- Welcome to Batman-Online.com.
Recent posts
#1
Batman Forever (1995) / Connection to the Burton films
Last post by eledoremassis02 - Yesterday at 15:08Has anyone found subtle connections to Batman and Returns?
- Catwoman being referenced
- Jack killing the Waynes flashback'
- Batman mentioning Joker/jack
One I just found
Some props are being sold and one of the covers features Bruce Wayne with a Gotham Globe paper
- Catwoman being referenced
- Jack killing the Waynes flashback'
- Batman mentioning Joker/jack
One I just found
Some props are being sold and one of the covers features Bruce Wayne with a Gotham Globe paper
#2
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by The Dark Knight - Yesterday at 00:23Quote from: Slash Man on Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 03:50I do like how it reiterates how important the first film is and doesn't try to minimize it. We see the whole scope and the fallout of the Joker's chemical attack on the city, which isn't something that would go away overnight. The pattern with sequels is to take the lazier route by making the threats larger and the stakes higher (i.e. another, larger Death Star-like superweapon in Star Wars films). Even though the Joker is dead and can't go on to be Batman's constant rival, it's well established that he left a legacy and continues to haunt Batman.That aspect is good. Joker wasn't around long but he burned brightly, becoming a role model rather than a failure to the criminal population. I'm wanting to finish another book before jumping in to Resurrection fully, but from what I've read Miller does have some neat touches in here. I liked people buying the paint smeared works from the museum and Shreck being behind arson (as he would also do in BR). The early Bruce/Alfred conversations seem okay. Julie Madison being in Bruce's room is reminiscent of Vicki. I'm hoping Revolution leans in even harder to its closer proximity to Returns, such as the circus gang (Gordon says they're back in BR).
#3
Animated Batman / Re: Batman Beyond
Last post by The Dark Knight - Yesterday at 00:11That clip stoked the Beyond fire in me again. It depicts Neo Gotham really well, and the flying sequences are pretty much how I'd like them to be in live action. Nice to hear Roger Craig Smith lending his voice to this too.
#4
Movies / Re: The Star Trek Thread
Last post by Silver Nemesis - Fri, 22 Nov 2024, 14:28I haven't looked into different interpretations yet, but since this was released to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Generations I'm assuming the film represents Kirk's final spiritual journey following his death. This is what he experienced after he said 'Oh my'. He sees his life flashing before him. He sees the youthful Captain Kirk, the middle-aged Admiral Kirk, and finally the old Kirk he was when he died on Veridian III.
Mitchell was the first major enemy he faced, but also his one-time friend. Maybe his inclusion symbolises death; a personification of the destruction of Kirk's corporeal self. Or maybe he represents Kirk's perception of God's judgement. Alternatively the film might be suggesting that Mitchell is still alive in some sense, having transcended his physical form to become a watcher observing Kirk's life story play out on the cosmic stage.
The 'unification' alluded to in the title seems to be that of Kirk and Spock's souls after they die. Time is a property of the material universe, so it follows that Kirk's incorporeal self would no longer be subject to it. So when Kirk dies his spirit travels through time and space to home in on Spock at the moment of his death. They make that last journey into the undiscovered country together, and we, the fans, are given the final reunion that Generations denied us.
The only thing missing is McCoy, but then Bones technically never died. The grumpy old git was still alive in the first TNG episode 'Encounter at Farpoint'. Including his spirit would've entailed acknowledging his death, which is perhaps something the filmmakers preferred to avoid. But I'm pretty sure McCoy would've predeceased Spock, and that his spirit would've been there to welcome him on the other side.
Something I didn't pick up on when I first watched this film is that the Vulcan man standing behind Saavik is Spock's son. This refers to a deleted subplot in Star Trek IV where Saavik was revealed to be carrying Spock's child after they performed the Vulcan ritual on the Genesis planet in Star Trek III. That's why Saavik remained on Vulcan with Spock's mother when the other Starfleet members returned to Earth.
The Critical Drinker reacted very emotionally to this film in his review, and I think one of the reasons it hits a nerve is that it's the first time we've seen the Prime Kirk – the real Kirk – in thirty years. Over the past fifteen years we've been inundated with counterfeit Nu Trek and Kirk imposters. But Shatner, in addition to producing this film, also performed in it. The real Kirk finally came back, and sadly this might be the last time he ever plays the role. It's a moving coda to all the adventures we shared with him in the past. It also serves as a symbolic reconciliation between Shatner and Nimoy, who'd had a falling out prior to the latter's death and weren't on speaking terms. Of course it's not a real reconciliation between the actors, but it represents Shatner's desire to be reconciled with his old friend.
As a piece of filmmaking, it evokes classic Trek in a way modern epigonic Trek doesn't. It's a quiet artistic film without any dialogue. A serene exploration of the soul's transcendence of death and the heart's devotion to lasting friendship. In short, it's a film about the human condition, which is fundamentally what classic Star Trek was all about.
Here's another short film in the same series that was released last year. This one also takes place in the aftermath of Generations and focuses on Spock's reaction to Kirk's death.
I like the flashback to the destruction of the Enterprise in Star Trek III. As if Spock is reflecting on everything Kirk sacrificed to resurrect him following his own death and mourning his inability to return the favour now. It captures the powerlessness of bereavement.
The 765874 in the titles refers to the serial number of Yeoman J. M. Colt, who featured in the TOS pilot episode 'The Cage'. I have no idea what the significance of her serial number is. Maybe it's explained in one of the other films in the series.
