Is it weird...

[Wayne49]

I think this is an interesting discussion because there seems to be a kind of "either/or" position here according to treatment. Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule but I like both Schumacher and Nolan movies. I can't compare much between them because the treatments contrast too much to be placed on the same measures outside of just being entertained.

I WILL say I tend to view the Schumacher films ten fold over the Nolan ones. But once again, it's not because I find anything disparaging in the Nolan movies. I thought those were done quite well. And I get why some don't like the conceptually nature of those movies. But I prefer Schumacher's movies because they capture the visual appeal of the character in grander fashion. I enjoy the colored lights and big landscapes and colorful villains. To me that is part of the comic book experience and I respect Schumacher for embracing it. For me, Batman is at his best as an idea when he's allowed to be that colorful hero that reflects his name.

The psychological side of Batman is certainly fascinating and I like those approaches. But when it comes to repeat viewings, I have less interest in a psychological profile of Batman so much as a hero who performs heroic deeds. I would rather see the Clooney Batman fight Freeze, than listen to a speech from Bane as he breaks Batman's back. It's not that the latter is not without intensity and quality drama. But how many times can you revisit that for entertainment purposes? When I get in a Batman mood, I tend to call up Schumacher's interpretation because it's fun and entertaining. It's quality escapism and that's what I seek in this genre. It's kind of like horror films. Do you go to get scared or just study the mind of the killer? These kinds of movies tend to be more serviceable on an emotional level, than psychological profiles.

This is also why I'm VERY curious about the treatment in Batman vs. Superman. I think this film will have allot of divisions in those who like it or don't like it. And the reasons will be varied for sure because this film seems to be trying to be overtly serious while still playing in a comic book world. That's risky as a treatment in my book. Taking the material too serious while still retaining a comic book rationale sometimes comes off as unintended camp. I can only buy so much into a armor coated Batman facing off against Superman with the line, "Do you bleed? I'll make you bleed." That plays almost like one part Schumacher, one part Nolan. It's hard to take it serious, but the movie is asking me to take it serious. So I'm not sure if that works.

That's one thing I always liked about Schumacher's Batman. He never makes any pretense that Batman is real or that we are operating in a real world with real laws of physics. It's 100% make-believe and he sticks to that theme with both movies. So you either buy into that treatment or you don't. Same applies with Nolan. He stayed very much in that conceptual realm of 'what if' and answers the question of how long the idea of Batman could be sustained and if someone else would simply carry the mantle when Wayne is done. I can't say I'm getting as clear a vision from Zack Snyder and his film.  He seems to be bouncing around and that has me a bit cautious at getting my hopes up too high. I was not a big fan of Man of Steel so I'm wary of where he might take this one.

[johnnygobbs]

I have many doubts about Snyder's treatment of Batman and the overall DC Cinematic Universe, but I'm also a huge, huge fan of the Burton Batman films, which did, IMHO, successfully merge the serious with the reasonably campy.  The same applies to the 1990s animated TV show.  By contrast, I think the Nolan and Schumacher films go too far in the diametric extremes. 

As far as today's CBMs go, I think the MCU is a great template for how to ensure these movies are both sophisticated and fun, without ever becoming too dour or too silly.

Wayne49, what are your feelings on the Burton films?

[Wayne49]

Wayne49, what are your feelings on the Burton films?

I really enjoyed the first movie. I thought Burton essentially created the modern day cinematic Batman as we know him. And honestly everything that has come since sprung from this film (my opinion). Before Batman '89, I think studios were conflicted on how to bring any of these heroes to life because they all felt tied to tights like Christopher Reeves wore. So Batman was a real leap in that next evolution where you could create the character in spirit, using conceptualized materials, but still retain enough identity in appearance to fit with the comic book interpretation.

Of course Jack Nicholson was tremendous and I like the fact Burton kept him in a more traditional comic book appearance while letting his performance become something of his own. It was an epic casting choice and I sincerely doubt another actor could have pulled this off as convincingly as what Nicholson did. And with total respect and admiration to Heath Ledger for making the Joker his own, my preference will always be this one. Jack Nicholson made him unnerving, yet charming. Ledger was tremendous at capturing the Joker's mental disconnect, but I always pictured the Joker being more in control when he wanted to be. Burton and Nicholson really flushed that out and gave him a more fully developed character.

