The Controversy

[Bobthegoon89]

Really all 3 sets of movies seemed like just what the doctor ordered at the time;
Prior to Burton everyone thought of Batman as the goofy day cop who slides down a poll, Kane wanted a much more darker image presented and Burton gave us that
The general consensus was Burton's Batman Returns was a shade too dark, Schumachers first film gave us a lighter one
Everyone hated Batman and Robin for being to kiddy. I'm sure when everyone first saw Begins in 2005, the grittiness was refreshing (and then the internet war started)
Nolanites aside, the general consensus from the dark knight rises is too gritty and not enough fun. Another way to put it is "not enough Burtonesque"

I agree with. Although as I mentioned, I love the darkness of BR. :-)

I agree. I think there is plenty wrong with Nolan's films. My big issue with the realism is it takes the fun out of Batman which whatever way you look at it is a unique concept. Imagine Penguin in Nolan's films. Had he appeared I believe his monocle would be gone. His cigarrete holder would be gone. His gadget laden umbrellas would be dispensed. There would certainly be no army of mind controlled penguins. Instead there would likely be an army of mercenaries with machine guns. All those prior things make the Penguin the Penguin. Same with the Joker. How many comics have you seen where he uses smylex gas? Electric hand buzzers? Boxing glove launchers? e.c.t. Yet in The Dark Knight it's all just knives, gassoline and shotguns.

All this stuff creates a bigger threat but the fun stuff is absent that is wholly unique to Batman's world.

I still think the "truer" version to Batman is the animated series by Bruce Timm. Because it had it all in one big melting pot. Realistic violence, fun comic visuals, colourful and believable villains, dark Burtonesque tone, serious believable stories and spectacular voice acting worthy of Nolan.

See that's how I feel! I understand wanting to "ground" heroes these and making them real, but there IS a line which divides reality & fantasy. And if your a smart director, you'll know how close you can get to reality, without taking out too much of the fantasy aspect. Burton I feel kept a good balance of that. It' all made sense. That's why Pfeiffer's Catwoman looked the way she did. Ok so it was supposed to be hand stitched vinyl, which in relaity was rubber drenched in silicone to give the shine, but you actually believed she made that. THAT'S what I loved about it. He was able to take fantasy and bring it out of the comics, but no flatten in on the ground. DKR is a bit 'too' grounded. after seeing it a few times now, i honestly think TDK is the best out of all the recent Batman movies. And ofcourse, B:TAS is just a epic classic. I don't know if another Animated Comic series will ever live up to it. Although, the X-Men cartoon comes close (despite its animation flaws), but still not as great as B:TAS.

It's funny because tho Begins is a terrific film and I loved every minute of it I really don't think it set the world alight with excitement people claim. It certainly was not on the scale of the original Burton Batman which took over the planet that summer. I think in the long run the original Batman left a deeper groove in the minds of people than Begins.

I will say that BB IS a great film. It's not too long where as i felt TDK dragged a tad bit, and DKR certainly did especially during Act 2. I think after B&R, BB was a great refreshing re-introduction as to WHY we love Batman and got back to the core of the character. Exactly what Burton did. And like you said, Batman OWNED the summer of 89, and 92 might i add. I think the impact in 92, while not as strong when it hit, was actually more lasting thanks the B:TAS. It prolonged the power of the character. At least that's how I see it. Batman was EVERYWHERE in 92!!! As Nicholson mentioned in Special Edition interviews, the studios were not prepared for the level of success of  B89. Which is understandable, and explains why they went all out for BR! I suppose they figured they had this in the bag. Which they did, but when the "cat was out of the bag" so to speak, it wasn't what was expected-- hence the 'controversy'. 

The impact of Nolans movies I don't believe are as strong as what Burton did over 20 years ago. Yes it gives a new generation a chance to experience Batman, but I feel that's due to the plethora of comic book movies we have these days. It's spoiled really. I just hope that when (cuz we know WB will) there is another Batman it's something really special.

