Star Trek (IDW) comic series

[DIrishB]

So I've never been a huge Star Trek fan, though I always enjoyed The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 when I'd occasionally catch them on TV, and saw most of the movies at various times of my childhood. Never got into the Original Series, Voyager or Enterprise, though.

Anyway, I really enjoyed Abrams' 2009 reboot film of TOS. I loved that it specifically acted as an alternate timeline to the original shows, so it could branch off and do it's own thing while not overwriting the original universe. I also thought the roles were extremely well cast and the film had a great mixture of characterization, humor, and action.

Not long after the film came out, IDW began publishing an ongoing ST series set in the new film universe, acting as a bridge between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. The series basically adapts episodes of the original series with the new timeline crew, while changing things to fit the new continuity and keep readers guessing. It also does occasional new and original stories.

So far they've released:

Star Trek - Nero #1-4 (serves as a sequel to the original universe, TNG specifically, and a prequel to the new film universe, showing how Spock and Nero traveled into the past)

Star Trek #1-40 (ongoing series which adapts episodes from the original series, offers new tales like the current Q Gambit arc, and also offers occasional prequel tales focusing on the backgrounds of specific characters, 36 issues have been published so far)

Star Trek - Countdown to Darkness #1-4 (prequel to Star Trek Into Darkness)

Star Trek - Khan #1-5 (sequel to Star Trek Into Darkness, that focuses on Khan's trial and has him give his backstory and origin)

When Worlds Collide - Spock Confronts the Ultimate Challenge (not actually a IDW ST comic, this short 6-page comic was published in Wired #17.05 magazine, and focuses on the original universe/old Spock as he's stranded on Delta Vega by Nero to witness Vulcan being destroyed, and he thinks back to his childhood through to joining Starfleet; occurs during the film itself)

Anyway, I really enjoy the ongoing. Mike Johnson writes the characters spot on, each having their own voice and transitioning from screen to page very well. He also adapts the original episodes and adds interesting new twists, as well as writing very interesting original tales.

The current arc, The Q Gambit, has the eponymous Q take Kirk and crew to an alternate reality where the Federation lost the Dominion War (something that occurred through DS9's running plot), and interacting with everyone from Sisko, Odo, LaForge, and even Kirk (Shatner version). It's a lot of fun, and as usual Johnson nails the characters. The dialogue fits their personalities perfectly, and Q's dialogue seems like it could be used as a new episode of TNG.

The artwork is reliably fantastic as well. The interiors have extremely competent pencils from various artists that do an amazing job of making the characters look spot on, exactly like their film counterparts (or even series counterparts in regards to the current Q Gambit arc). The covers are also wonderfully done.

Anyway, I've never been a huge Star Trek fan, but overall I do enjoy the new universe presented in Abrams' films, and the comic book does a fantastic job of continuing the story and presenting the various adventures between the first two films, as well as after ST Into Darkness as they're on their 5 year voyage.

If you like Star Trek in general, or just the Abrams films, I highly recommend the IDW series set in the new continuity.

 

[wyokid]

I can confirm that these comics are awesome. They may tie into some really bad films, but they're really good. I should add that I quit after Into Darkness came out because the film killed my interest in that timeline.

 

[DIrishB]

I can confirm that these comics are awesome. They may tie into some really bad films, but they're really good. I should add that I quit after Into Darkness came out because the film killed my interest in that timeline.

Sigh...

There you go with the massive over-exaggeration again. While Into Darkness had it's problems, the first film was great.

"Really bad films"? Are you kidding me? They actually got the general movie-going audience interested in Star Trek again, something it sorely needed. They also respect the source material while trying new things.

I loved that the technology seen in the films is slightly ahead of what's seen in TOS, specifically due to the fact that Starfleet was able to analyze and reverse engineer the scan data on the Narada (Nero's ship from almost 130 years in their future).

The casting was spot on perfect.

The script managed to squeeze in a lot of the ST lore without bogging the films down by it.

They were able to make Kirk the action hero he was always intended in the original series and films, but actually now had the budget and tech to do so beyond punching guys in make-up or suits and phaser battles.

