Batman's arc

[BatmanFurst]

On top of that the film doesn't fully come together for me. I do think it'd be stronger without The Penguin, and possibly Max Shrek.

I have to disagree. One of the fascinating things about this movie is it's a web of all of these devious characters that find themselves being manipulated by each other. Penguin blackmailing Schreck into finding his birthright, Schreck manipulating Penguin into starting an election campaign to satisfy his power plant agenda and a rebellious Catwoman teaming up with Penguin to get back at Batman but then sees herself used an accessory to frame Batman for the Ice Princess's murder. And of course, unlike Batman avenging his parents over the Joker as painted as triumphant at the end of B89, we see the negative side of vengeance when a mad Catwoman kills Max Schreck, and the emotional cost it came with. It may not be the sort of fans would've preferred, but it's quite rich in content when you analyse the characters.

That's an interesting way of looking at. I've heard other theories of what the film is that are also interesting. Here's the thing though I want to love this movie. The 89 Batman is one of my all time favorite films, so Burton & Keaton teaming up for another Batman film should've been right up my alley. But it's weird because I simultaneously like, and don't like how different it is from the first film. For me the 89 Batman had the perfect tone/design for a Batman film. Returns essentially throws all those things out the window and starts from scratch. However, I do respect a director that's giving me something new. It reminds me of the second Indiana Jones film. Temple of Doom may be my least favorite Indy flick, but I still like that it's the polar opposite of Raiders of the Lost Ark and takes things in a much darker direction. It's odd though because Batman Returns is darker, but also a little more cartoony than the first Batman.

Another problem I have with it that I didn't mention before is how anticlimactic it is. The third act of this movie has Batman stopping penguins from firing missiles in the middle of Gotham. He also saves the children, but it happens off screen. It's a little lame when you compare it to the first film where Batman blows up Axis chemicals, removes the balloons from the Joker's parade, then has the confrontation at the top of the bell tower. I suppose Burton was going for a more emotional climax, rather than a physical confrontation. Again, I respect that but it doesn't work for me 100%. The only things I like about the third act third act are mainly the scenes between Batman & Catwoman.

I've heard people describe Returns as an art film, and I would agree. You could show this film to a crowd of people, and get so many different opinions. I see why someone wouldn't like the film, but I can also see why someone would love it. I like it as the remnant of a bygone era. For better, or worse there's no way a major studio would let a director make a superhero film like this. Nowadays comic book films are a precious commodity, a good chunk of them don't have a director with a strong vision. Batman Returns is undeniably a Tim Burton film that's what makes it interesting, but also what makes it frustrating.

[The Laughing Fish]

Another problem I have with it that I didn't mention before is how anticlimactic it is. The third act of this movie has Batman stopping penguins from firing missiles in the middle of Gotham. He also saves the children, but it happens off screen. It's a little lame when you compare it to the first film where Batman blows up Axis chemicals, removes the balloons from the Joker's parade, then has the confrontation at the top of the bell tower. I suppose Burton was going for a more emotional climax, rather than a physical confrontation. Again, I respect that but it doesn't work for me 100%. The only things I like about the third act third act are mainly the scenes between Batman & Catwoman.

Yes, that's a fair complaint. I agree it was disappointing that the rescue of the first born children suddenly gets cut off to the next scene. It's why I prefer B89 too, simply because it's always more satisfying and exciting to watch when you see the hero coming to the rescue, uninterrupted. Sure, you can't disregard the emotion of the story in favour of mindless action. But at the same time, part of the appeal of watching a movie like this is to see the hero kick ass. I remember looking at a screenshot from a children's storybook where it had an illustration of Batman and Catwoman teaming up to stop the Red Triangle Gang from abducting the children. It might've made a great action scene. From what I understand, Jon Peters demanded more action scenes in the first film. So if his involvement in BR as a producer was limited, it might explain why we didn't get to see more Batman action scenes than we could have.

That being said, you're absolutely right that the climax in BR was meant to be emotional rather than action-packed. I can definitely why some might prefer BR to B89. The first film has its share of emotion, but the sequel's appeal is this bittersweet tragedy. A stark contrast compared to B89's triumphant ending.

