- Welcome to Batman-Online.com.
Recent posts
#21
Current Runs / Re: Batman Resurrections (Batm...
Last post by DocLathropBrown - Sat, 9 Nov 2024, 16:09Okay, here's my spoilery final thoughts about the book, having finished it (not bothering to blackout the text, so beware):
It's a good Batman novel, but a crappy Burton continuation. The story continuity is great, but the character continuity, as I stated before, is not great. Once Clayface starts impersonating the Joker (along with the possible mystery of whether Napier is actually alive), Bruce never starts becoming bitter or angry or especially more driven... basically making Napier as the murderer of his parents into something unimportant, when that's some silly B.S. because anyone could see how intense he was getting in the cathedral fight with the guy. If the bastard suddenly reappeared, you'd think this would stir something else in Wayne. Granted, from the beginning, Bruce has his doubts about the possibility (and was right, thankfully), he still ought to have some deep, dark internal reaction to the idea.
I like the idea of introducing Hugo Strange to the Burtonverse (especially since he's a proper monster-maker like the comics), but having to try to make him someone we actually saw on-screen for two seconds is just hilarious. Strange could have had the same effect on the story by having been a distant player in the background. His role as a mad scientist who was responsible for the chemical the Joker turned into Smylex was good enough and made fair sense (since, even though the film itself hardly says it, Napier did take an existing compound and adjust it). I suppose him being the Axis Chemicals scientist doesn't hurt anything, but it feels like some overreaching fanboy writing.
The biggest issue for me overall, though, goes back to what I've said before--Batman feels all wrong. He's too chatty and too open to the citizens, which doesn't line-up with Returns' portrayal of the character. The sequel novel has a lot of work on its plate to explain how he goes from feeling like a standard bronze age Batman to the guy we see in the 2nd film. Of course, I can make the same complaint with why he feels so different from the guy we saw in '89. Keaton's portrayal was just too quiet and emotionally restrained to line up with what Miller wrote.
It's a shame, because once we got to Act IV and Vicki came back, it started to give me what I wanted--a peak into the downfall of their relationship, and it felt pretty spot-on at first, but by the time it ends, they're basically cheerily saying goodbye to each other. Miller pays some lip-service to it being bittersweet, but he basically does nothing with it. At least Miller doesn't try to ignore Keaton's Wayne having killed. He doesn't kill in this book (and again, I don't wait for it), but Miller at least had a line about him being willing to go farther, hence the guns on his vehicles. Speaking of which, two new vehicles are added to the fleet (a strange hovering platform and a Batcopter), one is mentioned to have machine guns. Also, the final confrontation being at the cathedral again is just lame fan service, especially because there's no reason for it and it ends up having no effect on Bruce's mood--basically the only reason you'd care to revisit the location (and this is coming from a guy whose favorite movie location of all time is Gotham Cathedral!
It's so close to being great, but the things I mentioned before are the overall death-knell for it's rather boutique appeal: Bruce is very wrong and the random fanboy writing to explain things in '89 that didn't need it (goons in the cathedral/did Napier know). Those elements were brought up AGAIN at the end, with Bruce explaining that a prison snitch explained the thugs in the cathedral were placed there to watch for FBI interference into the parade (that's a pretty random thing for a criminal to be questioned about, dontcha think?)
It's a shame because there's tons of great stuff in the book. The fallout of Smylex, it having different variants with different effects (hence Clayface), the fall of the Vicki/Bruce relationship, thugs still worshiping the Joker, the rise of Max Schrek, the beginnings of a relationship with Harvey Dent and the early stirrings of the Red Triangle Circus Gang are all great things to explore and are mostly well done--but to paraphrase Michael Keaton himself, "if [my] character doesn't work, this [book] doesn't work." If Bruce just felt more on-model (and thus it could fit logically into the movie world), the other complaints would melt away.
We'll see if the next book changes how I feel.
It's a good Batman novel, but a crappy Burton continuation. The story continuity is great, but the character continuity, as I stated before, is not great. Once Clayface starts impersonating the Joker (along with the possible mystery of whether Napier is actually alive), Bruce never starts becoming bitter or angry or especially more driven... basically making Napier as the murderer of his parents into something unimportant, when that's some silly B.S. because anyone could see how intense he was getting in the cathedral fight with the guy. If the bastard suddenly reappeared, you'd think this would stir something else in Wayne. Granted, from the beginning, Bruce has his doubts about the possibility (and was right, thankfully), he still ought to have some deep, dark internal reaction to the idea.