They managed to create an entirely new timeline while respecting the old, and in fact drawing the film's events and that new timeline's creation from the original. That was brilliant.

So, what qualifies them as "really bad films" in your mind? And please, let's not resort to the typical ST fanboy whining that it wasn't "Trek"... that's never been accurately argued at all.

 

[DIrishB]

Also, while I'm not in the habit of relying on others' reviews to show a movie's value, Star Trek (2009) received a 95% critics/91% viewers approval on RottenTomatoes, and Star Trek Into Darkness received an 87%/90% rating.

Those are predominantly good scores. They got similarly strong reviews from most other sites and critics.

The biggest complaints about the films is that they lack much of the exploration and discovery aspect that's so important to the franchise, which I agree with. But they're still a lot of fun, and still definitely qualify as Star Trek for me.

Into Darkness' biggest complaint is Cumberbatch's Khan being white-washed. Again, I agree in that regard, but I understand why Abrams did it, given his insane habit of keeping secrets from the audience before release. If he'd cast an Indian actor in the role, well, no matter what the character was named, it would've been obvious. And keep in mind old school ST fans seem to have no problem with an Indian Sikh character being played by a Mexican actor. Kind of a weird double standard, if you ask me. At least Into Darkness and it's spin off material (the ST - Khan mini series by IDW) explained that he was genetically altered to differentiate his appearance from the well known augment of the late 20th century.

 

[wyokid]

There you go with the massive over-exaggeration again. While Into Darkness had it's problems, the first film was great.

There I go again with the massive opinions.

Anyway, the comics are great. Just expect a lot of stories you've probably already seen.

 

[DIrishB]

There I go again with the massive opinions. Anyway, the comics are great. Just expect a lot of stories you've probably already seen.

You're entitled to your opinions, strange as they often may be. But at least give reasons for it, ideally valid and logical ones, instead of the "Nolan was ashamed to be making Batman movies/Star Trek 2009 is horrible/Ultimates 3 was awesome". You make these illogical blanket statements, often without supporting your opinion or offering valid and fair reasoning.

 

[wyokid]

The first film was generic, riddled with sci-fi cliches, the acting was alright (Chris Pine was really bad), the action was good, the directing was good, they took a culturally groundbreaking character like Uhura and turned her into eye candy, and, while it wasn't terrible, it just felt empty and uninspired. It was a typical Kurtzman and Orci film (writing films based on franchises they know nothing about seems to be a common thing for them). Into Darkness was worse though. I'm going to have to rewatch that though before talking about it. All I remember is how pissed I was at Cumberbatch being completely wasted and them just remaking the ending of Wrath of Khan.

Ultimates 3 was awesome

I never said it was good.

 

[DIrishB]

The first film was generic,

How so?

riddled with sci-fi cliches,

Star Trek as a whole is riddled with sci-fi cliches. Hell, it probably even created a few of them.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You make these illogical reaches to justify your point. It only ends up weakening your argument.

the acting was alright (Chris Pine was really bad),

What? Pine was an awesome Kirk! Dude, you make no sense. I'd even argue Pine's performance was one of the more stand out performances in the whole film.

the action was good, the directing was good,

The lens flare was annoying.

they took a culturally groundbreaking character like Uhura and turned her into eye candy,

Again, a completely false argument to make. How was Uhura in the reboot films any more or less eye candy than in the original series? Hell, the reboot films allowed Uhura more opportunity to shine and display her skills than the majority if the Original Series ever did (at least in regards to the dozen or so episodes of that I've seen).

Once again, you rely on blatantly false arguments to support your point. Let's completely ignore Uhura's actions in translating Klingon and Romulan when no one else could, which played an integral role in the films.

Please, name just ONE instance of how Uhura was used in any less of a capacity than the original series used her character.

and, while it wasn't terrible,

Just "really bad"?

it just felt empty and uninspired.

I've already listed several instances of how the film was quite inspired, so again, you're resorting to oversimplifying to make your point. You were never on a debate team, huh?

It was a typical Kurtzman and Orci film (writing films based on franchises they know nothing about seems to be a common thing for them).

