“If there are no superheroes in Nolan’s vision, then why did he choose to make the Joker a supervillian?”

Well, he didn’t. He wasn’t superpowered, he didn’t have flashy lairs or doomsday devices or plans for global domination. Just cheap weapons and explosives, willing helpers, and a taste for theatrics (like his nemesis). The Joker was portrayed (realistically) as a terrorist. which is alot less “supervillian-y” than, say, the leader of an ancient cult of ninjas who have infiltrated seemingly every level of society (sound familiar?)

Nolan’s maintained his vision. TDK had the same (if not, higher) level of realism as BB. And it continued on from BB thematically. The idea of batman as a symbol was fairly extensively examined, as alot of the movie centered on Bruce struggling to live up to the symbol he created because, as you said, he’s just a man and not a superhero.

This is quote from Nolan from the LA Times in Oct., ‘08:

“…Is this a world in which comic books already exist? Is this a world in which superheroes already exist? If you think of “Batman Begins” and you think of the philosophy of this character trying to reinvent himself as a symbol, we took the position — we didn’t address it directly in the film, but we did take the position philosophically — that superheroes simply don’t exist. If they did, if Bruce knew of Superman or even of comic books, then that’s a completely different decision that he’s making when he puts on a costume in an attempt to become a symbol. It’s a paradox and a conundrum, but what we did is go back to the very original concept and idea of the character. ..”

If there are no superheroes in Nolan’s vision, then why did he choose to make the Joker a supervillian? Supervillians wouldn’t exist either. I don’t think Nolan gave this enough thought. Batman is actually the most un-superhero of the superheroes because he has no superpowers. He’s just a man. I feel this aspect alone is what Nolan should have thought more about. It’s a better idea to take a man without superpowers and put him in the real world because Batman is the most real of all the comic book heroes. Doing this is not a stretch.

So face it, for whatever reason Nolan reneged on his original vision. All Nolan did with The Dark Knight was remove Tim Burton’s and Joel Schumacher’s art deco set pieces, as well as CGI. In its place, he made Gotham a real city, and wrangled up a critically acclaimed cast to provide a semblance of the realism he initially said he wanted in his films, as well as to try to camouflage a ridiculous plot. Very disappointing.

I also hear people complain about two-face. They say no one could survive with an injury like that. Correct. Which is why they killed him off. The only real issue for me was how his left eye was generally unharmed. It would have been cool for it to be paled over.

But all in all, TDK was a great movie. So what if it pushed credibility. It happens all the time. Superman movies are ALL unbelievable(ly lame). I would NEVER want Superman in a movie with Batman because there is no need for superman to piggyback on Batman’s success. If Sup wants a good movie, go make a good movie, asshole

Johnny: Congratulations. You have proven you’re nothing more than a half-brained person who can’t read. The author stated that he would forgive Nolan for excluding the possibility of using Superman IF the films were as realistic as Nolan wants them to be. But since Nolan wasn’t even able of accomplishing that, then that throws out of the window Nolan’s excuse to make the films so pseudo-realistic.

Benedict XVI: Seems like your IQ is EVEN lower than Johnny. The author NEVER stated that Superman would work in Begins.

What’s funny is how these TDK fanboys swarm over a two month’s old site and try to bash it in a misled notion of stating their opinions as fact and being blinded by the hype still. Sad.