could Batman: Triumphant have saved the series?

[Azrael]

Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

Yeah, but is this much different than Bane being a deformed lackey of Talia al Ghul, or Doomsday being a Zod Zombie resurrected by Dr. Lutherstein? 

Fair point. You could say the same thing about Bane being a lackey to Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow being a lackey to the League of Assassins and Two-Face becoming the Joker's protege, more or less.

Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

Of all Batman movie villains, "Bane" in TDKRises and "Doomsday" in BvS are those who pretty much make an In-Name-Only appearance.

Then there's Penguin and Catwoman in BR - which I love - and which were both reinvented for the movie.

Maybe it comes down to taste and personal preference.

[thecolorsblend]

Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

Of all Batman movie villains, "Bane" in TDKRises and "Doomsday" in BvS are those who pretty much make an In-Name-Only appearance.

Then there's Penguin and Catwoman in BR - which I love - and which were both reinvented for the movie.

Maybe it comes down to taste and personal preference.

I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

[The Laughing Fish]

Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines.

I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

Then there's Penguin and Catwoman in BR - which I love - and which were both reinvented for the movie.

Now this I definitely agree. I'd have to be a liar to say otherwise.

I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

You'd be surprised how some people are passionate about Doomsday. I had an argument with somebody the other day on YouTube who wished that BvS could've been split into two parts, so Doomsday could be the main villain in part two. I told them that makes no sense and completely unreasonable as Doomsday doesn't have any character depth to be the main villain for a feature film. Waste of time though, my reasoning only fell on deaf ears.

But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

[Azrael]

I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

Can't disagree with that, he's a secondary villain with the prime purpose to make the toxin Ra's Al Ghul needs (oh yeah, and make cameos in the sequels), but I don't think he's that off compared to what they did with Bane, who is the main villain in the movie he appears.

Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

Again, I can't disagree. His story was rushed, his brief crime spree is almost an epilogue after the movie is done. Two Face was worthy of an entire film, and his appearance is almost like a demo of what might have been. I didn't say his story was satisfactory, just that he was not as off as Bane.

I find this to be an interesting objection. In the case of Doomsday, he was a genetically engineered killing machine in the comics. In MOS, he was a genetically engineered killing machine intended to take Superman out. It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics. I dare say that the movie (love it or hate it) added layers that never existed in the comics.

The thing with Doomsday was the mystery. The "force of nature" comment people have made about the Joker, this is what Doomsday was in his first appearance. What? Where from? Why? This is what I was thinking when I was reading the Death storyline as a kid, this is what made him interesting.

It's not like Doomsday was a textured, layered, nuanced character in the comics.

This actually made me laugh.

[Silver Nemesis]

Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character.

Yeah, but is this much different than Bane being a deformed lackey of Talia al Ghul, or Doomsday being a Zod Zombie resurrected by Dr. Lutherstein? 

Scarecrow working for LoS or Two Face being manipulated by the Joker doesn't change anything fundamental about who they are, they are just storylines. Bane in B&R is such a joke it isn't even worth mentioning, lol.

Of all Batman movie villains, "Bane" in TDKRises and "Doomsday" in BvS are those who pretty much make an In-Name-Only appearance.

All of the movie villains listed in this thread had some basis in the comics. None of them were 100% comic accurate, but not of them were 100% detached from the source material either.

I already wrote an extensive analysis of how the Michelle Pfeiffer Catwoman was adapted from the printed page. I won't bother repeating all that now, but here's the link in case anyone's curious:
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/5/29/comic-analysis-michelle-pfeiffer-catwoman
Bottom line, she was a perfectly acceptable fusion of several different versions of the character that had existed in the comics up to that point.

The Batman Returns Penguin is certainly a departure from the version that existed in the comics in 1992, though many of his more outlandish characteristics have been referenced in subsequent comics (that subject warrants its own thread). But I would argue the fundamental core of the character – an odd-looking misfit who tries to compensate for his physical peculiarities with excessive posturing – is still at least partially represented. He behaves most like the comic book Penguin during the central act of the film when he's running for office. During the first and final acts, he's a completely different beast. But once again, many of those aberrant qualities were later worked into the comics anyway. Is he the comic book Penguin? No. But he's also not completely removed from the source material.

