The Batman (Matt Reeves)

Begbie said:
Personally couldn't care unless they have a strong character trait that is based on their race but in this case Gordon doesn't and well it's really irrelevant the colour of Gordons skin.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think the issue in the past has been that the race to diversify as quickly as possible has led to studios pushing actors of lesser ability into the role and giving them poor scripts to use, all of which make the final product worse than it should have been, leading to fans getting understandably annoyed.

However when the actor and script are good enough then their race (or gender etc) makes no difference, for example Aquaman using Jason Mamoa, Nick Fury in the MCU or Dr Watson being played by Lucy Lui etc - all of which are fully accepted without issue. It's only ever an issue when there is a combination of a poor actor and/or a poor script that 95% of fans start to complain, although there will always be that tiny 5% that complain regardless.
 
ianh said:
I agree, but I think the issue in the past has been that the race to diversify as quickly as possible has led to studios pushing actors of lesser ability into the role and giving them poor scripts to use, all of which make the final product worse than it should have been, leading to fans getting understandably annoyed.

However when the actor and script are good enough then their race (or gender etc) makes no difference, for example Aquaman using Jason Mamoa, Nick Fury in the MCU or Dr Watson being played by Lucy Lui etc - all of which are fully accepted without issue. It's only ever an issue when there is a combination of a poor actor and/or a poor script that 95% of fans start to complain, although there will always be that tiny 5% that complain regardless.
Click to expand...

Agreed, using people to tick boxes is wrong. But the right people, in the right jobs and anything else doesn't matter. Make Batman Japanese for all I care, as long as it works then it doesn't matter one single bit.
 
Begbie said:
Agreed, using people to tick boxes is wrong. But the right people, in the right jobs and anything else doesn't matter. Make Batman Japanese for all I care, as long as it works then it doesn't matter one single bit.
Click to expand...

Does to me, but only from a literature purist viewpoint. Thats life though and its good for everyone to have different viewpoints or the world stagnates.
 
I'd rather film makers not be shackled by the elitism, prejudice, or maybe just plain old shortsightedness of the original creators, or by the backwards social views that existed in the time it was written. And surely implanting a completely new character is worse than changing an existing character's skin colour... from a literary purist's point of view?
 
Random Guy Esq. said:
I'd rather film makers not be shackled by the elitism, prejudice, or maybe just plain old shortsightedness of the original creators, or by the backwards social views that existed in the time it was written. And surely implanting a completely new character is worse than changing an existing character's skin colour... from a literary purist's point of view?
Click to expand...


Exactly if your a literary purist, surely you don't want movies being made as it'll taint the original literary? It's ok to change or adapt the story, but a skin colour - oh hell no.
 
Random Guy Esq. said:
I'd rather film makers not be shackled by the elitism, prejudice, or maybe just plain old shortsightedness of the original creators, or by the backwards social views that existed in the time it was written. And surely implanting a completely new character is worse than changing an existing character's skin colour... from a literary purist's point of view?
Click to expand...

Not at all because that isnt alteration, its creation. I'd much rather someone created a whole new character within the lore of a literary world , with its own backstory, demeanour and naunces than simply alter a pre-existing (in some cases pre-existing for hundreds of years) character. Like I say though, everyone has their own viewpoints and I am not here to try and make people have the same viewpoint as me, that wouldnt be the right way to behave.
 
Begbie said:
Exactly if your a literary purist, surely you don't want movies being made as it'll taint the original literary? It's ok to change or adapt the story, but a skin colour - oh hell no.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with making a movie of something, a movie doesnt have to taint, it can remain faithful. As for the skin colour comment, if thats all you have taken from my posts then I would say you are attempting to make my posts be about an agenda it isnt about.
 
No1newts said:
Batman would be better as a high budget TV series, the character has so much to him having him punch people for 3 hours and using a gravelly accent just doesn't capture him.

Wish they would just leave the character alone and DC in general give up on adaptions as they are just godawful at at despite having better source material (arguably)
Click to expand...
Completely agree with this. The only time he's been done consistently well outside of the Nolen universe is the animated films and series
 
Tombstone said:
Nothing wrong with making a movie of something, a movie doesnt have to taint, it can remain faithful. As for the skin colour comment, if thats all you have taken from my posts then I would say you are attempting to make my posts be about an agenda it isnt about.
Click to expand...

