could Batman: Triumphant have saved the series?

[The Laughing Fish]

That's great that the character's portrayal was well received by the creator but that doesn't mean he was sincere. Bob Kane stated his favourite Batman movie was Batman and Robin, likely because that was the last one made before his death. Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee spoke highly of the 2003 Hulk film at the time before the 2008 film was deemed the more accurate portrayal of the character. Some creators are just happy seeing their work brought to life and will take any incarnation.

That's exactly right. Even if a creator approves something adapted on screen, it doesn't mean you must like it. For example, Suicide Squad creator John Ostrander went on record to approve the David Ayer adaptation:

I really liked the film. Not perfect by a long shot, but a really good time in the movie theater. And for me a lot of it was just amazing. The look, the detail, the feel of the film is not something I've seen in superhero movies before.

Source: https://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/john-ostrander-reviews-the-suicide-squad/

Now of course, if you genuinely thought Suicide Squad was a bad film, then you have the right to have that opinion, and nothing that Ostrander or any other creator say should change your mind. You can still respect his opinion and disagree with it, just as others here have listened, respected and disagreed with other creators' thoughts on other adaptations. It works both ways.

[The Dark Knight]

I want to clarify my last point. I am not saying that Jeep Swenson's Bane was the more accurate portrayal to Hardy's, I was only stating the argument could be made. I definitely think Nolan got the character more accurately than Schumacher did but Nolan's work is not beyond criticism.

True, as we know. B&R's Bane wears a comic accurate mask and uses Venom. But apart from that I don't think he has much merit. Do we believe this guy could think strategically? He can't even string a sentence together. Hardy's Bane has a soft spot for Talia, but is he completely useless and her slave, walking by her side at all times? No. She does her thing (infiltrating Wayne Enterprises) and he does his thing. He carries out the plan and is successful in doing so. He still sees her as the young girl he protected down in the pit, and for that reason, he isn't going to disrespect her. It's a departure from the comics, but I guess it gives this beast a dose of emotional complexity, given he's snapping necks and blowing people up quite a lot.

[riddler]

The problem with Bane in live action is that he's not as grounded as villains such as Catwoman, the Riddler, Penguin, etc. but he's not as far fetched as the likes of Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, or Solomon Grundy. For that reason I don't think he fits Schumacher's unrealistic Gotham or Nolan's ultra realistic Gotham. Nolan took the character too seriously, Schumacher wasn't serious enough.

Again if you think Nolan's version is the definitive version and can't be topped, good for you. But personally I think Nolan dialed the character back from what he was supposed to be because he was afraid to put anything in a Batman movie that you wouldn't see in a James Bond film. 

[The Dark Knight]

Again if you think Nolan's version is the definitive version and can't be topped, good for you. But personally I think Nolan dialed the character back from what he was supposed to be because he was afraid to put anything in a Batman movie that you wouldn't see in a James Bond film.

I don't think Hardy's Bane is definitive. The Knightfall version is the best, with Arkham Origins coming in second place. But at the end of the day, I think Nolan's incarnation honors the spirit of the character. He simply tailored aspects to suit his world, just as Burton did for Penguin or Snyder did for Doomsday.

[Wayne49]

I think the treatment on Bane really demonstrated Schumacher's detachment to comic book lore and certainly played ( I believe) the biggest part in fans hating this movie. Seeing such a iconic villain reduced to a lowly henchman was hard to swallow and I think Schumacher's comments on DVD probably did more harm to the reputation of the film than anything else.

He had a very flip attitude about these characters and spoke about comics with honestly a great degree of disrespect. I don't think he had the slightest notion what hive of wasps he was breaking open, but he seem to go to great lengths to demean and otherwise insult the intelligence of the average Batman fan. I think he certainly had it in him to make a compelling Batman film. His films tend to carry a darker tone and I understand the studio played a big role in how B&R came out. But I highly doubt audiences of that day would have been as forgiving had Warner Bros moved forward with Triumphant.

You have to remember comic book movies were not embraced by Hollywood as a viable trove of stories for blockbusters as it is today. WB nearly wanted to mothball the franchise after BR got some tough commentary from critics and less returns than what they wanted. So studios in those days were not all that prideful about making these movies and seemed almost paranoid to dump them if there was any deviation in the response, even if they were successful.

The flip side to that is comic fans had a huge degree of insecurity attached to these films because this was still a very small market in the movie industry. Fans of this subject matter carried allot of angst from under-produced and generic (if not hollow) versions of their heroes on television and even direct to video features (like Captain America). This was a genre dying for validation in an industry where there were still allot of people who saw this material as juvenile. Professionals who loved comics were just starting to infiltrate the industry and it would be several more years before anything of real relevance (like Spider-man) began to take hold and get the attention of the industry. Yes, I know the X-men to some degree broke the ice, but that film also illustrated technology still needed to catch up to the needs of this kind of story telling and it began to do just that.