I've heard people describe Returns as an art film, and I would agree. You could show this film to a crowd of people, and get so many different opinions. I see why someone wouldn't like the film, but I can also see why someone would love it. I like it as the remnant of a bygone era. For better, or worse there's no way a major studio would let a director make a superhero film like this. Nowadays comic book films are a precious commodity, a good chunk of them don't have a director with a strong vision. Batman Returns is undeniably a Tim Burton film that's what makes it interesting, but also what makes it frustrating.

BR isn't exactly an art film in the same manner as David Lynch, but I understand what you mean. It borrows a lot from German Expressionism and Gothic imagery that would creep people out. You're right to say too many of these films nowadays are becoming too formulaic for their own good.

[The Dark Knight]

The ending of B89 sets the tone for the sequels when the batsignal is unveiled, and a public letter from Batman is read to the crowd. He becomes more of a public figure, which is fine, because he's still not a talkative extrovert. The mythmaking is still there - using his glider to escape amongst a swarm of bats, for example, was done well before Batman Begins. The silhouette of Batman raising his cape before he stops the toddler train is another good example. In B89, Batman still drives through the streets of Gotham in a public way. In that instance he was chased as an enemy of the police. At the start of BR, he's still driving around the city, but as an accepted crime fighting force. It's only when he's framed does that situation change. BR is about acceptance in a lot of ways. Batman becoming accepted by Gotham, Oswald becoming accepted, and Selina shunning it all. Batman becomes accepted again, but Oswald does not.

[BatmanFurst]

I remember looking at a screenshot from a children's storybook where it had an illustration of Batman and Catwoman teaming up to stop the Red Triangle Gang from abducting the children. It might've made a great action scene.

Dude that could've been awesome! They do set it up a little in the scene where Catwoman seems uncomfortable with the fact that Penguin killed the Ice Princess. Implying that she has a problem with innocent people being hurt, or killed. So when Penguin announces that he wants to kill the first born children her teaming up with Batman would've made sense.

One more aspect of Batman that was taken away is his stealth. In the first film Batman sneaks up on criminals, disappears and reappears multiple times. None of that happens in this film. Keaton's my favorite Batman, but I really do think he mostly shines in the 89 film. But I do think there are some great moments with Batman in Returns.
-Bruce sitting in his study when the Batsignal comes on.
-Actually seeing Batman on patrol, which none of the other films have addressed.
-I've always loved the moment where the switch in the Batmobile doesn't work, especially when he says "Alright, now I'm a little worried". It's such a great moment because we're reminded that Batman is human. If he's in a tight spot and his equipment isn't functioning properly he would be a tad bit worried. I love little moments like that in both of Burton's Batman films.

[The Laughing Fish]

One more aspect of Batman that was taken away is his stealth. In the first film Batman sneaks up on criminals, disappears and reappears multiple times. None of that happens in this film. Keaton's my favorite Batman, but I really do think he mostly shines in the 89 film.

True, he doesn't take people down as much as he did in B89. But as I said before, the closest we get in the sequel is him grabbing the Organ Grinder from above. You can definitely tell there is a difference in his approach to fighting crime between the two films, but I do think there is a logical turn of events. Every time he puts the Batsuit on in the first film, he becomes a Phantom-like otherworldly figure, and he takes advantage of his status as an urban legend to surprise his enemies. It makes stealth very easy to do. But when the Joker emerged and Gotham City began to experience widespread attacks on a routine basis, that's when Batman had to take a more direct approach, to borrow a line from the Penguin.

One other aspect of what I prefer in B89 over BR is how the costume gives him the transformation to have the strength to fight. Whether it's picking up a crook or Jack Napier by the collar and lifting them up in the air, or how he climbs out of the Batwing's wreckage and heads up to the cathedral, bruised and bloodied. In BR, he used a lot more ingenuity to defeat his enemies, i.e. tricking the taser clown with his grapple gun and stuffing the dynamite in the Strongman's pants.