As far as treatment, I thought the first one was classic Burton. The world of Batman perfectly fits into the gothic surrealism that defines so many of Burton's films. Now I do think Warner Bros. had a little more of a handle on his creative freedom. So while I think Batman '89 is definitely a Burton product, there is allot of restraint on where he could go in that process. I think this was movie by committee, but I think most of what Burton wanted got in. The end result was a kind of Pulp noir environment that perfectly fed into the believability and likelihood of a character like Batman operating within that world. Add to that the incredible score by Danny Elfman and the initial film is a lasting classic, (but also something of a period piece as well).

I think the first Burton Batman had allot of responsibilities that other films after that no longer had to concern themselves with. First and foremost, Burton had to sell Batman to a public whose only real association to the character in real life was Adam West. So when I watch this initial film I have to always keep that context in mind, because there was allot of posturing in this film to sell the character. There are tons of stylized moments to show Batman in the shadows; To see Batman's cape blowing in the wind in front of criminals;  To see Batman breaking through the glass ceiling; The introduction of the Batmobile (and on and on). So this first film has to frame the entire universe AND get a story told all at the same time, so it has to plod along more than any other Batman movie because of those demands. While I thoroughly respect and enjoy this first installment, I ultimately have to be in a mood for THIS film to watch it. Being in a Batman mood doesn't really take me here. I have to be in a more nostalgic mood to get to this film, but it doesn't remove my respect and admiration for what Burton did. It's an absolute CLASSIC. Batman Returns? I have allot of problems with it.

Not to bog you down on another four paragraph explanation, but I think Burton was never interested in doing a sequel and I think this movie shows that with painful abundance. The entire movie is so disjointed from where we left off in the first film, it's difficult to know what time frame they are in with regards to his career. The casting is very odd throughout. I liked the idea of Danny DeVito as the Penguin, but what we got was really totally off any expectation I had in mind. He seem like a hybrid between the Joker and Quasimodo. His motivations were strange and not at all kid friendly in terms of making a comic book movie. Christopher Walken was an utter bore as a corrupt politician  and not remotely charming as a character portrayed as an ace manipulator in office. Plus his electric power plant scheme was SO vanilla, it was hard to get into the story at all. Add to that this bizarre Catwoman origin ( I still don't understand it) and there are too many bland chefs in the villain kitchen.

Keaton didn't seem to have a whole lot to do in this movie, but I did like the updates to his costume. Of course none of that forgives the scene where Burton just mails it in and shows Batman starting to take his mask off, still with black makeup around his eyes, then in the next cut away scene he clearly has no black makeup on as he rips it away. That was just plain lazy and completely took me out of the story. So watching the movie is kind of like an endurance test, because it has so many incomplete story threads and nothing really connects well, so it's a relief when it finally ends. I get the sense the director felt this way as well and the material shows that. I will say I do like the general cosmetics of the film. Seeing the Batmobile cut through the snow is very cool. Seeing it sabotaged was interesting as well. So the movie is not without it's moments, but for me it's shortcomings in story awareness and a general direction in plot leaves me mostly disinterested.

[The Dark Knight]

I have many doubts about Snyder's treatment of Batman and the overall DC Cinematic Universe

What are your main concerns?

[The Laughing Fish]

Batman Returns? I have allot of problems with it.

I prefer B89 over BR a fair bit, but I do enjoy both. That being said, I have to disagree with your overall analysis of the sequel.

The Penguin is definitely a far cry to the gentleman mob boss that's normally depicted, that I can't deny. But I personally prefer the film version because I thought he was rather complex. He maybe a deviant, but he also has moments where you can feel sorry for him for being a reject like in the cemetery scene, and arguably wonder if he could've turned out a different person had his parents never abandoned him as a baby. The film initially showed us that he was eager to reclaim his identity and humanity and wanted to be recognized by society...until he was booed off the stage and his campaign for mayor was left in tatters once Batman exposed his true colours. As perverted as he is, let's face it, you'd be hard pressed to find any live action Batman movie produced by WB that didn't have something that wasn't kid friendly.