So I think even with the fix in, Triumphant likely would have paid for the sins of B&R at the box office. I don't think fans wanted to see Clooney again and likely would have rejected him in this film. I'm not even sure he had the acting chops at that point to really do a dark Batman of the caliber needed to right this ship. It's easy to think audiences would have been forgiving with the right treatment, but that just wasn't reality for that day. I think both the industry and fans felt Batman needed to be mothballed because to keep it going, especially with the same cast, would have hurt the push being made to make more comic book movies. Subsequently that could have stymied the movies we did get to see like X-Men and Spider-man. Both the industry and fans were looking for engaging stories involving characters the audience could embrace and relate with. Schumacher's treatment reminded everyone of what they had been fighting against (for decades) and didn't want to see again.

[Azrael]

True, as we know. B&R's Bane wears a comic accurate mask and uses Venom. But apart from that I don't think he has much merit. Do we believe this guy could think strategically? He can't even string a sentence together. Hardy's Bane has a soft spot for Talia, but is he completely useless and her slave, walking by her side at all times? No. She does her thing (infiltrating Wayne Enterprises) and he does his thing. He carries out the plan and is successful in doing so. He still sees her as the young girl he protected down in the pit, and for that reason, he isn't going to disrespect her. It's a departure from the comics, but I guess it gives this beast a dose of emotional complexity, given he's snapping necks and blowing people up quite a lot.

Not her slave, her agent. All he does, this "plan", everything, it's for her. He's not the leader, he's basically the highest ranking officer under her orders.

But then, this is what they've always been doing when they grouped villains together. Two Face acts as muscle to the Riddler. Poison Ivy falls for Mr. Freeze. The Scarecrow is on Ra's payroll. Two Face is manipulated by the Joker. It's just that Bane, despite this silly Mexican wrestler attire (which is the only thing Team Schumacher saw in him, obviously), was maybe the smartest, the strongest and the most dangerous of them all, acting for his own ends.

[Silver Nemesis]

The flip side to that is comic fans had a huge degree of insecurity attached to these films because this was still a very small market in the movie industry. Fans of this subject matter carried allot of angst from under-produced and generic (if not hollow) versions of their heroes on television and even direct to video features (like Captain America). This was a genre dying for validation in an industry where there were still allot of people who saw this material as juvenile. Professionals who loved comics were just starting to infiltrate the industry and it would be several more years before anything of real relevance (like Spider-man) began to take hold and get the attention of the industry. Yes, I know the X-men to some degree broke the ice, but that film also illustrated technology still needed to catch up to the needs of this kind of story telling and it began to do just that.

So I think even with the fix in, Triumphant likely would have paid for the sins of B&R at the box office. I don't think fans wanted to see Clooney again and likely would have rejected him in this film. I'm not even sure he had the acting chops at that point to really do a dark Batman of the caliber needed to right this ship. It's easy to think audiences would have been forgiving with the right treatment, but that just wasn't reality for that day. I think both the industry and fans felt Batman needed to be mothballed because to keep it going, especially with the same cast, would have hurt the push being made to make more comic book movies. Subsequently that could have stymied the movies we did get to see like X-Men and Spider-man. Both the industry and fans were looking for engaging stories involving characters the audience could embrace and relate with. Schumacher's treatment reminded everyone of what they had been fighting against (for decades) and didn't want to see again.

This is a very good point. The entire superhero cinematic genre was considered toxic after 1997, and not just because of Batman & Robin. It was a much broader issue that affected CBMs in general. And I'm not sure Batman Unchained could have surmounted the obstacles left in the wake of that fallout, especially with all the baggage it was hauling from the Batman & Robin backlash.

It's sad to admit, but back in the mid-late nineties I used to rewatch the 1990 Captain America movie on video all the same. Same with the Incredible Hulk TV movies from the eighties. Why? Because there was precious little else in the way of CBMs coming out. As far as the late nineties went, the genre was moribund to say the least. This was especially true of Marvel, who's only really good productions at that time had been animated shows like X-Men and Spider-Man and some older live action TV shows from the seventies (I'm fond of the Dolph Punisher film, but I didn't see that until I was much older). Many people also dismiss the early nineties as being a terrible time for superheroes and comic book adaptations, but I strongly disagree with that. After all, the early nineties gave us:

