would require a knowledge of every single hero's origin and power source. You already got Cap's wrong. By your logic, even Green Lantern isn't a superhero, since he's just a guy with a super ring. Venom isn't a supervillain, since that's just a symbiote suit. It's a ridiculous distinction to make, and for what? They work within the superhero genre. Just call them superheroes. I have a big problem with making distinction on the term "superhero" by their powers, because you're actually opening up the definition rather than narrowing it. I saw a top superhero list once on TV that had Luke Skywalker and Neo in it. I mean, yeah, sure, The Force is a superpower in some regard, but "superhero" is an exclusive term (Marvel copyrighted it for a reason), there's a genre history and modus operandi behind the characters who are dubbed with that title. To argue its qualifications is to muddle its interpretation. I like things simple.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 08, 2008, Lex Walker said:

I'm sorry but quite simply - no. The super soldier serum (as the name implies and in spite of what countless comics would like to say) does in fact elevate Captain America beyond human capacity. To say that being stronger and healing faster than any other human being on earth is merely "the peak" of human capability is ludicrous. To truly make that argument you'd actually need a specimen who possesses all of those abilities without the Super-Soldier serum injection. It doesn't exist. The record for strongest man in the world currently comes in at a bench press of 1036 lbs compared to Captain's 1100. That's the strongest man in the world right there. Captain surpa*ses it. Thus the Super-soldier serum has in fact created a superhuman. Who cares? Obviously you do as you've continued to come back for more. And clearly so does Mr. Nolan as he waxes his own ego via proxy. In the case of the Green Lantern I'd say there's a fundamental difference between his circumstance and Batman or Iron Man. Both of them have no powers outside of what technology has wrought - whereas Green Lantern's ring bestows him with superhuman abilities (just as the Super Soldier serum has elevated Captain America - but even more so). On that same level Venom's symbiote elevates whoever wears it to superhuman status as well. Keyword: superhuman. Above human ability. The issue of lumping in Batman with other superheroes is in fact a ridiculous scruple to argue over in pa*sing - unless you're delving into the land of comic books in which case distinctions are deserved. When it comes down to the distinction between a superhero and non-superhero the bottomline is superhuman ability. So yeah, in that way Neo and Luke would both qualify - more so than Batman. Even if their situations might warrant the footnote of *neither of these pretends to occur in times like our own. Simplicity has its place - but there is such a thing as over-simplification.

Votes: +0 report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2008, katy said:

	batman kicks ass
	Votes: +1 report abuse vote down vote up

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment Preview