Y'know some fans argued with me on imdb that an audience doesn't go to see a Batman film these days because of Batman but the "realism" concept Nolan brought to it. That I do not believe in the slightest. I think the success of The Dark Knight had a lot to do with the inclusion of The Joker character. A major villain everyone on the planet knows. Certainly not all the realism. A character like that gets an audience excited. That was the big deal back in 92 also. The audience went to see Catwoman and The Penguin rather than Batman (there was even an article in a major Batman UK comic arguing this). Perhaps that is why Begins wasn't a gigantic success as it could have been with Ra's al ghul and Scarecrow. I loved seeing those guys because they were new to live action (never thought in a million years Ra's would make the jump into Bat features). Nevertheless the public wouldn't have had a clue who they were. So bringing back a major Bat foe is probably the smartest move Nolan did to gain attention.

I swear we had an argument that Batman is irrelavant to a successful Bat movie! Is it just me or is that a tad crazy? lol Apparently no matter how cool a Batmobile is or whatever you choose villain-wise is never going to matter. Obviously a great story is key but I couldn't get as excited about a Batman movie with "Heat" inspired bank robberies and no place for homing Batarangs lol

[riddler]

even 1995's batman forever; didnt stand the test of time but at the time people couldnt get enough of the film and the character. I'd be willing to bet there was more batman buzz in 1995 than there was in 2005. Not that this is necissarily Nolan's fault it had been 8 years since the last film and that one was a disaster.

2008 the dark knight was definitely popular although thats a great question is how much of it was Ledger and the joker?

the dark knight rises has been out for a month and already the hypes died down people are back to talking about the avengers.

[Kyle Grey]

even 1995's batman forever; didnt stand the test of time but at the time people couldnt get enough of the film and the character. I'd be willing to bet there was more batman buzz in 1995 than there was in 2005. Not that this is necissarily Nolan's fault it had been 8 years since the last film and that one was a disaster.

2008 the dark knight was definitely popular although thats a great question is how much of it was Ledger and the joker?

the dark knight rises has been out for a month and already the hypes died down people are back to talking about the avengers.

I do remember quite a bit of hype over BF. Everything was green! I actually think there was a bigger hype over that then BR (as much as I don't like admitting that!). And B&R was total overkill. I mean every character (except for Bane) got their face on EVERYTHING!!!  But like you said, it's not reeeaaallllly the Batman character, it's everything else. People had seen Batman after 2 movies. Sure this was a new actor, but we'd seen it. But this time...there was ROBIN!!! While Riddler was "the main" villain, I was more excited to see Two-Face, someone not yet seen in live action. As with B&R, Poison Ivy wasn't someone we'd seen yet (which I think she did a great job considering the rest of the film).

This time around though, the Batman hype wasn't as great I felt. Sure I was excited seeing Catwoman on screen again, but I guess I was kinda hoping for some nostalgic feeling of what happened 20 years ago. There was sooo much success and hype created by TDK, that even the 2:45 running time didn't live up to this movie I felt. Yes it was good. But the 2nd & 3rd time i saw it, I passed out at the same part-- both times: ACT 2! It could be because I saw late night showing but still.

TDK just had a longer lasting impression because there was no big build up hype. I think most people were kinda of turned of by Heath's Joker at first, but then he died, and his performance was spectacular! So the bar was set. You can't write Bane or even Catwoman like you can Joker. I don't really here many people saying how amazing Anne was honestly. I still here "Hathaway was good, but Pfeiffer was better!".

Another thing about the hype with these movies, B89 was huge and left a lasting positive impression; thus paved the way for BR. When that movie didn't live up to "social media standards", it was time to revive the franchise again-- thus BF came along and brought something new...and bright! Sadly as we all know, B&R killed it, and it was reborn in 2005 with BB. It's a vicious cycle it's seems. Especially since there is so much to live up to, yet creators still have to find away to make it theirs. I feel it's time to let the bat rest for awhile before we let him out of the cave again.

[thecolorsblend]

Y'know some fans argued with me on imdb that an audience doesn't go to see a Batman film these days because of Batman but the "realism" concept Nolan brought to it.

And in a world where the Avengers (or any Marvel Studios) film was a huge failure and Watchmen was a huge success, they'd have a leg to stand on.

Oddly, Watchmen's realism didn't help and Marvel's science-fantasy hasn't hurt.