What intrigues me is the villains do a fair bit of manipulation in BR. Penguin blackmails Max Schreck so the latter is forced to use his social clout to help Penguin bring into society and search what he's looking for. Schreck uses Penguin into starting a mayoral campaign so he could get that nuclear power plant in return. Catwoman thought she could use Penguin into getting revenge over Batman, only to find out she was used as a pawn in the death of the Ice Princess to frame Batman. Killing the Ice Princess was something she didn't sign up for. In my opinion, I find the villains here way more interesting than, for example, the Nolan villains, who I thought had much weaker (if any) motivations and were completely overrated in general. Only Ra's al Ghul had a clearer agenda out of that bunch.

Burton looked like was trying to make Catwoman's nine lives ambiguous, but I do believe Selina's transformation was supernatural, and the cats were the symbol and cause for her transformation. Some people might find this outrageous, but I don't think it's any less absurd than Ra's al Ghul living for many centuries thanks to the Lazarus Pit. Batman media is no stranger to the supernatural after all.

Selina becoming Catwoman is the extreme outcome once she had survived all the abuse she experienced and being taken advantage of, and her near death experience tipped her over the edge. She was so used to being pushed over that she sees any authority over her as a threat, including Batman. At the same time, it makes her chemistry with Bruce Wayne work, despite how premature their relationship is. Both are arguably socially awkward people and are products of tragedy, and both desired vengeance at some point. And both could only get any relief in their lives by becoming these costumed freaks. To me, this works far better than something like Dark Knight Rises, where the relationship between the two was completely forced, and neither had anything in common with each other.

BR isn't perfect though. It does feel very episodic and not like a direct sequel to B89, it has its share of plot holes and I do wish Keaton had more screen time. And yes, I'll go far by admitting that it can be depressing sometimes because of bittersweet ending and the tragic tone. But the characters, and their acting in particular, make it a worthwhile for me.

[Wayne49]

Great overview Laughing fish. I'll tell you where Burton lost me on the Penguin. The pathos that he initially sets up for this character quickly gets diluted down into the various motivations that ultimately seem to be present with him all along. While I get his resentment and anger, hence the motivation, I don't believe he could be so easily accepted into society as Burton asked us to believe. Abandon baby- sewer life with penguins - circumstantial hero - popular mayoral candidate. Nope can't buy that. Emotionally it derails the notion he has deficits if all he had to do was carve out a scheme to "save" the mayor's baby and suddenly people entrust him enough to possibly run their city? That is such a leap of logic it completely derails whatever sympathy I had for him. Add to that he uses this implausible moment to research city archives for all the newborns and you immediately understand he is using the city's naïve moment of outreach to kill their children. There is never really that moment of bonding because it was never his intent. Then you have these pseudo-sexual moments where he tells the Catwoman, "Ah just the p*ssy I was looking for" and you've got a person so utterly unlikable, any notions of caring have long since left.

For me, the idea of utilizing pathos in an effective manner is when characters get labeled unjustly for what they can't change, when inside they truly have good intentions. And while we can loosely utilize that idea for when he was a baby, that is ultimately lost in translation as he ascends into society as an adult only to make them pay for what his parents did to him. His motivations are never well intended. He never really has any desire to be a part of society and uses the story of his parents as a cover to get to the archives on the kids. It's a fairly twisted motive for a Batman movie because it really touches on an almost taboo subject that kids coming to see a superhero movie should not be exposed to. Especially when you see how the Penguin manages it all in a very destructive way. I can see a number of kids having nightmares over this film. Which is most likely why it had the backlash it did from some parents. I agree with you the social context can be complicated, but there has to be some consideration for the audience when you approach this material. My belief is Burton was so busy trying to layer him with outrage to make him evil and menacing, he never really stepped back to see the full picture. I don't like the Penguin because he is designed to be so unlikeable it never allows me to consider his circumstances. Burton just went too far for my tastes.