I'd argue it was actually not the typical example of Orci and Kurtzman's films. Both were a thousand times better than any of the TF films, and definitely better than ASM2.

Into Darkness was worse though. I'm going to have to rewatch that though before talking about it. All I remember is how pissed I was at Cumberbatch being completely wasted and them just remaking the ending of Wrath of Khan.

Cumberbatch wasn't wasted. He was given a fair amount of screen time, and Khan's motivations were similar to his motivations in the original universe. Cumberbatch also did a decent job in the role.

While I agree it was stupid to cast a white guy in the role, I do understand the reasoning, though I don't agree with it. An effort to keep something a secret shouldn't dictate casting the role with a completely different racial profile than the character was established as. It's like casting Matt Damon to play Shaft in a remake.

That said, at least they touched on the fact that Khan had undergone surgery/gene alteration to change his appearance.

I never said it was good.

Yet you like it?

 

[wyokid]

How so?

It was riddled with cliches.

Star Trek as a whole is riddled with sci-fi cliches. Hell, it probably even created a few of them.

That still doesn't excuse it. Just because the source material created cliches doesn't mean they had to use them.

What? Pine was an awesome Kirk! Dude, you make no sense. I'd even argue Pine's performance was one of the more stand out performances in the whole film.

I found him incredibly stiff.

The lens flare was annoying.

While it's certainly overused I didn't mind it.

Again, a completely false argument to make. How was Uhura in the reboot films any more or less eye candy than in the original series? Hell, the reboot films allowed Uhura more opportunity to shine and display her skills than the majority if the Original Series ever did (at least in regards to the dozen or so episodes of that I've seen).

Once again, you rely on blatantly false arguments to support your point. Let's completely ignore Uhura's actions in translating Klingon and Romulan when no one else could, which played an integral role in the films.

Please, name just ONE instance of how Uhura was used in any less of a capacity than the original series used her character.

I didn't say she didn't have uses, I said they used her as eye candy and instead of having her be a fleshed out actual character. Watch the original series and you'll see what I mean.

Just "really bad"?

I'd give it a 6/10. When I'm not writing I like to over-exaggerate.

I've already listed several instances of how the film was quite inspired, so again, you're resorting to oversimplifying to make your point. You were never on a debate team, huh?

And I disagreed with you. Also I try to avoid debates as much as possible. I don't like them so if I am debating expect it to not last long.

Both were a thousand times better than any of the TF films, and definitely better than ASM2.

I agree with this as far as the first three TF films and TASM2 are concerned. Age of Extinction was so much fun.

Cumberbatch wasn't wasted. He was given a fair amount of screen time, and Khan's motivations were similar to his motivations in the original universe. Cumberbatch also did a decent job in the role.

While I agree it was stupid to cast a white guy in the role, I do understand the reasoning, though I don't agree with it. An effort to keep something a secret shouldn't dictate casting the role with a completely different racial profile than the character was established as. It's like casting Matt Damon to play Shaft in a remake.

That said, at least they touched on the fact that Khan had undergone surgery/gene alteration to change his appearance.

Again, I'm going to need to watch it again. What frustrates me the most about these movies is that the writers don't understand Star Trek and while the first one is entertaining enough to look past that the second one is them trying to imitate Star Trek without knowing how to actually do that.

Yet you like it?

Love it.

 

[DIrishB]

It was riddled with cliches. That still doesn't excuse it. Just because the source material created cliches doesn't mean they had to use them.

This is a perfect example of the double standard you tend to use.

First, you don't like the Star Trek reboots because they contain cliches. Yet you apparently are ok with the cliches in material like Ultimates 3, Ultimate Hulk Annual, Transformers, etc? How's that work?

Second, can you make even a single movie, novel, or comic released in the last 50 years that hasn't contained some level of cliches? Granted, some more than others, but I certainly wouldn't list the Star Trek reboots anywhere near at the top of that list.

I found him incredibly stiff.

More than Shatner? Lol. Riiiiiiiiight.

While it's certainly overused I didn't mind it. I didn't say she didn't have uses, I said they used her as eye candy and instead of having her be a fleshed out actual character. Watch the original series and you'll see what I mean.