I like the idea of introducing Hugo Strange to the Burtonverse (especially since he's a proper monster-maker like the comics), but having to try to make him someone we actually saw on-screen for two seconds is just hilarious. Strange could have had the same effect on the story by having been a distant player in the background. His role as a mad scientist who was responsible for the chemical the Joker turned into Smylex was good enough and made fair sense (since, even though the film itself hardly says it, Napier did take an existing compound and adjust it). I suppose him being the Axis Chemicals scientist doesn't hurt anything, but it feels like some overreaching fanboy writing.
The biggest issue for me overall, though, goes back to what I've said before--Batman feels all wrong. He's too chatty and too open to the citizens, which doesn't line-up with Returns' portrayal of the character. The sequel novel has a lot of work on its plate to explain how he goes from feeling like a standard bronze age Batman to the guy we see in the 2nd film. Of course, I can make the same complaint with why he feels so different from the guy we saw in '89. Keaton's portrayal was just too quiet and emotionally restrained to line up with what Miller wrote.
It's a shame, because once we got to Act IV and Vicki came back, it started to give me what I wanted--a peak into the downfall of their relationship, and it felt pretty spot-on at first, but by the time it ends, they're basically cheerily saying goodbye to each other. Miller pays some lip-service to it being bittersweet, but he basically does nothing with it. At least Miller doesn't try to ignore Keaton's Wayne having killed. He doesn't kill in this book (and again, I don't wait for it), but Miller at least had a line about him being willing to go farther, hence the guns on his vehicles. Speaking of which, two new vehicles are added to the fleet (a strange hovering platform and a Batcopter), one is mentioned to have machine guns. Also, the final confrontation being at the cathedral again is just lame fan service, especially because there's no reason for it and it ends up having no effect on Bruce's mood--basically the only reason you'd care to revisit the location (and this is coming from a guy whose favorite movie location of all time is Gotham Cathedral!
It's so close to being great, but the things I mentioned before are the overall death-knell for it's rather boutique appeal: Bruce is very wrong and the random fanboy writing to explain things in '89 that didn't need it (goons in the cathedral/did Napier know). Those elements were brought up AGAIN at the end, with Bruce explaining that a prison snitch explained the thugs in the cathedral were placed there to watch for FBI interference into the parade (that's a pretty random thing for a criminal to be questioned about, dontcha think?)
It's a shame because there's tons of great stuff in the book. The fallout of Smylex, it having different variants with different effects (hence Clayface), the fall of the Vicki/Bruce relationship, thugs still worshiping the Joker, the rise of Max Schrek, the beginnings of a relationship with Harvey Dent and the early stirrings of the Red Triangle Circus Gang are all great things to explore and are mostly well done--but to paraphrase Michael Keaton himself, "if [my] character doesn't work, this [book] doesn't work." If Bruce just felt more on-model (and thus it could fit logically into the movie world), the other complaints would melt away.
We'll see if the next book changes how I feel.
#22
Batman (1989) / Re: Batman: Reanimated
Last post by The Joker - Fri, 8 Nov 2024, 04:28Yeah, this is pretty well put together.
#23
Movies / Re: The Halloween Franchise
Last post by Silver Nemesis - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 14:14Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 03:20I think H4 still has the reigns for the most shocking ending that has come out of the franchise. It's great!
The final scene of H4 would've been a good way to end the entire series. Michael's story is concluded, but the evil lives on. The most disturbing part about it is Loomis's reaction – a usually clear-headed intellectual reduced to primal screams as he prepares to kill a child in a frenzy of terror.
Halloween 5 was such a weak follow-up.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 04:30Ages ago, I read somebody on reddit claim that Laurie's arc in the Blumhouse films would actually make more sense if it happened in reverse.
Ends shows Laurie determined to live a happy and comfortable life. But then, Michael Myers comes knocking.
Kills shows Laurie sacked out in the hospital recovering from her injuries but convinced she got Michael. She then discovers how mistaken she is.
2018 shows Laurie hiding out in her own isolated compound as she prepares for her final showdown. This time, she snares Myers in a trap and leaves him for dead.
I don't mind the Blumhouse films as they are. But I do think that redditor has a point when he suggests reversing her arc. In retrospect, that might've been the better way to go.
This suggestion makes a lot of sense. If she'd started out like she was in HE, trying to live a normal life but haunted by the occasional reminder of her traumatic past, and then evolved into the hard-edged survivalist from H'18, I think that would've worked better. H'18 had the best finale of the three films, and the trap scenario would've provided a more satisfying conclusion to the trilogy as a whole.