The Catwoman is a really strange kind of social commentary about women and the stereotypes society places them in. Burton is using Selina Kyle as this token secretary that gets the second class treatment from her executive bosses. It plays on some interesting levels, but I think it gets diluted in this maze of themes playing both in her general character and in her transformation to Catwoman. To me it seems more psychological than supernatural. You see another character repressing all of this pent up resentment for her mistreatment. So when she gets thrown out of the window, this is essentially the final straw that breaks her emotional and psychological containment. Having the alley cats amass around her after her fall, to me, was the new identity she accepted when she came to. So I got the representation of her character. Where that idea falls apart is how she literally comes to have nine lives. I don't think that got explained too well. So I guess I'm forced to accept it as you do as some kind of supernatural ability picked up from the kitties. That too kind of serves as a social message because of her having to constantly reconstitute herself as society tears her down. So I get the social analogies that are fairly thick on this character. I just wish Burton had abandoned the Penguin story and focused on one villain. I think a Batman/Catwoman standalone story could have been far more interesting to see.

Ultimately the entire story is thematically about estrangement from society. Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin all have circumstances that make them withdrawal into these characters they create to manage the emotional wounds they carry from personal tragedy. I completely agree with you that the characters are complex in one form or another. I think where we may differ is the application of those ideas as it applies to personal entertainment.

For me, the superhero genre is primarily an emotional experience. I relish these kinds of movies because it's enjoyable to see characters placed in front of insurmountable odds and overcome them in over-the-top fashion. There's a kind of pageantry in these movies that celebrates that indomitable spirit people have when they believe enough in themselves, they are moved to do great things. To me, that is the baseline experience I look for in these films.

With Batman Returns, I didn't really get any kind of resolution to all of this anguish drummed up in the story. The Penguin dies; The Catwoman survives and wanders off; And Batman has a newfound appreciation for women but it seems a little hypocritical because it appears wrapped up in the form of a crush for Catwoman (reinforcing the stereotype). So the messaging in all this is all pretty convoluted and doesn't leave me feeling hopeful or otherwise enlightened by what transpired. I would have preferred a positive message to counterbalance all of the tragedy viewers were subjected to. But I absolutely understand this film has it's stout supporters and I would never suggest otherwise.

[The Dark Knight]

I'll tell you where Burton lost me on the Penguin. The pathos that he initially sets up for this character quickly gets diluted down into the various motivations that ultimately seem to be present with him all along. While I get his resentment and anger, hence the motivation, I don't believe he could be so easily accepted into society as Burton asked us to believe. Abandon baby- sewer life with penguins - circumstantial hero - popular mayoral candidate. Nope can't buy that.

In other films we get the 'people fear what they don't understand' theme. But I personally buy the message Burton presented in BR. People do get swept up in rags to riches stories. Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of those. But Burton is also commenting on the powerful role of the media and PR teams. That they can take a vile sewer dweller and change public perceptions to the point he's a legitimate mayoral prospect. In reality, Penguin spits out his cigar holder. In the posters? He's happily chomping down on one. You don't necessarily need to believe in the policies you spout - it's just the public facade that matters. Like other politicians, Oswald had a secret life that eventually brought his candidacy down.

[The Laughing Fish]

That's one thing I always liked about Schumacher's Batman. He never makes any pretense that Batman is real or that we are operating in a real world with real laws of physics. It's 100% make-believe and he sticks to that theme with both movies. So you either buy into that treatment or you don't. Same applies with Nolan. He stayed very much in that conceptual realm of 'what if' and answers the question of how long the idea of Batman could be sustained and if someone else would simply carry the mantle when Wayne is done.

I agree that Schumacher's movies are fantastical and have a sense of fun, despite whatever issues I have with the acting and jokes.

But honestly, I don't understand what you mean when you feel that Superman and Batman facing off might be hard to take seriously, because I I had a similar problem with Nolan's approach. To me, what makes Nolan much worse is he made these movies with the pretense of grounding them in reality, to the point even the characters are toned down to fit in with this world to make it more believable. Instead, at least to me, it only highlights how unrealistic Batman, Joker and so on are. The more they try to make it realistic, the more outrageous it becomes.