Again, not true. She was established as at the top of her class, extremely competent and competitive, as well as extremely capable and intelligent, all in the first film alone. So the "eye candy" description is a bunch of bull. All keeping in mind that the film was 2-2 1/2 hours, and mainly focused on Kirk and Spock, allowing only a small amount of time for the secondary characters. Uhura got more frame time and development than Chekov, Sulu, etc. Did that make those characters only "eye-candy" too? Or was it Uhura's uniform? If that's the case you should probably be aiming your ire at the costume designers of the original show. The reboot only mimicked that.

I'd give it a 6/10. When I'm not writing I like to over-exaggerate. And I disagreed with you. Also I try to avoid debates as much as possible. I don't like them so if I am debating expect it to not last long.

Trying really hard not to turn that into a "that's what she said joke"... Screw it.

That's what she said.

I agree with this as far as the first three TF films and TASM2 are concerned. Age of Extinction was so much fun.

The only redeeming factor of Age of Extinction was Mark Wahlberg. A far more likeavle leading man than Shia Labeouf.

Again, I'm going to need to watch it again. What frustrates me the most about these movies is that the writers don't understand Star Trek and while the first one is entertaining enough to look past that the second one is them trying to imitate Star Trek without knowing how to actually do that. Love it.

Again, a completely unfair and oversimplified statement, which is your habit. How do they "not understand Star Trek"? I'm beginning to wonder if you even remember anything about the films. The first two films set up the Federation as being more militaristic-minded than the original universe Federation. And that makes sense, given the destruction of Vulcan and the future tech Nero possessed with the Narada that obliterated the Kelvin. By the end of Into Darkness, the actions of Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise had helped change that outlook, and the film's ending offers the beginning of their quest to explore the universe, just like the original series.

They act as semi-prequels to the idea of the original universe, just like Man of Steel did. You seem to take issue with these origin tales offering a transition and growth tale to get to those points of the originals, which confounds me completely since there'd be no point to a prequel tale if it's already showing the elements of the originals and ignoring the starting point aspect.

 

[wyokid]

This is a perfect example of the double standard you tend to use.

First, you don't like the Star Trek reboots because they contain cliches. Yet you apparently are ok with the cliches in material like Ultimates 3, Ultimate Hulk Annual, Transformers, etc? How's that work?

I had fun with those and didn't have fun with Star Trek. That's how.

More than Shatner? Lol. Riiiiiiiiight.

This goes back to what was being said in another thread, just because on is worse doesn't mean the other isn't still bad. Shatner was awesome because he was so over-the-top and campy.

Again, not true. She was established as at the top of her class, extremely competent and competitive, as well as extremely capable and intelligent, all in the first film alone. So the "eye candy" description is a bunch of bull. All keeping in mind that the film was 2-2 1/2 hours, and mainly focused on Kirk and Spock, allowing only a small amount of time for the secondary characters. Uhura got more frame time and development than Chekov, Sulu, etc. Did that make those characters only "eye-candy" too? Or was it Uhura's uniform? If that's the case you should probably be aiming your ire at the costume designers of the original show. The reboot only mimicked that.

Seriously, go watch all of the TOS and compare.

The only redeeming factor of Age of Extinction was Mark Wahlberg. A far more likeavle leading man than Shia Labeouf.

It was in no way a good movie, but, unlike the last three, it was a lot of fun for me. Mark Wahlberg delivered like he did in the unintentionally hilarious film The Happening and was really over-the-top and goofy, Stanley Tucci had a really good character arc, Kelsey Grammer and Lockdown were both insanely dark and evil, Titus Welliver was awesome, with T.J. Miller they finally got a comic relief character right (too bad they killed him off way too early), the Autobots were bright and colorful and actually felt like characters, it was shocking faithful to the source material, the Dinobots were a tad of a letdown but really fun to watch, and they FINALLY got Frank Welker voicing Megatron/Galvatron like in the cartoons. I could go on for days about the bad stuff but I don't really find it necessary because I really enjoyed the film despite it being, technically, the worst one yet.