#24
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) / Report about superhero films l...
Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 09:01QuoteSuperhero films can encourage prosocial behavior, new study finds
A new study published in The Journal of Psychology suggests that superhero films, despite often depicting violence, can promote prosocial behavior — actions meant to benefit others, such as sharing or helping. By showing a specific scene from the 2016 film Batman v Superman, the researchers found that viewers who identified with Batman or believed his actions were morally justified were more likely to help others in a subsequent task.
While previous research has shown that prosocial media can encourage helpfulness and cooperation, violent media has typically been associated with increased aggression. Superhero films, a genre with widespread popularity, often mix these two elements. The researchers wanted to explore how these films might affect viewers, particularly in terms of empathy and moral reasoning, which could influence whether viewers engage in prosocial behavior despite the violence on screen.
The study involved two experiments, each with 200 Brazilian participants, who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group. The experimental group watched a 3-minute and 47-second clip from the movie Batman v Superman, in which Batman fights multiple armed villains to rescue Martha, a captured character. This scene was chosen for its combination of violent action and a clear prosocial motive—saving a life.
In contrast, the control group watched a neutral video that featured colorful shapes forming various patterns. This video, which had no violent or prosocial content, was meant to serve as a baseline for comparison.
After watching the videos, participants were asked to complete a prosocial behavior task. They were told they were helping with another study by distributing pieces of chocolate to future participants who liked the treat. The number of chocolate pieces each participant allocated served as a measure of their prosocial behavior.
The researchers also measured participants' levels of empathy after viewing the videos. To do this, they used a scale that assessed three different types of empathy: affective empathy (sharing another person's emotions), cognitive empathy (understanding another's perspective), and associative empathy (identifying with the character in the video).
In the second experiment, the researchers introduced an additional measure—moral justification. Participants were asked to evaluate whether the violent actions taken by Batman were justified. This was done using a series of statements such as "The main character's actions were necessary" or "It was impossible to deal with this situation in any other way."
In the first study, participants who watched the superhero scene reported higher levels of empathy than those in the control group. More specifically, viewers showed increased associative empathy — they identified more with Batman and his mission to save the hostage. This identification with the hero was the key factor that indirectly boosted prosocial behavior.
While participants in the superhero group didn't give significantly more chocolate than those in the control group overall, the effect of the movie on prosocial behavior was seen through the increase in empathy. This suggests that feeling connected to the hero and understanding their motives could encourage viewers to be more generous and helpful in their real-world actions.
The second study revealed that moral reasoning also played a role in prosocial behavior. Participants who watched the superhero scene were more likely to believe that Batman's violent actions were justified. This belief, in turn, was linked to higher prosocial behavior, as measured by the chocolate allocation task.
Essentially, when participants viewed the hero's actions as morally right, they were more inclined to engage in helpful behavior themselves. The researchers theorized that the portrayal of superheroes as protectors and defenders likely led viewers to accept their violent actions as necessary for the greater good, which then translated into a willingness to help others.
In short, simply watching the superhero scene did not directly cause participants to behave more prosocially. Instead, the participants who empathized with the characters or believed the violent actions were justified were more likely to act in a helpful way afterward.
While the study offers valuable insights into the effects of superhero films, it is not without limitations. One limitation is the use of an online experiment, which may reduce the level of control over participants' environments and behavior. For instance, distractions during the video could have affected participants' responses. Additionally, the study only used a single method of measuring prosocial behavior (the chocolate allocation task), which may not fully capture the complexity of prosocial actions in real-world situations.
Another limitation is the sample size and demographic characteristics. The participants were predominantly young adults from Brazil, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other age groups or cultural contexts. Future research could address this by replicating the study with different age groups and in various cultural settings.
The study, "Superhero Films' Impacts on Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Role of State-Empathy and Violence Justification," was authored by Isabella Leandra Silva Santos and Carlos Eduardo Pimentel.
https://www.psypost.org/superhero-films-can-encourage-prosocial-behavior-new-study-finds/
So basically, those who identified with Batman's actions in the BvS warehouse scene as necessary under the circumstances tend to be more empathetic and likely to help others. Normally I wouldn't think you'd need to organise a psychological study to hypothesise this. If I'm being honest, you can use other superhero films with similar scenes to hypothesise such a theory. On the other hand, it does amuse me that the impression I get from this report - whether it was intended or not - is those who criticise the warehouse scene e.g. "Batman wouldn't do this or that" are likely coming from people who have zero empathy themselves. From what I've seen of the disgusting vitriol towards Snyder over the years, I would not at all be surprised.
