EDITORIAL: No Love For Nolan?

    Christopher Nolan is rightly criticized by many fans but his work as well as his accomplishments is undeniably great. He was given a dead franchise and was expected to not only turn it around but to undue the damage done to the franchise by Joel Schumacher. In examining Christopher Nolan let us be honest with ourselves, before he took over Batman the character was and could never be taken seriously. Tim Burton's Batman for all of its great achievements was pure art deco were criminals like the Joker could fry individuals to a Skeletal crisp with an electrical hand buzzer. His Batman was more fantasy based theatricality than a practical and grounded film therefore Selina Kyle could die and be reincarnated by cats and a monstrously deformed man who was abandoned by his parents can grow up in the sewer by subsisting on raw fish.

    Following that depiction of the dark Knight came campy over the top colorful villains whom were better suited to the 60's TV show than a live action movie, oh let's not forget the Bat nipples and crotch pieces. Of course today with Heath Ledger winning an Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker no one conveniently remembers the history of Batman on film and television. The fact that an actor is able to win such a prestigious award based off a character in a superhero comic book is because of Nolan's work on Batman. Audiences, critics and the world can only take a character seriously if it is portrayed seriously on screen therefore Nolan's work is as serious as heart attack.

    Too many Batman's take for granted and don't appreciate the work this man has done for them as well as this franchise and the character they love. Come let us reason together my fellow Bat fans who want a more fantastic caped crusader. Robin is not possible in Nolan's work or anyone for else's version of the character without raising eyebrows and troubling questions. Seriously can a grown man take a orphan preadolescent youth he adopted with him to fight crime on the rooftops of Gotham without audiences and critics raising questions about child endangerment? In this era of Jerry Sandusky and child molestation does not it seem creepy to you that an older man would seek company with much younger boys. If you make Robin older than he is in the comics than what is the purpose of him being Batman's ward when he could be his own independent crime fighter like Nightwing and why will someone who is 18 or 20 subjugate himself to the wish of a controlling overprotective Bruce Wayne?

    The problem with a more fantastical Batman is that he loses much of the seriousness found in Nolan's films and becomes just another comic book movie superhero that feature's a giant CGI lizard man. The most important element of a Batman film is not reality so much as it is keeping the character grounded as well as relatable to the audience and without that he becomes generic a superhero in a genre that is visually and imaginatively excessive. For example in a world of freeze rays, giant man-bats, shape shifting men of clay, phytokinetic women who naturally secret floral toxins and mad scientist that can transform humans in titanic monstrous beings, Batman becomes more a monster hunter of weird and strange creatures than the gothic billionaire crime fighter. Going this route alienates those who would like see a more real world hero whose experience is intertwined with humanity and at the bare minimum be somewhat believable. There is a difference between what can happen in the comics and what happens on film that difference should be respected.

    For Bat fans who want Batman films closer to The Avengers well let's examine the movie. The Avengers is a fun action packed superhero flick that is without question a thoroughly entertaining film but even in this comic book adaption there is an artistic license that is being taken with the characters. Tony Stark is not the same troubled alcoholic that he is in the comics, Thor is the guardian of the planet despite the fact that he spent less time on it than ET, and Bruce Banner is no longer a brooding fugitive desperately taking pints of his own blood looking for a cure for his gamma poisoning. Attempting to point out areas where Nolan departed from the comics without calling out Joss Whedon, Louis Leterrir and Sam Raimi for their departures is hypocritical and a presenting a double standard. What worked for The Avengers cannot work for Batman because Gotham's dark knight is a completely different character and deserves to be treated as such. Having a light colorful Batman will do more to take the character back to the days of Joel Schumacher instead of forward into the future. Creating a Batman movie that is fun with plot driven instead of character driven humor and loud action CGI sequences is an abomination to the character because he is a scary hardedge masked crime fighter who breaks legs, bust heads and get results.

    Those who eagerly look forward to a Nolan free Batman series do so ignorant of the history of Hollywood franchises. There are no franchises other than James Bond who consistently has had good directors and even in that case the filmmakers followed a set thematic pattern for that character. The Batman franchise has already defied history by having two great directors and I doubt there will be a third any time soon because at some point the franchise must come down to earth. Understand no superhero comic book franchise to date has ever received two great filmmakers and some Batman fans are hoping for three or four which is unbelievable even by James Bond standards. Nolan is a once in lifetime filmmaker after him who will Bat fans turn to keep the dark knight culturally relevant, emotionally impactful and still have the cinematic appeal as well as legitimacy to win top awards. As the old timers like to say "you never miss your water until your well run dry"