Again, a completely unfair and oversimplified statement, which is your habit. How do they "not understand Star Trek"? I'm beginning to wonder if you even remember anything about the films. The first two films set up the Federation as being more militaristic-minded than the original universe Federation. And that makes sense, given the destruction of Vulcan and the future tech Nero possessed with the Narada that obliterated the Kelvin. By the end of Into Darkness, the actions of Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise had helped change that outlook, and the film's ending offers the beginning of their quest to explore the universe, just like the original series.

They act as semi-prequels to the idea of the original universe, just like Man of Steel did. You seem to take issue with these origin tales offering a transition and growth tale to get to those points of the originals, which confounds me completely since there'd be no point to a prequel tale if it's already showing the elements of the originals and ignoring the starting point aspect.

They took a story heavy series with little action and made it into an action heavy film with little story.

 

[DIrishB]

I had fun with those and didn't have fun with Star Trek. That's how.

As with most things, you're in the minority there. And that's ok. But don't crap all over something that you personally didn't like when most others did. It's one thing to do that when it's generally a bad story or product, since I do that in those cases. It's another when it's genuinely a worthwhile story or product and you're in the minority in hating it. I'm not asking you to agree, as again, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm asking you to describe why you think things are bad. That's a valid request, I think.

This goes back to what was being said in another thread, just because on is worse doesn't mean the other isn't still bad. Shatner was awesome because he was so over-the-top and campy.

And Pine was an actually relatable and likeavle Kirk. He was only worse in your mind and some other ST fans who have an innate inability to see things done a new way.

Seriously, go watch all of the TOS and compare.

That comes off as a giant copout. You're claiming Uhura in the original series was somehow superior to Uhura in the reboot films, without offering any actual evidence of how or why.

It was in no way a good movie, but, unlike the last three, it was a lot of fun for me. Mark Wahlberg delivered like he did in the unintentionally hilarious film The Happening and was really over-the-top and goofy, Stanley Tucci had a really good character arc, Kelsey Grammer and Lockdown were both insanely dark and evil, Titus Welliver was awesome, with T.J. Miller they finally got a comic relief character right (too bad they killed him off way too early), the Autobots were bright and colorful and actually felt like characters, it was shocking faithful to the source material, the Dinobots were a tad of a letdown but really fun to watch, and they FINALLY got Frank Welker voicing Megatron/Galvatron like in the cartoons. I could go on for days about the bad stuff but I don't really find it necessary because I really enjoyed the film despite it being, technically, the worst one yet.

That I agree with. TJ Miller should be in everything.

They took a story heavy series with little action and made it into an action heavy film with little story.

Another blatantly false summation. Did the reboots feature more action? Sure. To claim they had little story is ridiculously incorrect. There was loads of story and plot in both films, as well as large amounts of characterization and backstory for the main characters (Kirk and Spock). I seriously wonder if you go into things with preconceived notions about why you won't like them, thus making it impossible for you to actually watch of read them with an open mind and appreciate them fairly. This goes back to the Ultimates 1-2 debate, the Nolan Batman "he's embarrassed to be making a Batman movie" debate, and this debate.

 

[wyokid]

As with most things, you're in the minority there. And that's ok. But don't crap all over something that you personally didn't like when most others did. It's one thing to do that when it's generally a bad story or product, since I do that in those cases. It's another when it's genuinely a worthwhile story or product and you're in the minority in hating it. I'm not asking you to agree, as again, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm asking you to describe why you think things are bad. That's a valid request, I think.

In the group of people I interact with these films get crapped on like crazy. I am so used to other people just agreeing that they sucked. I should mention that I have one Star Trek fan friend and he liked these movies so I'm aware people like them, it just seemed to me like he was the minority since I, like, never talk about Star Trek online.

I seriously wonder if you go into things with preconceived notions about why you won't like them, thus making it impossible for you to actually watch of read them with an open mind and appreciate them fairly.

I may have opinions and stuff before hand but I always leave them at the door. In fact, leading up to the Spider-Man reboot and even it's sequel I was crapping all over it but once I entered the theater I wanted them to be good. I really don't like watching stuff that's not entertaining. I want things to be good. Heck, I used to like Nolan's Batman trilogy.