So, um, maybe what the public really responds to is, y'know, Batman. Or whatever.

even 1995's batman forever; didnt stand the test of time but at the time people couldnt get enough of the film and the character. I'd be willing to bet there was more batman buzz in 1995 than there was in 2005. Not that this is necissarily Nolan's fault it had been 8 years since the last film and that one was a disaster.

My guess on that one is WB wanted a more muted marketing campaign since Batman movies were still a joke back then. And not a good joke either.

[The Dark Knight]

This is not totally about Batman Returns, but I watched B89 again for the first time in a long while, and it struck me how this would have felt in comparison to the 60s show. For example, Romero's Joker goes into an art gallery exhibit and vandalises with his own paint. He takes glee in it and then leaves. Then jump forward to 1989, and we have Nicholson's Joker gassing a museum and dancing around *dead* bodies. He takes glee in it as well, but the dead bodies is quite a jump. The 89 Batman film has death front and centre, eg. the "get a grin again, and again" commercial, and talking to fried corpses. IMO Burton presents the darkness of such acts but in a comicy way where it isn't totally offensive or confronting, but I can see how a kid who grew up on the 60s Batman would be taken back by it. And then BR came along.

[riddler]

This is not totally about Batman Returns, but I watched B89 again for the first time in a long while, and it struck me how this would have felt in comparison to the 60s show. For example, Romero's Joker goes into an art gallery exhibit and vandalises with his own paint. He takes glee in it and then leaves. Then jump forward to 1989, and we have Nicholson's Joker gassing a museum and dancing around *dead* bodies. He takes glee in it as well, but the dead bodies is quite a jump. The 89 Batman film has death front and centre, eg. the "get a grin again, and again" commercial, and talking to fried corpses. IMO Burton presents the darkness of such acts but in a comicy way where it isn't totally offensive or confronting, but I can see how a kid who grew up on the 60s Batman would be taken back by it. And then BR came along.

Most of the marketing on that film was convincing people that this is not going to be Adam West style and instead more serious and darker. They rushed a trailer in mainly to quell the protests over Keaton- up until then he was a comedic actor, he needed to be shown as a serious Batman.

With returns the marketing is of course the topic at hand.

Forever was more marketable because it was deemed to be one the kids would like. And people were excited for Robin.

Batman and Robin- well the entire film is basically a toy commercial and people did want to see more of Robin. But there was quite a bit of hype.

Batman Begins perhaps wasn't marketed well but there wasn't a huge buzz. People liked it but it didnt set the world on fire the way any of the 4 previous films did.

[Kyle Grey]

This is not totally about Batman Returns, but I watched B89 again for the first time in a long while, and it struck me how this would have felt in comparison to the 60s show. For example, Romero's Joker goes into an art gallery exhibit and vandalises with his own paint. He takes glee in it and then leaves. Then jump forward to 1989, and we have Nicholson's Joker gassing a museum and dancing around *dead* bodies. He takes glee in it as well, but the dead bodies is quite a jump. The 89 Batman film has death front and centre, eg. the "get a grin again, and again" commercial, and talking to fried corpses. IMO Burton presents the darkness of such acts but in a comicy way where it isn't totally offensive or confronting, but I can see how a kid who grew up on the 60s Batman would be taken back by it. And then BR came along.

Most of the marketing on that film was convincing people that this is not going to be Adam West style and instead more serious and darker. They rushed a trailer in mainly to quell the protests over Keaton- up until then he was a comedic actor, he needed to be shown as a serious Batman.

With returns the marketing is of course the topic at hand.

Forever was more marketable because it was deemed to be one the kids would like. And people were excited for Robin.

Batman and Robin- well the entire film is basically a toy commercial and people did want to see more of Robin. But there was quite a bit of hype.

Batman Begins perhaps wasn't marketed well but there wasn't a huge buzz. People liked it but it didnt set the world on fire the way any of the 4 previous films did.

The same can be said for the last 2 movies. There's been hype, but nothing near what there was of the past. Then again, marketing like that was something unheard of back then. Especially B89. Nothing like that had ever been done before. As it was said in an interview, B89 was probably the best market movie of all time. That bat logo was everywhere! I remember as a kid in the summer of 89 (and even 92) everything was Batman. It had been 20 years since Batman was relevant in the public eye, and as mentioned, at least in the minds of the public, the tv series is what Batman "was". Burton came and changed all that, and they made it very well know that it would be nothing like the tv series. Bob Kane even said he preferred the dark and brooding version over a comedic one.