As for Bane being Ivy's slave... Eh, I made a stab at justifying that in the Batman & Robin comic analysis feature:
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2011/4/3/comic-influences-on-schumacher-batman-robin-1997/4#sthash.OO3sILyN.dpbs

Harley Quinn being the Joker's daughter is a throwback to the original Duela Dent Harlequin that debuted in the Bronze Age comics. This character predated the better known Harleen Quinzel version by over 15 years and was ultimately revealed to be the daughter of the Earth-3 Joker (the Jokester). So there is a precedent in the comics for this too.

I've always thought Doomsday was more of a plot device than a fully rounded character. And his function in the plot is to kill Superman, which is precisely what he did in both the comics and the movie. His back story in both Superman/Doomsday: Hunter/Prey (1994) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is that he's a genetically engineered monster cloned from dead matter. I don't think there's much else to say about the character.

I don't see why Scarecrow working for the League is a problem. Crane is never shown to be a full member of the League in Batman Begins, nor to be a disciple of their underlying ideology. He works with them so he can acquire the chemical components needed to make his fear toxin. After the League is defeated, Scarecrow continues trying to spread his hallucinogens on the streets of Gotham via drug dealers, as depicted in the opening scenes of The Dark Knight. He's still a psycho fixated on fear. That's the essence of the character in the comics and Nolan didn't change that for the movies. Scarecrow has allied himself with numerous other villains in the comics over the years, ranging from Carmine Falcone to the Joker. Just so long as he gets to spread fear and panic, he's only too happy to assist in someone else's agenda.

I also don't see a problem with Bane working for the League of Shadows. Bane's original motivation in the comics was to establish his superiority by breaking Batman, and that's exactly what he did in the first half of The Dark Knight Rises. It's just that in the film his motives served a broader agenda. He didn't have venom, his origin story was transferred to Talia, and Hardy – despite giving a good performance IMO – was physically miscast in the role. But otherwise, it was a legitimate representation of the character along the same lines as the DeVito Penguin. It's not the comic book Bane, but it's an effective reinterpretation. His creator Chuck Dixon said as much himself:

"I am beyond glad that Nolan had the juice in Hollywood to stick to his guns," he added. "From interviews I've seen, it's clear he understands the character and he gets what we were going for. It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20120720_Chuck_Dixon_and_the_essence_of_Bane.html

Returning to the subject of him being Talia's henchman, that does have a precedent in the comics in the form of Ubu. Ubu has always been depicted as the League's top muscle and the right-hand man to whomever was leading it at the time, whether it was Ra's or his daughter.

The very first Ra's al Ghul story – 'Daughter of the Demon' (Batman Vol 1 #232, June 1971) – saw a masked Ubu presenting himself as the leader of the League. The big plot twist came when it was revealed that Ra's was the true leader and Ubu merely a decoy. Nolan used the same plot twist in both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.

But Ubu and Bane aren't the same character, are they? Well, yes and no. Ubu is actually a title that's passed from one warrior to another. It's an honorary status given to the bodyguard and champion of the League's true leader. And Bane himself did indeed become Ubu during the Bane of Demon (March-June 1998) storyline. In that comic he was also portrayed as having a romantic relationship with Talia, similar to the emotional dynamic suggested in the movie.

So Bane's subservient relationship with Talia does have a precedent in the comics.

Moving on to Nolan's Two-Face, the Eckhart incarnation certainly has a different psychological profile from the comic book version. He doesn't display two distinct personalities and he isn't fixated on a binary motif when it comes to his crimes. But the basic concept of a hero-turned-villain, who flips a coin to allow fate to decide his victims' fate, remains intact. As to the Joker's role in his creation, that has its basis in Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers' Batman: Dark Detective II (July-September 2005). Nolan basically amalgamated Dent's traditional back story from the comics with that of Evan Gregory. I don't want to go into too much depth on this subject at the moment, as I'm hoping to write an extensive feature on The Dark Knight's comic book influences later in the year. But for now I'll quickly outline some of the basic parallels between this particular comic and the film.

Dent and Gregory are both heroic figures running for public office in Gotham City. While Dent runs for the position of D.A., Gregory is running to become Governor. Both men are in long-term relationships with one of Bruce's former girlfriends (Silver St. Cloud/Rachel). In both cases the love interest is aware that Bruce is Batman. And although Bruce admires Dent/Gregory, there nevertheless remains some tension between them.