 

[DIrishB]

In the group of people I interact with these films get crapped on like crazy. I am so used to other people just agreeing that they sucked. I should mention that I have one Star Trek fan friend and he liked these movies so I'm aware people like them, it just seemed to me like he was the minority since I, like, never talk about Star Trek online.

I'm wondering if your group of friends are the stereotypical fanboys who hate just about everything. Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, still one of the most accurate parodies of a pop culture sub-group.

And again, while I don't base my opinions on reviews and other peoples' opinions, the ratings for both films (both in terms of critics and general audiences) were extremely positive. Now you could argue that those reviewers "don't get Star Trek", and that may be true for some, but I do "get" Star Trek. The reboots were entertaining, engaging, and still loaded with the spirit of the original series and universe.

I may have opinions and stuff before hand but I always leave them at the door. In fact, leading up to the Spider-Man reboot and even it's sequel I was crapping all over it but once I entered the theater I wanted them to be good. I really don't like watching stuff that's not entertaining. I want things to be good. Heck, I used to like Nolan's Batman trilogy.

I get not liking certain things, it's only natural. But at least give valid arguments instead of relying on oversimplified (to the point of inaccuracy) blanket statements.

And you used to like Nolan's Batman trilogy, but now don't? Why? I'm still waiting on a reason for that besides the "Nolan was ashamed to be making Batman movies" excuse, which is ludicrous when you think about it. A more realistic approach doesn't equal "being ashamed of the source material". As I said, I don't get why you're so opposed to new approaches. We had the goofy Batman show and film from the 1960's. We had the hyper realistic and still somewhat goofy approach of Burton, the insanely over the top toy commercials posing as movies by Schumacher, and the wonderful animated series of the 1990's (also with several of it's own films). Why is a grounded and more realistic approach as Nolan took so bad, in your opinion?

You want things to be good. We all do. Are you seriously suggesting Nolan's films weren't good? I mean, I can accept that opinion about the third one, and (it's a stretch) maybe even the first, but the second is bar none the finest Batman film ever made. How do you find fault with it? Even as a whole, the trilogy is extremely good.

 

[wyokid]

I'm wondering if your group of friends are the stereotypical fanboys who hate just about everything. Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, still one of the most accurate parodies of a pop culture sub-group.

They actually aren't nerdy at all. I have very few nerdy friends. It's a lonely road, but it's the only one I've ever known...please kill me.

Why is a grounded and more realistic approach as Nolan took so bad, in your opinion?

Never said the approach was bad. I said I didn't like it because they were crime dramas that were ashamed of having Batman in them. That's all. I've just been quietly sitting here as you come up with your own reasons for me not liking something.

You want things to be good. We all do. Are you seriously suggesting Nolan's films weren't good? I mean, I can accept that opinion about the third one, and (it's a stretch) maybe even the first, but the second is bar none the finest Batman film ever made. How do you find fault with it? Even as a whole, the trilogy is extremely good.

Never said they weren't well made films (except the third). Also the 1966 Batman film is the best with Mask of Phantasm following it.

WE'RE SO OFF-TOPIC!

 

[DIrishB]

They actually aren't nerdy at all. I have very few nerdy friends. It's a lonely road, but it's the only one I've ever known...please kill me.

I didn't mean nerdy in the sense of being nerdy, I meant it in the sense of being overly critical of just about every aspect of pop culture, often without valid reasons. There is a strong culture of hate and trolling amongst comic fans for just about everything that doesn't measure up to their unrealistic and unattainable expectations.

Never said the approach was bad. I said I didn't like it because they were crime dramas that were ashamed of having Batman in them. That's all.

In case you weren't aware, most of Batman's comic stories are crime dramas, with various other elements. Not sure how what Nolan did wasn't true to that in your mind. And you still haven't explained how they were ashamed of having Batman in them, nor will you, I expect, because it's a ludicrous claim that you've drawn from a self righteous Tweet by a comic book writer (who also never clarified or explained the point). It's idiotic.

I've just been quietly sitting here as you come up with your own reasons for me not liking something.