Not at all, just being able to change one thing and not another doesn't come across as purist. It's deciding on somethings to change, and not others.
 
Begbie said:
Not at all, just being able to change one thing and not another doesn't come across as purist. It's deciding on somethings to change, and not others.
Click to expand...

Adding a new character isnt changing a character, thats the main difference as I see it. Providing of course that the newly added character doesnt directly contradict the original source material, for example we're told that Alfred doesnt have a son, so couldnt really add a new character who is Alfreds son as that would contradict the source. So any newly created added character has to fit into the accepted literal boundaries of the pre-defined characters backstories.
 
Tombstone said:
Adding a new character isnt changing a character, thats the main difference as I see it. Providing of course that the newly added character doesnt directly contradict the original source material, for example we're told that Alfred doesnt have a son, so couldnt really add a new character who is Alfreds son as that would contradict the source. So any newly created added character has to fit into the accepted literal boundaries of the pre-defined characters backstories.
Click to expand...

Surely though all movies change something from the source? Espically the Batman movies. Costume design, hair colours, the accents. Change of weapons? Change of cars? Aren't they breaking the orginal source material?

Or that some are set in modern times, some aren't surely that's a huge change that alters it? The orginal source doesn't have the tech we've seen in modern Batman stuff.
 
Begbie said:
Surely though all movies change something from the source? Espically the Batman movies. Costume design, hair colours, the accents. Change of weapons? Change of cars? Aren't they breaking the orginal source material?

Or that some are set in modern times, some aren't surely that's a huge change that alters it? The orginal source doesn't have the tech we've seen in modern Batman stuff.
Click to expand...

Most do yes, which is why I said in my first post "I know of course that most things arent faithful to their source material". The point of having a principle or a belief though is that you dont immediately drop that belief just because there are other examples against it. Its my belief that , as I said before, if you are going to copy someone elses creation rather than create your own, then you ought to do everything you can to be faithful to their creation. That stands as my belief whether there is one film which doesnt do it or 1 trillion films which dont do it. As said, its only my belief and I write these posts purely to explain the reasoning behind my belief rather than to force others to agree with it or believe the same.
 
Tombstone said:
To be honest, I'd rather Gordon was kept in line with the literature representation of Gordon. Much as how I wouldnt want a black Gandalf or Will Smith playing Sherlock Holmes. Not because of any SJW/woke reason but because literature (even the "simplest" form of literature) is quite important to me and I believe should be kept as close to the original source as possible.
Click to expand...

Tombstone said:
If it were me, I'd keep Jeffery Wright , because he is a superb actor and simply have him play as a new character, Commissioner Davis or something. Could even wrap it into the story, have Gordon be killed early on or offscreen by Penguin or something and the new Commissioner comes in.
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind Jim Gordon is very much alive in the current Batman run, you may have to pick one of those hills to die upon :p

Of course, the biggest problem with getting to hung up on the source literature is...which Batman is it? The comics are 100% clear that there is a DC multiverse, so just tell yourself it's one of the many unexplored ones that this film happens in ;). Even the Flash film is going to confirm that Affleck's and Keaton's Batmans (Batmen?) both exist, just not in the same place.


Tombstone said:
its just something that makes me sigh and wish that the original literature was kept intact and unaltered.
Click to expand...

Which is the original literature for Batman? Golden age? Silver age? Pre or post Crisis (and which Crisis?)? Flashpoint? New 52? Rebirth? Millerverse? Convergence? Elseworlds? It's not worth doing the mental gymnastics for a comic that's been running for 80 years with a main character who has somehow stayed in his late 20s/early 30s :D
 
Chiwetel Ejiofor would make a good comissoner.

Cat woman, for me needs someone that has Sassy insane but not in the Margot way. Charlene Theron in character springs to mind.
If you wanted a great zany actress That could flick to hard nails for joker.. Salam Hayek would be good.
 
NickK said:
Chiwetel Ejiofor would make a good comissoner.

Cat woman, for me needs someone that has Sassy insane but not in the Margot way. Charlene Theron in character springs to mind.
If you wanted a great zany actress That could flick to hard nails for joker.. Salam Hayek would be good.
Click to expand...

I heard a good suggestion of Aubrey Plaza. She looks the part and is very charismatic on screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom