Madness

[johnnygobbs]

I just had a peek at the Superhero Hype Forums.  A thread from 2008 has been revived and is doing the rounds again.  Its title?  "Did 'TDK' win Obama the election?"...   Oh brother.  This just reminds me of how absurd some of the hype/praise/slavish fanboy worship of 'TDK' was at its peak.  The OP of the thread in all sincerity describes the release of 'TDK' as his generation's 'Woodstock'...   Seriously, some of these people should be institutionalised if they're not already.

[DocLathropBrown]

The Batman fanbase is the most predisposed to fanaticism that I've ever seen. When I think of the insult 'fanboy,' I think of modern Batman fans.

Batman fans of all variations can be as bad, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that the Nolan side are the most consistantly insane. Now forgive me for expounding/theorizing on a touchy subject, but here we go...

I think it's because the majority of modern 'nerds/geeks' are so often already of a particular type already; the scientific-realist-athiest-self-important-intellectual type, that Nolan's approach to Batman speaks to them so deeply because Nolan comes across very much like that himself, that that is the reason he's so worshipped. His approach to Batman strips away all of the colorful, over-the-top elements of the character and leaves in it wake a sanitized, pretentious wears-its-intelligence-on-its-sleeves style that is right up the alley of these pretentious self-important people who are egotisitcal and self-absorbed. Another aspect is that they're all DC fans (rarely big Marvel fans) and I'll be honest: a lot of DC fans that are super hardcore tend to be snobbish. Sound like Nolanites?

That whole wave that erupted initially (when Begins came out) was in response to a few factors: firstly comic book movies at that point were becoming a more repsected genre due to mainstream acceptance. When the original series came out, even before the series stopped being loved (during Schumacher's reign), the films were loved but not considered to be 'real' films. With the response to X-Men and more directly Spider-Man, the genre was now starting to be seen by the major public at large as legitimate/dramatic/moving. So the soon-to-be-Nolanites now felt like this was the first worthy Batman film due to it coming out in the era of true comic book acceptance. The age of the geek had started.

The old films and even TAS were before these people's time (most of the time), so upon coming to them late, they view them through a pretentious back window of "it's silly/childish" and chalk up appreciation of the past iterations as 'nostolgic,' thus making any successful arguments invalid/not worth thinking about.'

Begins also was so prized as 'accurate' simply because it showed aspects of the origin Burton/Schumacher never did, despite the fact that it was filled with just as many canonical mistakes as the existing films, but it didn't matter. By showing in agonizing detail the realities of Batman's world in BB, this won brownie points with a class of fan that was 'reality-orientated.' This is a class of fan who, as I've already stated, is self-important and views anything unrealistic as 'silly.' And because the original films were more traditional in their depiction of depth (show, don't tell) and the new film was so overtly expository, this subconsciously tickled the modern fans' fancy and allowed them to boast about loving the film ("It's deep! Finally a Batman film that's deep! How can you deny it? Listen to that speech!"). And also, IMO most of them seem dumb enough that they only got into Batman because the films spell everything out for them.

The modern fanboy is funny because its fanaticism about Nolan is predicated sometimes on their own self-loathing for not being normal. They love Nolan's films because they're "Batman-for-dummies," Bat films that are made for average people who:

a) can't logically analyze things for themselves, so the films just tell you everything;
b) want nothing objectionable or 'childish' about the films so they can't not be viewed as 'adult'; and
c) know nothing of the Batman character's history or legacy, and don't care

Because the general populace like the films for the reasons above, Nolanites are even more proud to love them because it makes them accepted. Finally, the world likes something they do! And personally, I find many people who became fans through the Nolan films tend to be fans of those films only because really, Batman isn't right for their sensibilities. Hence why they dismiss the 60s show, sometimes don't like TAS, hate the Burton movies, and generally don't read the comics (or if they do, they stick to comics no older than 2000). Nolan made Batman films for people who would never read comic books.

I remember that until around the time of TDKR, Nolanites always trumpted "they're more accurate!" as some kind of quantifiable proof that his films were better (because they are threatened/hateful of other more traditional takes on Batman), until Nolan's lack of accuracy in general was finally too well known by the many to be suppressed by the few, so then many of them switched to their true colors and started saying that his films were better than the comics. And that's kind of the fife they still march to now, or so from what I see.

Nolan's films are no more accurate or better than any other iteration of Batman, only perhaps the realistic asthetics are inaccurate. Like the character of Two-Face, Nolanites I think tend to want order with no variables in life, so the idea that 'Burton's/Schumacher's/Timm's/Dozier's (etc) is just as valid as another' never sits well with them. For others to think anything else as worthy as Nolan's trilogy tends to drive them crazy. And it's just built into that class of geek: anyone who rocks their foundation or realism/intellectualism is not just wrong, they're stupid. Maybe they don't want to have to give the other iterations credit because then they'd have to find a way to appreciate them too or not be a 'true' fan? Who knows. Who cares?

Honestly, I think that any real fan finds something to appreciate about every incarnation of Batman. THAT's a true fan. Supportive through thick and thin. It's like a family member. If your cousin goes through a period where they decide they like shaving their head bald, do you hate them for that period? If you do, you're a jerk. You should love them anyway. Because hey, even if they shave their head and speak in an Austrailian accent for three years, they're still your cousin.

Fans should be the same way. Batman went into a modern-realist period with Nolan. Do I hate Batman or those films because of it? No. It's still Batman. If you're a real fan, you'll find something in there to enjoy.

[thecolorsblend]

Wow, a post which skewers Nolanites and anti-Nolanites in one shot.