•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987-1996)
•   Tales from the Crypt (1989-1996)
•   Dick Tracy (1990)
•   RoboCop 2 (1990)
•   Darkman (1990)
•   The Flash (1990-1991)
•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
•   The Rocketeer (1991)
•   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)
•   The Adventures of Tintin (1991-1993)
•   Batman Returns (1992)
•   Porco Rosso (1992)
•   X-Men (1992-1997)
•   Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1995)
•   Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-1997)
•   Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)
•   The Shadow (1994)
•   The Mask (1994)
•   The Tick (1994-1995)
•   Iron Man (1994-1996)
•   Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994-1998)
•   Batman Forever (1995)
•   Ghost in the Shell (1995)

I'm not suggesting all of these films and TV shows are great, but they are all at least entertaining. And some of them are legitimately great IMO. There are lots of fun lesser CBMs and TV shows from this era too, such as The Guyver, Judge Dredd and Power Rangers. Of course there are plenty of stinkers as well, like Barb Wire and Tank Girl. But overall I think it was a good time for comic adaptations. I've always felt that for DC in particular, the period starting with the release of Batman '89 and running up to the debut of Superman: The Animated Series in 1996 was something of a golden age.

But the late nineties – that's a different story.

Me and my friends were obsessed with comics at the time, but comics just weren't trendy the way they are now. Today people jump on the bandwagon of the latest film franchise and then start reading the comics. But in the late nineties the comics were all we had, and the damn wagon didn't have enough horse power to get started, let alone pick up new passengers. Every time a new CBM came out straight-to-video, me and my friends would read about it in a comic book or sci-fi magazine, get really hyped and rent it opening weekend, only to have our enthusiasm savagely crushed. This included such gems as Steel, Generation X, Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and The Phantom. Talk about wasted youth.

Ok, so we know those movies aren't very good now (though I still kind of like The Phantom), but back then we'd always hope the next effort would be the one to start the ball rolling. I vividly recall going to see Spawn with some mates on my 12th birthday and hoping it would be the new Batman '89 that would reinvigorate the genre. But it turned out to be just another false start. And of course we were all hearing rumours about the 5th 'darker' Batman movie that would feature Scarecrow and possibly reunite Burton and Keaton. There were also pre-internet rumours at the time about James Cameron making a Spider-Man film with Schwarzenegger as Doc Ock, Tom Cruise playing Iron Man, and even Jack Nicholson possibly playing Wolverine.

The one rumour that came true was the one about Wesley Snipes playing Blade. And that movie was a godsend to us geeks. It was the first time a superhero movie had been legitimately cool in years. And it was the first time we started to get a sense of the tide turning in the genre's favour. People usually credit X-Men (2000) and Spider-Man (2002) as being the films that revived the superhero genre, and for the wider audience I'm sure that's true. But for those of us reading comics at the time, I cannot overstate how important the first Blade film was.

Obviously there were some good superhero and CBMs in the late nineties, such as Men in Black, Blade and The Mask of Zorro. But the superhero genre had definitely taken a knock. Even if Batman Unchained had managed to address the problems in Schumacher's previous effort, it might have been too little too late by then. If the market's not there for the product, it doesn't matter how good the product is. It'll still flop. A recent example of this would be TMNT 2: Out of the Shadows. Now that's not a particularly good film by any measure, but it is a colossal improvement over the 2014 TMNT movie. But most fans were so burned by the first flick that they didn't give the second one a chance and it flopped. I suspect a similar fate might have befallen Batman Unchained had it actually gone ahead.

[Andrew]

Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

I wonder if he thinks TAS had enough detective work vs. just action.

[The Laughing Fish]

Graham Nolan certainly appreciates Tom Hardy's performance as Bane, but he otherwise went on to voice his disappointment in ALL of the Batman movies:

They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

I wonder if he thinks TAS had enough detective work vs. just action.

I have no way of knowing what would Graham Nolan think, but I wouldn't be surprised if he hated how Bane was portrayed in that show, which he was more of a freak of the week type of villain as opposed to the other villains, as some had a fairly lengthy character arc. But then again, you'll have to remember that Bane was a brand new character who first appeared in the comics in the early 90s, around the same time BTAS had started. For all we know, the writers thought he didn't have the rich history at the time compared to the classic villains. Plus, there's no way the show was ever going to show his true violent potential, as we read in Knightfall.

I'm hard-pressed to find anybody, whether it's a comics personality or a fan, who'd object to BTAS. The show definitely got the tone and the characters right. Batman was definitely a detective and a fighter, but he had experienced his share of personal demons, fears and heartbreak. Besides, the show had adapated many comics storylines by the likes of Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart and Elliot S! Maggin, and a lot of these comics had Batman's detective skills put to the test. The show's legacy and impact on the Batman mythology can never be questioned. Even B&R used a reference to the Heart of Ice episode for Mr. Freeze's backstory.