Mitchell was the first major enemy he faced, but also his one-time friend. Maybe his inclusion symbolises death; a personification of the destruction of Kirk's corporeal self. Or maybe he represents Kirk's perception of God's judgement. Alternatively the film might be suggesting that Mitchell is still alive in some sense, having transcended his physical form to become a watcher observing Kirk's life story play out on the cosmic stage.
The 'unification' alluded to in the title seems to be that of Kirk and Spock's souls after they die. Time is a property of the material universe, so it follows that Kirk's incorporeal self would no longer be subject to it. So when Kirk dies his spirit travels through time and space to home in on Spock at the moment of his death. They make that last journey into the undiscovered country together, and we, the fans, are given the final reunion that Generations denied us.
The only thing missing is McCoy, but then Bones technically never died. The grumpy old git was still alive in the first TNG episode 'Encounter at Farpoint'. Including his spirit would've entailed acknowledging his death, which is perhaps something the filmmakers preferred to avoid. But I'm pretty sure McCoy would've predeceased Spock, and that his spirit would've been there to welcome him on the other side.
Something I didn't pick up on when I first watched this film is that the Vulcan man standing behind Saavik is Spock's son. This refers to a deleted subplot in Star Trek IV where Saavik was revealed to be carrying Spock's child after they performed the Vulcan ritual on the Genesis planet in Star Trek III. That's why Saavik remained on Vulcan with Spock's mother when the other Starfleet members returned to Earth.
The Critical Drinker reacted very emotionally to this film in his review, and I think one of the reasons it hits a nerve is that it's the first time we've seen the Prime Kirk – the real Kirk – in thirty years. Over the past fifteen years we've been inundated with counterfeit Nu Trek and Kirk imposters. But Shatner, in addition to producing this film, also performed in it. The real Kirk finally came back, and sadly this might be the last time he ever plays the role. It's a moving coda to all the adventures we shared with him in the past. It also serves as a symbolic reconciliation between Shatner and Nimoy, who'd had a falling out prior to the latter's death and weren't on speaking terms. Of course it's not a real reconciliation between the actors, but it represents Shatner's desire to be reconciled with his old friend.
As a piece of filmmaking, it evokes classic Trek in a way modern epigonic Trek doesn't. It's a quiet artistic film without any dialogue. A serene exploration of the soul's transcendence of death and the heart's devotion to lasting friendship. In short, it's a film about the human condition, which is fundamentally what classic Star Trek was all about.
Here's another short film in the same series that was released last year. This one also takes place in the aftermath of Generations and focuses on Spock's reaction to Kirk's death.
I like the flashback to the destruction of the Enterprise in Star Trek III. As if Spock is reflecting on everything Kirk sacrificed to resurrect him following his own death and mourning his inability to return the favour now. It captures the powerlessness of bereavement.
The 765874 in the titles refers to the serial number of Yeoman J. M. Colt, who featured in the TOS pilot episode 'The Cage'. I have no idea what the significance of her serial number is. Maybe it's explained in one of the other films in the series.
#5
Movies / Re: The Star Trek Thread
Last post by The Joker - Fri, 22 Nov 2024, 08:42Very interesting video.
No doubt, it's very impressive.
Is there some sort of info/consensus on the significance of Gary Mitchell's brief appearance?
#7
Arkhamverse Video Games / Re: New Batman: Arkham Game Co...
Last post by Silver Nemesis - Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 17:18Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League has been nominated for 'DEI Slop Flop of the Year' at The Real Game Awards. It's up against some pretty stiff competition, mind.
Meanwhile the $100 deluxe edition of Kill the Justice League is now selling for just five bucks.
Meanwhile the $100 deluxe edition of Kill the Justice League is now selling for just five bucks.
#8
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by Slash Man - Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 03:50Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 11:15If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie.Agreed. Clayface is just below the A-list villains, but still has enough of a history to be recognized as a classic villain. I'm not one for making comic book characters so grounded that they lose all style, and I think Clayface struck a good balance when it comes to resembling the character, but only gradually leaning into the more fantastic elements. I'd love to have seen him brought to life through practical effects in the early 90s and not a giant shapeshifting CGI monster as would likely be the case in more modern times.
I do like how it reiterates how important the first film is and doesn't try to minimize it. We see the whole scope and the fallout of the Joker's chemical attack on the city, which isn't something that would go away overnight. The pattern with sequels is to take the lazier route by making the threats larger and the stakes higher (i.e. another, larger Death Star-like superweapon in Star Wars films). Even though the Joker is dead and can't go on to be Batman's constant rival, it's well established that he left a legacy and continues to haunt Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 11:15Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.This was tough to portray in a lot of the older comics, and likely tougher to portray in a novel. I believe Keaton fought Daniel Waters when it came to the Batman Returns script, arguing it was too wordy. He successfully trimmed down the dialogue. Keaton does one of the best Bat-voices, but I also can't imagine him doing it very long when reading some of the dialogue.
But I agree, this had much more of the feel of films than the comic.
#9
Animated Batman / Re: Batman Beyond
Last post by Travesty - Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 19:29Yeah, I watched this last weekend. I liked it a lot.
#10
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by The Dark Knight - Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 11:15I'm finally reading this, and while it's early days, for what Miller went for I think it's a decent read so far. The general flavor of B89 is there regardless of how you feel about certain decisions, eg. Lawrence surviving. If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie. I liked the appearance of BR's remote control batarang. Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.