That was really the only time that it worked as it did. BF was only 2 years after BR, and BB was 8 years after B&R but again, as mentioned, the Bat movies were still a joke, and I'm sure "that movie of which we do not speak of" involving a certain feline rouge didn't help the cause either. Thankfully, these movie have been restored to a more positive light, and I hope that in the not TOO distant, but not so close future, we are given a good balance of fantasy & realism, so characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and even Penguin (though Danny was perfect casting!), may be given another chance, and possibly even new characters may join the ranks in Bat Cinema.

[The Dark Knight]

Most of the marketing on that film was convincing people that this is not going to be Adam West style and instead more serious and darker. They rushed a trailer in mainly to quell the protests over Keaton- up until then he was a comedic actor, he needed to be shown as a serious Batman.

With returns the marketing is of course the topic at hand.

B89 was darker in terms of themes and in terms of visuals. B89 wasn't pure Adam West frolics (Keaton was indeed serious) but there were aspects of the TV show rooted in it.

"My tone fell somewhere between the TV series and the new dark comics." Tim Burton, The Boston Globe June 1989.

For example the art gallery scene comparison. Burton took that and elevated it further with the spectre of death.

I don't need to give specific examples, but Batman Returns took this and became thematically darker than B89. The Penguin running for Mayor plot from the TV series, but with the villain emerging from the sewer with repressed sexual feelings, rejected by his parents and ends up wanting to kill all the newborns when his dreams fall through.

[riddler]

Most of the marketing on that film was convincing people that this is not going to be Adam West style and instead more serious and darker. They rushed a trailer in mainly to quell the protests over Keaton- up until then he was a comedic actor, he needed to be shown as a serious Batman.

With returns the marketing is of course the topic at hand.

B89 was darker in terms of themes and in terms of visuals. B89 wasn't pure Adam West frolics (Keaton was indeed serious) but there were aspects of the TV show rooted in it.

"My tone fell somewhere between the TV series and the new dark comics." Tim Burton, The Boston Globe June 1989.

For example the art gallery scene comparison. Burton took that and elevated it further with the spectre of death.

I don't need to give specific examples, but Batman Returns took this and became thematically darker than B89. The Penguin running for Mayor plot from the TV series, but with the villain emerging from the sewer with repressed sexual feelings, rejected by his parents and ends up wanting to kill all the newborns when his dreams fall through.

No doubt about that, Burton's done quite a few films based on source material (Dark shadows, charlie and the chocolate factory, planet of the apes, alice in wonderland, pee wee herman) in each film he gives it his own take (generally darker and twisted). No surprise that all 3 villains he used were in the adam west movie and he did plan on using the 4th (riddler) in the next film. Though curiously his Robin would not have been dick grayson.

But people were half expecting the extreme camp and silliness to the west series and the marketing was to show it would be more serious and Keaton would not be doing an adam west interpretation.

[Bobthegoon89]

This is not totally about Batman Returns, but I watched B89 again for the first time in a long while, and it struck me how this would have felt in comparison to the 60s show. For example, Romero's Joker goes into an art gallery exhibit and vandalises with his own paint. He takes glee in it and then leaves. Then jump forward to 1989, and we have Nicholson's Joker gassing a museum and dancing around *dead* bodies. He takes glee in it as well, but the dead bodies is quite a jump. The 89 Batman film has death front and centre, eg. the "get a grin again, and again" commercial, and talking to fried corpses. IMO Burton presents the darkness of such acts but in a comicy way where it isn't totally offensive or confronting, but I can see how a kid who grew up on the 60s Batman would be taken back by it. And then BR came along.

Have you seen the episode "Hizzoner the Penguin" which inspired the Penguin for mayor plot in Batman Returns? There is even a moment in that where the Penguin encourages a young girl "fan" to wear a campaign button. It got me laughing cos it clearly inspired the far more adult in tone joke in Returns lol I noticed a few things in the series which inspired the later movies.