Bravo, Doc! Bravo! Awesome post!

[Paul (ral)]

Doc...

[DocLathropBrown]

Just tellin' it how it is, according to everything I've seen. And I've been looking in on the online fandom since well before Batman Begins, so I like to think I'm a pretty impartial observer. I remember when the fandom was united, against Batman & Robin maybe, but united. Two factions, one 60s-show-only, and the other everyone else. Once Begins hit? It was all over. Shattered!

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, I remember when the cracks formed in the fandom. I recall seeing the beginnings of it during the lead up to BB. People (ie, Burtons fans mostly) were being outright berated on that other forum, the name of which I'm intentionally forgetting, for not having what I can only call an "orthodox" position about BB, Bale, Nolan, etc. If I remember, there was a good deal of interest to see what was coming; the issue is that several people for whatever reason had already decided that nothing was likely to take the place of B89 and BR in their hearts... hence the abuse. Strange to think it started even back then but I can't say you're wrong...

[DocLathropBrown]

What's funny is that, like any Batman fan, I got super exicted for Begins in the run-up, because I too thought it'd be cool to see him train and whatnot. I didn't have doubts at all. But I remember when I saw it opening night, I remember not knowing how to feel, like I knew I witnessed a film that should tickle my Bat-fancy, but although I enjoyed parts of it, overall I didn't like it like I hoped I would. Seeing it again the next day or so, I realized that Nolan's direction just caused the film to fall short of perfection, though I didn't give it a bad score, even still.

I began to get a sour taste in my mouth once Nolanites went berserk with admiration to the point of actively attacking people who had varying viewpoints, 95% of the time without provocation. And for a while, I did hate the movies, but only for spawning such fans. But ever since I left the other place, it sure has been easier to chill out and not care about their lunacy. In fact, now I just find them hilariously crazy/stupid.

And now? I have to resist the urge to write perfected screenplays of Nolan's trilogy for fun (because they have a lot of good stuff to work with), but otherwise I'm chillin' on the whole Nolan trilogy. It's over, he's done and his take will probably be mothballed to preserve its legacy, so bygones are bygones.

[thecolorsblend]

What's funny is that, like any Batman fan, I got super exicted for Begins in the run-up, because I too thought it'd be cool to see him train and whatnot. I didn't have doubts at all. But I remember when I saw it opening night, I remember not knowing how to feel, like I knew I witnessed a film that should tickle my Bat-fancy, but although I enjoyed parts of it, overall I didn't like it like I hoped I would. Seeing it again the next day or so, I realized that Nolan's direction just caused the film to fall short of perfection, though I didn't give it a bad score, even still.

Agreed. There were a lot of good elements to it. There's a wide shot of Bruce climbing the mountain on his way to the League of Assassins hideout that I absolutely love.



Other stuff too. But the mechanics and the storytelling... I dunno. Something just felt really off. Plus the realistic bit worked fine for BB but it felt out of place in the subsequent films.

I began to get a sour taste in my mouth once Nolanites went berserk with admiration to the point of actively attacking people who had varying viewpoints, 95% of the time without provocation. And for a while, I did hate the movies, but only for spawning such fans. But ever since I left the other place, it sure has been easier to chill out and not care about their lunacy. In fact, now I just find them hilariously crazy/stupid.

Yep. Depending on how the inevitable reboot shapes up, I'll actually have considerable schadenfreude when they have a meltdown over the same type of thing they once berated other people for. But moving away from that other forum and the trilogy's end has made a lot of difference. It doesn't hurt that TDKRises ended the story along the lines of how I've always thought Batman's story should end; Bruce would eventually get married and move far the hell away from Gotham City, leaving it in the hands of a worthy replacement. We can question how "worthy" Blake might be but the concept of it all rang true for me. Nolan delivered at literally the last minute. It made a big difference.

[DocLathropBrown]

The thing is that BB feels so different than the other two, I seriously think Nolan didn't want to make any more than the first one... I really do. I have nothing to back it up, but tonally, Begins feels like a stripped-down serious take (kind of like "Year One"), that doesn't betray a possibly more comic-y/bold world beyond. TDK is where the series dropped the ball completely for me asthetically. TDK verged into way overtly more Michael Mann territory than BB did. The very end of BB even talked about "escalation." So much of BB was built on the idea of theatricality that Ledger's approach to the Joker really shocked me because everything in BB's tone/asthetic hinted we could go bolder. I expected something more like the comics in the films to follow.

Things like the Scarecrow having an actual costume at the end (even if it wasn't the comic one) and his fear gas portraying him on a horse shooting fire and stuff, yeah it was the fear gas, but it was crazier than anything we'd see later on. I honestly get the vibe from the change in tone between films was Nolan deciding "I have re-imagine this MY way to keep my own interest up." Sort of like Tim on Batman Returns, ironically. I mean, Scarecrow even acted like he was nuts at the end from his gas, going so far as to renounce the Jonathan Crane identity to Rachel and then at the beginning of TDK, he's completely back to normal! 

The Narrows are an actual area of Gotham from the books, and it required actual production design instead of just being "Chicago." Begins seemed to have a real effort behind it to capture something of the tone of the comics, just stripped down. TDK and beyond just felt like Nolan trying to reinvent for himself, hence why from that film on he stopped doing villains that hadn't been featured before (Talia hardly counts), as if he had an agenda to touch what had been done already.

[thecolorsblend]

At first I was tempted to disagree but the more I think about it, the more I realize the expectation I had when credits rolled for BB was more of a comic book "reality" than TDK gave us. I frankly might've chalked that up to ego more than anything but you might be right.