[migrated from myspace blog]
I was recently reading an article in The Times UK online that listed their "top" movie-adapted comic book characters. They listed Batman way too low, but that's a different matter. The Batman section of the article mentioned the possibility of placing Batman in either a Justice League or Batman/Superman movie. The article was against it while Nolan/Bale are going strong with the franchise, but it's a bad idea altogether, even if there is no other Batman movie in the works.
Batman is my all-time favorite comic book character, so if it sounds like I'm down on him in the first paragraph, stick with me and you'll see that I'm not.
Batman has no superpowers. How can he be a superfriend if he has no superpowers? Every other superfriend I can think of can fly, while Batman is tagging along in the Batwing. In a world that has Superman, who can physically do seemingly anything, how is there a place for Batman? Superman is an alien with superpowers attributed to exposure to our "yellow sun" as opposed to the "red sun of Krypton". (I don't really understand how they can both be referred to as suns when they're both stars, and the NAME of our star is The Sun.) The point is that there's really just no need for Batman unless he's the brains of the operation, which he very may well be. As a human, his skills have always been his brain, his money, technology, and yes, his physical prowess. But if Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne are at the same place, Superman won't need Batman's help. While it may sound like I'm arguing that Batman isn't needed...well, that's actually because I am. He isn't needed in Superman's universe, but lucky for us, he lives elsewhere.
Gotham and Metropolis are the same city...in different universes. Gotham and Metropolis are both names used for New York City. Gotham, appropriately, in the best Batman adaptations, has an emphasis on the gothic style using stone and concrete, often shown only in silhouette. (Nolan strays a bit on this point, whereas Burton probably shows it best.) Metropolis, on the other hand, is a shining beacon where all is steel and glass, bright and shiny, reflecting daylight. It's a serious stretch to suggest that these are the same city, yet they are both versions of Manhattan viewed through different lenses. One lens is blue and red, the other, black and yellow. Since Gotham and Metropolis can't co-exist as different cities in the same universe, neither can Batman and Superman.
Batman is the Dark Knight. He is and should be the versions of Batman seen since 1989 (I don't acknowledge any film made by Joel Schumacher, Batman Beyond doesn't count, and The Batman is really just how Batman would look if he were Japanese.) The dark, brooding, vigilante of the night is the reason I prefer Batman over Spiderman or...whomever. This is the Batman of Burton/Keaton, Nolan/Bale, Frank Miller, and even Timm/Conroy to an extent. This is exactly how he should be, a man alone, only Alfred knowing the whole truth. Does this Dark Knight sound like someone who teams up with friends to hang out and fight crime?
Someone knowledgeable about Batman or comics may argue that "my" Batman isn't even the real Batman. But look at the first 1939 comic. Batman was dressed in black and grey. Not blue and grey. He didn't talk like Adam West. He didn't even have Robin (who I think makes the everything a little too "Ace and Gary"). Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the 1943 or 1949 serials, but black and white actually seems like a terrific format in which to tell Batman stories...if only the Batsuit didn't look like Batman pajamas.
While there clearly is no definitive Batman, these interpretations of the Dark Knight, as opposed to 1/2 of the Dynamic Duo, is the one I want to see. A version that could have come much sooner if the 60's TV show had taken itself seriously instead of as a live-action cartoon.
What it really comes down to is a question of what's more believable, a super-rich, intelligent, martial arts student with incredible gadgets, or an alien from an exploded planet who can fly fast enough to reverse the rotation of the Earth? Yes, we in the real world would laugh at a man in a batsuit. As Bruce Wayne says, "A guy who dresses as a bat clearly has issues." But even the villains used in Batman movies are more believable than other comic book adaptations. Sure, even some of the traditional villains are a stretch, but none of the ones used in movies have required a superhuman or supernatural explanation such as Sandman or Venom...or that solar dude from Superman IV. There have been what I would consider "mistakes" in the stories created for Batman. The introduction of Batmite makes me shiver.
But I'm willing to overlook these atrocities, the completely useless character of Robin, Superfriends, Scooby Doo, Timm's Justice League and Teen Titans as long as Warner Brothers can keep Batman and Superman in the respective universes.
(Is it sad that the longest post I've written is about Batman?)
(Sick to my stomach over a remake of The Birds. Remember Gus van Sant's Psycho?! Apparently not.)
). No more ticker tape parades, or a million people in East central Florida trying to find a place to watch history happen. In the Shadow the Moon is a chronicle of another era, and I look forward to see the DVD on my shelf next to From the Earth the Moon, For All Mankind, and Nova's To the Moon, and Apollo 13.
. I'm pretty sure that has something to with a horrible car wreck involving the top of the car being sheared off as it plowed under the 16-wheeler.
