Batman (1989) vs Batman Returns

Started by Mothy, Thu, 5 Jun 2008, 09:26

Previous topic - Next topic

Which is your favourite?

Batman (1989)
42 (56.8%)
Batman Returns
32 (43.2%)

Total Members Voted: 71

Fri, 8 Jan 2010, 03:27 #110 Last Edit: Fri, 8 Jan 2010, 03:38 by The Dark Knight
Quote from: burtongenius on Thu,  7 Jan  2010, 21:26
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  7 Jan  2010, 04:00
But how The Penguin was presented in Batman Returns is superior for me.
That makes perfect sense for everybody else, right?

Okay, you like the penguin that batman returns gave you.  You're still using the penguin as the crux of your choice, whether it is the comic book penguin or the movie penguin is of no difference.
No I'm not, you fool. You only quote one section of my post.

While I think The Penguin is better, he is only one aspect. I DON'T prefer one film over the other based soley on the villain. YOU do. I've said this three times now.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Don't you believe me or something?!

With you, why does every single basic point need to be complicated and confused?!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  8 Jan  2010, 03:27No I'm not, you fool. You only quote one section of my post.

While I think The Penguin is better, he is only one aspect. I DON'T prefer one film over the other based soley on the villain. YOU do. I've said this three times now.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Don't you believe me or something?!

With you, why does every single basic point need to be complicated and confused?!
Honestly?  Part of me is starting to think the guy's a troll.  Either that or he lacks even the most basic in reading comprehension.  I think you've been relatively clear on your points.  The only way to misunderstand is by someone who's determined to do so.

Fri, 8 Jan 2010, 17:18 #112 Last Edit: Fri, 8 Jan 2010, 17:22 by The Dark Knight
Thanks.

Just a point I'd like to make here.

You know, one criticism that I see leveled at Burton?s Batman films quite a bit is that very few people are seen on the streets at night. Especially in Returns. Some people give you a roar up over this statement, but the old ?you don?t get it? applies.

Returns uses expressionism frequently throughout its runtime. The Gotham City presented in the film is a soulless, empty and frozen wasteland with little hope. It?s a dark place. It?s a sad place. The City itself is a character. Citizens are wisely off the streets, hiding away until dawn. I can just imagine people looking through their windows anxiously at night, watching the Batmobile go by and such.

I mean, seriously, you would have to be one very brave soul to step out in this Gotham at night. The empty frozen expanses and what is lurking out there conjucres plenty of scary thoughts. You go out there, nobody is going to help you - except one man.

Great post The Dark Knight, but surely the reason why there are so few people out on the street in Returns is because it is the dead of winter and temperatures are close to freezing.  It's snowing in the UK at the moment and the streets are a like a ghost town.

Bear in mind that by Returns most criminals had gone into hiding since the emergence of Batman.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

That?s a straightforward answer and does address things quite simply. But I think it?s more than that. While there would be a bit of that going on, I feel the answer is a semi-realistic one.

I think Burton made a conscious decision and didn?t want people on the street as to magnify the vibe ? with the only people lurking essentially being crazies.

Burton used expressionism in all the key locations. Be it the Batcave, Wayne Manor, Penguin?s campaign headquarters, etc. With Gotham, he did too. The buildings dwarf everything ? Shreck?s department store being a main offender, and huge stone faces stare downwards.  I feel the lack of people is also an aspect of this.

As the Batman Returns official movie book says:

?An empty motion picture soundstage is a ghostly environment. Half perceived shadows seem to lurk in the corners. The smallest whispers echo in the vastness.?

That describes a movie set, but it also describes what we basically see in the film.

Maybe, but I always liked the contrast between the derelict, crime-ridden and borderline-impoverished Gotham City of the first film, and the seemingly more affluent, commercialised environment of the second film.  Some of the side streets are bare, and possibly no-go areas, but certainly the city centre, based on the Rockefeller Centre, seems to be teeming with regular folk, all apparently unaware of the evil that lurks beneath and in Shreck's case, above them.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  9 Jan  2010, 03:51
Some of the side streets are bare, and possibly no-go areas, but certainly the city centre, based on the Rockefeller Centre, seems to be teeming with regular folk, all apparently unaware of the evil that lurks beneath and in Shreck's case, above them.
You could view the City centre as the only refuge, a gathering point where they feel safe. United together.

Do you think all the rich folk lived out of town like Bruce Wayne and just came into the city centre to work and shop etc?
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  9 Jan  2010, 03:18
That?s a straightforward answer and does address things quite simply. But I think it?s more than that. While there would be a bit of that going on, I feel the answer is a semi-realistic one.

I think Burton made a conscious decision and didn?t want people on the street as to magnify the vibe ? with the only people lurking essentially being crazies.

Burton used expressionism in all the key locations. Be it the Batcave, Wayne Manor, Penguin?s campaign headquarters, etc. With Gotham, he did too. The buildings dwarf everything ? Shreck?s department store being a main offender, and huge stone faces stare downwards.  I feel the lack of people is also an aspect of this.

As the Batman Returns official movie book says:

?An empty motion picture soundstage is a ghostly environment. Half perceived shadows seem to lurk in the corners. The smallest whispers echo in the vastness.?

That describes a movie set, but it also describes what we basically see in the film.
What I think is interesting is the contrast between B89 and BR in that respect.  In B89, you see people wandering around at night fairly often.  Knox and the cops after Batman beat up the punks at the start, the mass of people wandering around as the lost people make their way through the city also at the start, the melee that erupts as Batman and Vicki try to avoid the Joker's thugs, etc.

A lot of that had gone by the time of BR.  People, as you say, did seem more likely to stay indoors.  The mob had been basically smashed by the Joker and then the Batman, ahem, smashed the Joker and then he was basically top dog in the city after that.

And only THEN did the streets get pretty quiet and empty.

What does it say that the common folk were more likely to stay indoors at night AFTER Batman had basically wiped out all of organized crime in the city?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Jan  2010, 06:48
What does it say that the common folk were more likely to stay indoors at night AFTER Batman had basically wiped out all of organized crime in the city?
Ha, true.