-I've always loved the moment where the switch in the Batmobile doesn't work, especially when he says "Alright, now I'm a little worried". It's such a great moment because we're reminded that Batman is human. If he's in a tight spot and his equipment isn't functioning properly he would be a tad bit worried. I love little moments like that in both of Burton's Batman films.

Another example is when he quips to Vicki Vale "you weigh a little bit more than a hundred and eight", much to her annoyance.

[Slash Man]

Pointing out the potential lack of an arc doesn't negate a good film. A strong character arc can typically be found in good films, but isn't a requirement. Also, comics are a serialized medium where characters more or less have to remain static. Staying true to that isn't less valid than changing something to be more "cinematic."

All of that being said, Batman does undergo change in the film. It's just not as spelled out for the audience as the Nolan films and beyond. Originally, Batman is an urban legend and launches an attack on crime out of vengeance. By the end, he's revealed his presence to Gotham and acts in a more altruistic manner to defend the city he calls home.

[thecolorsblend]

Pointing out the potential lack of an arc doesn't negate a good film. A strong character arc can typically be found in good films, but isn't a requirement. Also, comics are a serialized medium where characters more or less have to remain static. Staying true to that isn't less valid than changing something to be more "cinematic."

All of that being said, Batman does undergo change in the film. It's just not as spelled out for the audience as the Nolan films and beyond. Originally, Batman is an urban legend and launches an attack on crime out of vengeance. By the end, he's revealed his presence to Gotham and acts in a more altruistic manner to defend the city he calls home.

One of the core rules of screenwriting is Something needs to be fixed. In Casablanca, Rick had to put aside his own broken heart. In The Godfather, Michael had to agree to become the Don. In Star Wars '77, Luke had to realize that leaving Tatooine and training to be a Jedi were the right decisions. In Jaws, Brody had to find something he feared more than the water... such as losing his family. Etc etc etc. Something needs to be fixed.

And yes, there is an arc in B89.

[Slash Man]

That's changing the topic from "character arc" to "fixing something". They're often related, but you can still fix a problem over the course of the story without going through drastic character changes... that's how comics have traditionally operated. Regardless, I think that statement is broad enough to apply to anything. Batman needs to fix something by stopping the Joker's attack on the city, there.

[thecolorsblend]

That's changing the topic from "character arc" to "fixing something".

It's shorthand for "character arc".

They're often related, but you can still fix a problem over the course of the story without going through drastic character changes... that's how comics have traditionally operated.

Tim Burton didn't make a comic book. He created a film. Film has different dramatic requirements to fulfill than comic books do.

Regardless, I think that statement is broad enough to apply to anything. Batman needs to fix something by stopping the Joker's attack on the city, there.

You're missing it. The lead character of a movie should have a problem or a challenge or an obstacle that he cannot overcome. In part, the story has to be about how he overcomes it. If the storyteller is feeling REALLY ballsy, the story can be about how the character fails to overcome it... which, I think, is a huge basis for The Godfather Part II's appeal to so many millions of people.

Speaking of The Godfather, I cited the first film and other examples of this paradigm in my previous post. But obviously thousands more examples exist.

This structure is one reason why a truly good sequel is so difficult to create. It's hard enough to create one arc for a character. Creating multiple arcs for the same character is a much bigger challenge. After TDK, Chris Nolan opined that he might make a third Batman movie if he comes up with a good idea. Obviously he's capable of creating a simplistic Batman adventure story. Hell, those write themselves sometimes.

What he was referring to was a character arc for Bruce which he believed was strong enough to sustain a full-length movie. In 2009, Nolan wasn't sure he had such an idea in him. Without commenting on the actual quality of TDKRises, it's safe to say that Nolan eventually did hit upon an idea which he thought was strong enough to justify the existence of a third movie.

Anybody can write Batman meets villain, Batman fights villain, Batman defeats villain. What Nolan needed time to develop and figure out is giving Bruce Wayne a movie-appropriate struggle. In TDKRises, something needed to be fixed. That's the point.