The Joker tries to sabotage the campaigns of both men and both stories feature a scene where the Joker crashes a fundraiser for Gregory/Dent. Bruce and Silver/Rachel are also present at the party.

Bruce slips away and changes into his batsuit, then returns to do battle with the Joker in front of the other guests.

Despite Batman's efforts, the Joker makes a clean getaway. Silver/Rachel is worried about Gregory/Dent, but the latter remains unfazed by the Joker's antics and assures his beloved he has faith in the Batman to protect him.

Two-Face plays a prominent role in Dark Detective II, and Englehart goes to considerable lengths to emphasise parallels between Gregory and Dent's former incarnation as heroic D.A. Two-Face himself strongly identifies with Gregory's plight and threatens the Joker to back off in his campaign against him.

Old tensions are renewed between Bruce and Silver/Rachel. The main love interest is torn between the two men in her life and tries to decide which of them needs her support the most.

In the comic Silver chooses Bruce, while in the movie Rachel chooses Dent. But in the comic Silver eventually ends up with Gregory anyway.

A subplot in Dark Detective II sees Two-Face acquiring an undamaged clone of Harvey Dent. He quickly develops a strong emotional bond with this clone and sees him as a way of restoring his former identity to its untainted glory. But the clone falls foul of a trap set by the Joker and is blown to smithereens. Two-Face, who was standing just outside the building when it blew up, is also injured by the blast.

The Dent clone is killed and has half his face burned off by the Joker's explosion. The loss has a devastating impact on Two-Face.

Silver tells Gregory she chooses to be with Bruce. This foreshadows the letter Rachel writers Bruce in the movie telling him she chooses to be with Dent. In both cases her plans go awry due to the intervention of the Joker.

Batman visits Two-Face in hospital where he is recovering from the Joker's bomb blast.

There's a scene in Dark Detective II where the hospitalised Two-Face flips his coin to decide whether or not to betray the Joker to Batman. Two-Face also flipped his coin for the Joker in 'Threat of the Two-Headed Coin!' (Batman Vol 1 #258, October 1974).

Returning to Dark Detective II, the Joker kidnaps Silver. Gregory and Bruce both go frantic trying to search for her.

Batman takes to the streets and starts roughing up suspects in alleyways trying to track down the Joker.

Eventually Batman manages to recue Silver, while in the movie Rachel is killed. It is during the sequence where Batman saves Silver in Dark Detective II that Gregory falls prey to another of the Joker's traps and ends up being crippled down one side of his body.

Interestingly, Englehart wrote a script for Dark Detective III which would have served as a continuation of this story. But owing to the unfortunate passing of Marshall Rogers, the comic was never produced. However Englehart, while openly acknowledging the influence of Dark Detective II on The Dark Knight, has also alleged that his unproduced sequel was referenced in Nolan's film. In particular he highlights the scene where the Joker visits Dent in hospital as having been adapted from his script. Only in Englehart's original script, it was Two-Face who visited Gregory in hospital and persuaded him to take a turn to the dark side. Regardless, the Joker's role in provoking Dent in Nolan's film does have an earlier precedent in the comics.

There's a lot more to comment on regarding the comic influences on The Dark Knight. But like I say, I'll try and come back to this subject in more depth later this year.

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming any of the movie villains I've discussed here are 100% faithful to the comics, because clearly they're not. I'm just refuting the allegation that some of them are entirely removed the source material.

[thecolorsblend]

But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

[The Laughing Fish]

I completely disagree. Scarecrow in that film doesn't really have any depth compared to the disgruntled outcast/professor we see in other media.

Can't disagree with that, he's a secondary villain with the prime purpose to make the toxin Ra's Al Ghul needs (oh yeah, and make cameos in the sequels), but I don't think he's that off compared to what they did with Bane, who is the main villain in the movie he appears.

Two-Face's set-up is radically changed...for the worst. Utterly contrived nonsense, I couldn't take his turn to evil and motivations seriously at all. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I just can't stand that portrayal of the character. Made me like TLJ better, which I never thought could be possible.

Again, I can't disagree. His story was rushed, his brief crime spree is almost an epilogue after the movie is done. Two Face was worthy of an entire film, and his appearance is almost like a demo of what might have been. I didn't say his story was satisfactory, just that he was not as off as Bane.