#25
Batman (1989) / Batman: Reanimated
Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:24I found this fan-made video uploaded less than a week ago by a B89 fan. A very nicely done animated piece that gets the atmosphere and mood of Burton's Gotham City right. I love the attention to detail, from the glimpses of the Joker to the doctor who helped in the tampering of the chemicals at Axis going missing. This pays tribute to the Burtonverse much better than any of the recent comics and films.
Check it out:
Check it out:
#26
Batman: TAS (1992 - 1995) / Re: BTAS 30th Anniversary Thre...
Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:14 #27
Movies / Re: Recommend a movie
Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 08:09I watched Late Night With the Devil on Netflix. It's set in the Seventies about a late night talk show host who is struggling with the death of his wife and trying to boost ratings for his failing show that he interviews a girl possessed by a demon on live television. The period piece was done extremely well as were the old school-style special effects, and the pacing flows quickly. What makes the film effective is it's presented as a recording of the talk show and displays the episode unraveling into chaos, with the behind-the-scenes drama unfolding in black and white. Very well acted despite a largely unknown cast and great narration by Michael Ironside chronicling the TV host's rise to fame before the infamous episode.
It's better than a lot of horror movies nowadays. Highly recommended.
It's better than a lot of horror movies nowadays. Highly recommended.
#28
Finished Runs / Re: Batman in the '70s
Last post by The Laughing Fish - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 07:56Great video analysing and paying tribute to Marshall Rogers for his work on Batman, and the impact that he and Englehart had on Batman comics.
#29
Misc Comics / Re: Happy 75th Anniversary to ...
Last post by thecolorsblend - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 04:37I always found it telling how quickly Batman rebounded from huge mega storylines like Knightfall and No Man's Land. Yes, you could argue that 1995 and 2000 were... not great years for Batman comics. Not terrible. Not great either tho. But the character found his groove again fairly quickly, all things considered.
Compare that to the Superman titles, which needed a full year to recover from Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite (which wasn't a huge storyline by any means except for the final chapter) and arguably never fully recovered from the Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen storylines.
Compare that to the Superman titles, which needed a full year to recover from Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite (which wasn't a huge storyline by any means except for the final chapter) and arguably never fully recovered from the Doomsday/Funeral For A Friend/Reign Of The Supermen storylines.
#30
Movies / Re: The Halloween Franchise
Last post by thecolorsblend - Tue, 5 Nov 2024, 04:30Ages ago, I read somebody on reddit claim that Laurie's arc in the Blumhouse films would actually make more sense if it happened in reverse.
Ends shows Laurie determined to live a happy and comfortable life. But then, Michael Myers comes knocking.
Kills shows Laurie sacked out in the hospital recovering from her injuries but convinced she got Michael. She then discovers how mistaken she is.
2018 shows Laurie hiding out in her own isolated compound as she prepares for her final showdown. This time, she snares Myers in a trap and leaves him for dead.
I don't mind the Blumhouse films as they are. But I do think that redditor has a point when he suggests reversing her arc. In retrospect, that might've been the better way to go.
The most I ask of any Halloween sequel is to not make me wish I was watching the original film instead. Most Myers-oriented Halloween sequel have some kind of redeeming quality for me. Something that draws me in. The only real exceptions to that are Halloween 05, Zombie's H2 and, to a lesser degree, either cut of Halloween 06. The rest of the Myers films all have SOMEthing about them that I can enjoy.
For everything else, there's the original.
Ends shows Laurie determined to live a happy and comfortable life. But then, Michael Myers comes knocking.
Kills shows Laurie sacked out in the hospital recovering from her injuries but convinced she got Michael. She then discovers how mistaken she is.
2018 shows Laurie hiding out in her own isolated compound as she prepares for her final showdown. This time, she snares Myers in a trap and leaves him for dead.
I don't mind the Blumhouse films as they are. But I do think that redditor has a point when he suggests reversing her arc. In retrospect, that might've been the better way to go.
The most I ask of any Halloween sequel is to not make me wish I was watching the original film instead. Most Myers-oriented Halloween sequel have some kind of redeeming quality for me. Something that draws me in. The only real exceptions to that are Halloween 05, Zombie's H2 and, to a lesser degree, either cut of Halloween 06. The rest of the Myers films all have SOMEthing about them that I can enjoy.
For everything else, there's the original.