Batman is no more realistic than any other superhero. We can suspend our disbelief if we watch something like BTAS, B66, a Burton or Schumacher movie because they embrace the character as a fantasy. But in Nolan's case, he focuses on trying to give a practical explanation to things that only highlight how unrealistic they are: like explaining where the Tumbler and gadgets come from, yet we're supposed to believe nobody else in Wayne Enterprises notices that Batman is driving around the city in company property.

And then Nolan's films continuously break its rules whenever it's convenient, making it feel like he wants to have it both ways. Batman's weak armor can't protect him from dog bites, knife attacks or general bodily harm, but it can allow him to survive crashing on top of cars after jumping off roof tops and car park platforms...but at the same time, we're lead to believe that his fall from a much smaller height at the end of the movie was supposed to have crippled his leg? And on top of that he heals from eight years of injury just by simply doing exercises and getting his vertebra repaired by having it punched? When he escapes the pit, he has no money, no other means to escape a foreign country, yet he mysteriously returns to a landlocked Gotham? Or surviving a nuclear explosion without exploring how? To me, this defeats the whole purpose of exploring how long Batman could last in the real world.

Whether Batman v Superman turns out to be a good movie or not remains to be seen, but I don't think Batman and Superman together in the movie itself will strain the movie's credibility.

Then you have these pseudo-sexual moments where he tells the Catwoman, "Ah just the p*ssy I was looking for" and you've got a person so utterly unlikable, any notions of caring have long since left.

There was nothing pseudo about it - it was completely sexual. And pervered. Very crude line that was. 

You're definitely right that Penguin was off-putting and I can see your point about having a truly sympathetic villain needing to have good intentions. But what makes the film captivating for many fans is the argument that the Penguin only knew hate and rejection all his life, and never learned any morals since he spent his whole life being rejected as a freak. Which to many fans it makes those scenes poignant, because there's always the question "what if he never had to be rejected to begin with, and actually knew what being cared and loved about was like"? But keep in mind once again, your analysis is fair, I just think the other argument is valid too.

My belief is Burton was so busy trying to layer him with outrage to make him evil and menacing, he never really stepped back to see the full picture. I don't like the Penguin because he is designed to be so unlikeable it never allows me to consider his circumstances. Burton just went too far for my tastes.

This reminds me of how I feel about TDK's Joker. The only difference is I felt him to be a rather incomplete character, who has no past, no real end, and no real sense of humour to speak of. A lot of people like to cite The Killing Joke as an influence for that portrayal, but I disagree. Joker in that comic actually had a sympathetic backstory that I don't believe he was making it up. But admittedly, that's totally beside the point of what we're talking about here.

While I do understand how you felt that Burton used subtext in bad taste, I still stand by my point that none of the WB Batman films are innocent. As we've already agreed, Schumacher's camera direction had sexual undertones that even kids thought were slightly perverted. Nolan had a backstory where Bane saved Talia as a child back in the Pit, where for all we know, prisoners were trying to rape and murder her. That's just as equally twisted as Penguin's plot to murder first born children in my opinion. And nothing about TDK was particularly endearing either.

Batman has a newfound appreciation for women but it seems a little hypocritical because it appears wrapped up in the form of a crush for Catwoman (reinforcing the stereotype).

I don't really see Batman being hypocritical there. I do, however, see the hypocrisy in his line "Wrong at both counts!" when he was trying to talk Catwoman out from killing Schreck. I know that Batman was trying to stop her because it was arguably the first time in his life that he was deeply concerned about watching someone tearing themselves apart. And the scene was not about arguing from a moral standpoint, nor does it take away the fact that he never claimed to ever have a moral code beforehand. But still, Batman is a vigilante who gets to use lethal force without being accountable for his actions, and even got his own revenge over the Joker in B89. It was an unnecessary thing to say.

This is why I do understand if some people like BF and BR equally, or BF better. It wasn't until last year when I watched the film for the first time in ages that I understood what Bruce meant when he said "The pain doesn't end with Harvey, it grows. And you seek another face and another. Until you wake one terrible morning wondering what was revenge for". It gives us a clue that Bruce realized that his desire for vengeance was hurting him, and didn't want Dick to go through that experience.