Interesting to know you take such an issue with Bane in Rises. If you don't mind me asking, what is your biggest criticism about this take?

Sure, I know he doesn't have the Venom, and he's ultimately just a glorified lackey like in B&R, but I honestly don't see him any more radical from the comics than any of the villains in that series. After all, it's not like Ra's al Ghul and Henri Ducard were always the same man, nor Joker was a Glasgow smiling goth (other than possibly that Gotham Noir Elseworlds story). Come to think of it, the only characters that were done any justice were Gordon and Alfred in BB.

But going back to your comment: would you say that Zod's corpse getting re-animated into this Frankenstein-like monster brings completes a circle how he killed the El's? The father and the son were his casualties, and both were stabbed right in the chest.

It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

Interstingly, apart from the deity connotations throughout that film, the original idea was Lex thought he could control Doomsday. There was a behind the scenes footage of Eisenberg yelling "Ancient Kryptonian deformity. Obeys only me! And born to destroy you!". Of course, the final cut has the second part of that sentence saying "Blood of my blood".

It adds another dimension how Lex abuses his own power even further and gets an even bigger ego trip by thinking he could manipulate a monster he had created. Curious to see for all his hate of the concept of God, he had no problems playing one himself.

Anyway...

[The Dark Knight]

Can't disagree with that, he's a secondary villain with the prime purpose to make the toxin Ra's Al Ghul needs (oh yeah, and make cameos in the sequels), but I don't think he's that off compared to what they did with Bane, who is the main villain in the movie he appears.

The original Knightfall version of Bane is still king, and I've made criticisms about Nolan's Bane in the past. But now I've come to terms with the overall product for three reasons. 1. Comic book villains in recent times (especially Marvel films) have been underdeveloped and underwhelming. 2, Nolan gave Bane plenty of screen time, and 3, he developed his threat level in a big way. Do aspects of his plan make sense? I'd say no, but for those three key reasons I've softened my stance. Each incarnation of a character is going to have differences of some sort, but key traits remain. Nolan's Bane is physically strong, wears a mask and uses military vehicles and equipment to facilitate his mission. He lets criminals out of prison and breaks Batman's back. The voice isn't everyone's cup of tea, but you can't deny it's distinctive.

It works on multiple levels for me.

As you say, Zod killed Jor-El... and then he killed Kal.

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

But the thing that really puts it over top for me is how Lex mingled his own blood into Doomsday's creation. Yeah, Zod kinda sorta killed Superman... but at the same time, Lex kinda sorta killed Superman too.

Multiple levels, like I say...

And it works on another level given Superman is resurrected with the Mother Box. There's a fear that when he wakes up, he'll become a rampaging monster like Doomsday. This isn't explored in any serious depth but the connection is there. And I like it.

[Dagenspear]

And honestly, the only reason it was ever possible is because Superman killed Zod. Superman became the instrument of his own undoing.

Now that's an interesting idea.

[Azrael]

Interesting to know you take such an issue with Bane in Rises. If you don't mind me asking, what is your biggest criticism about this take?

Sure, I know he doesn't have the Venom, and he's ultimately just a glorified lackey like in B&R, but I honestly don't see him any more radical from the comics than any of the villains in that series. After all, it's not like Ra's al Ghul and Henri Ducard were always the same man, nor Joker was a Glasgow smiling goth (other than possibly that Gotham Noir Elseworlds story). Come to think of it, the only characters that were done any justice were Gordon and Alfred in BB.

I just don't.

I've never been one of the "if it deviates from the comics it's not good" audience (the opposite, I always loved the villains in Batman Returns), but having recently re-read Knightfall and re-watched The Dark Knight Rises - the latter version comes off like a weak shadow.

I've read the comic-to-screen analysis features from the day they were published in 2012, I've also read the posts by Silver Nemesis and The Dark Knight in this very same page of this thread about Nolan's Bane (I've always been more of a reader than a commenter anyway), I can see and respect the points, but to me it's not just a different character renamed as Bane - the entire plot of that film, his plan, and yes his comical dialogue, are just weak and not very good.

But, yes, it's maybe subjective and a matter of preference, as I said in my first mini-rant