You make ludicrous claims and fail to back them up. What am I supposed to do? At least I'm trying to understand your thought-process, difficult and illogical as it may be.

Never said they weren't well made films (except the third). Also the 1966 Batman film is the best with Mask of Phantasm following it.

I'm well aware you love camp and nonsense. But Batman '66 sucks compared to The Dark Knight. Mask of the Phantasm is great, but still not at good as TDK.

WE'RE SO OFF-TOPIC!

It's what I do best. Well, that and argue with you.

 

[wyokid]

I didn't mean nerdy in the sense of being nerdy, I meant it in the sense of being overly critical of just about every aspect of pop culture, often without valid reasons. There is a strong culture of hate and trolling amongst comic fans for just about everything that doesn't measure up to their unrealistic and unattainable expectations.

They aren't that either.

In case you weren't aware, most of Batman's comic stories are crime dramas, with various other elements. Not sure how what Nolan did wasn't true to that in your mind. And you still haven't explained how they were ashamed of having Batman in them, nor will you, I expect, because it's a ludicrous claim that you've drawn from a self righteous Tweet by a comic book writer (who also never clarified or explained the point). It's idiotic.

And I thought it before he posted that on Tumblr.

You make ludicrous claims and fail to back them up. What am I supposed to do? At least I'm trying to understand your thought-process, difficult and illogical as it may be.

No, I state opinions you don't agree with and don't back them up. Big difference. Also I don't need to back anything up. If you don't like it then that's your problem not mine. And with that, I'm done.

 

[DIrishB]

They aren't that either. And I thought it before he posted that on Tumblr. No, I state opinions you don't agree with and don't back them up. Big difference. Also I don't need to back anything up. If you don't like it then that's your problem not mine. And with that, I'm done.

It's not my problem. I'm pointing out your inability to back up and explain your points and logic. That sounds like more of a problem for you.

 

[DIrishB]

They aren't that either. And I thought it before he posted that on Tumblr. No, I state opinions you don't agree with and don't back them up. Big difference. Also I don't need to back anything up. If you don't like it then that's your problem not mine. And with that, I'm done.

Cop out, man. You claimed Nolan's Batman films are crime dramas that are ashamed to have Batman in them. You've never explained that reasoning, nor do I think you'll be able to, considering Batman comics are largely crime dramas in and of themselves, with various other elements. So they were true to the source material, so we have only your claim "they were ashamed to have Batman in them" to examine. I truly believe you'll never even address or explain it, because you can't. It is a ludicrous claim. It may be your opinion, but it's wrong on every level. You yourself claimed you liked Nolan's trilogy, and now don't, apparently because they're crime dramas? Does that mean you don't like Batman stories that are crime dramas as well? You seriously make no sense.

 

[wyokid]

Cop out, man. You claimed Nolan's Batman films are crime dramas that are ashamed to have Batman in them. You've never explained that reasoning, nor do I think you'll be able to, considering Batman comics are largely crime dramas in and of themselves, with various other elements. So they were true to the source material, so we have only your claim "they were ashamed to have Batman in them" to examine. I truly believe you'll never even address or explain it, because you can't. It is a ludicrous claim. It may be your opinion, but it's wrong on every level. You yourself claimed you liked Nolan's trilogy, and now don't, apparently because they're crime dramas? Does that mean you don't like Batman stories that are crime dramas as well? You seriously make no sense.

I love crime dramas. These movies did that very well. The first two are incredibly well made films and are perfectly valid interpretations. I just don't care for them due to the choices with the character they have made. They want to be realistic hard hitting crime dramas but they have a guy dressed as a bat running around so they can't be. That scenario is completely ludicrous. Then there's the marketing where they take the focus off of Batman and heavily focus on the villains who ARE realistic. They're proud of that accomplishment so they show it off and spend less time showing off the titular character. They've made a Batman who only broods. There's little light in him which, for me, makes him less human. He's always down in the dumps and is very "poor me". He's not a character I enjoy watching because until the end of the third film there's no turn around for him which makes the whole film, especially The Dark Knight, very boring to me. Everything around Batman is great but much like The Amazing Spider-Man the film fails to great the character who matters right. There's your reason.