I would have preferred a positive message to counterbalance all of the tragedy viewers were subjected to. But I absolutely understand this film has it's stout supporters and I would never suggest otherwise.

No worries. I may appreciate BR, but I do understand that it's not for everybody too, so I don't begrudge you for having  a more negative opinion towards it.

[Wayne49]

Solid points Laughing Fish (and Dark Knight). The social analogies are strong in BR, without question. I'm also in complete agreement that each installment of Batman faces credibility issues if we look at them too closely. The Nolan films tend to trip over themselves in trying to apply a practical application to the concept. The one monster discrepancy those films make is in the use of the Tumbler. Here we have a concept vehicle that was rejected by the military, yet you're going to tell me that a simple paint job is going to mask the distinct design of this vehicle so that none of the engineers (not to mention military personnel and politicians) are oblivious to it's origins when it's shown on GNN television? In the real world, Twitter would be lighting up upon first sight of this vehicle and a news crew, not to mention the police, would be surrounding Wayne Manor. So the world it tries to operate in is constantly challenged by the creations Nolan introduces. And from that perspective, I have an easier time buying into the Schumacher universe than Nolan's, because there are fewer discrepancies in what the director is establishing us to accept. And that's where I have early concerns for the new Batman vs Superman movie.

That film, at least from trailer suggestions, is walking a line between the Nolan and Schumacher universe. It looks like it's trying to be heavy handed on the social themes by bestowing a God complex on Superman. And while this was, initially, an interesting idea when it was first introduced both in comics and movies (Superman Returns), I think it's getting to be a bit overused at this stage. I just hope this doesn't become an Ang Lee style treatment where the director gets bogged down on his social/psychological examination to try and elevate the material where it doesn't need to go.

I think when directors try to inject too much social commentary into a story (that is primarily a fantastical journey), it tends to rip at the very fiber of what makes the movie interesting. I have absolutely no issues with films playing to a theme, as long as they don't leave the tracks of reason that strays from the basis of what their making. We're talking about Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman here. I don't want a pretentious story about the obvious fragility of pedestals we build for those we hold to a high standard. I get it. I also understand I'm watching a man in a bat costume fight a being that can raise mountains with his bare hands. So, for me, there needs to be a cut off where the director lets the material breath as a comic book otherwise it becomes unintended camp because it takes itself more serious than the core of the material can sustain. The disbelief I have agreed to check in at the door needs to be rewarded, not challenged. For me, the Schumacher universe and the Nolan universe are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of story telling. This movie looks to be trying to carry both and I'm wondering if I can swallow what it's selling. Early concerns, but I have to see the film to know if that plays out or not. Trailers can often take on a tone unintended so we'll see how this runs.

In closing I would like to add I enjoy going to see anything having to do with Batman. And that's not to be PC in this discussion so much as to underscore my basic love of the character. He's a fascinating hero and I love the various looks different artists have given him through the years. Of course, like anything, I'm going to favor some over others, as we all do.  In terms of watch-ability, I lean on the Schumacher films and Burton films the most because, for me, they deliver the best ride for the suspension of disbelief each asks of me. As Laughing Fish has said so nicely, I don't get lost in the suggestion any of these are truly grounded in believability. Each iteration has glaring issues if we apply too much logic to the concept.

And while I would never argue that one treatment 'should be' the preferred version over another, I'm not a big fan of beating up the ones I like the least. Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses so my favorites really just come down to personal preference. I know the Schumacher films lack the attention to script that the Nolan films demand. But I also understand there's a different intent between those styles that calls for more attention to different elements. Schumacher films tend to emphasize color and spectacle to drive it's mood, where Nolan films tend to dig into character development and shadow to drive it's tone. For me, Batman is such a broad and colorful universe of characters, I find more joy in watching the movies that celebrate those ideas, even if they are more light in the story telling. I find there is an acute honesty to the concept when a director can just admit, "Everyone knows this is not real, so lets abandon any pretense of practicality and go have some fun in this world." In an age where everything is debated to death in social media it's refreshing, if not brave, to watch a film that doesn't try to answer those critics. I like it when Batman can just be Batman.