did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[The Laughing Fish]

I was a kid at the time, so I don't remember much of the controversies about the killing, the Joker killing his parents, and the Vicki Vale thing. But I can say that out of the three, the one that bothers me the most is the Vicki Vale scene. Not really because Alfred wouldn't let her in the cave, but because it's the worst scene in the movie and feels so tacked on and soap opera-ish.

Welcome GoNerdYourself.

I don't mind that scene, but admittedly it's very soap opera the way it's acted. But I actually appreciate it for the fact it completes Vicki's journey into discovering who Bruce is. I thought Vicki was the most relatable character for people who never knew anything about Batman, as she is picking up the pieces together on who Bruce Wayne is and why he is doing the things he does. As soon as Knox shares the old news on the Waynes tragedy, that's when everything makes sense to Vicki and the rest of the audience.

[thecolorsblend]

I was a kid at the time, so I don't remember much of the controversies about the killing, the Joker killing his parents, and the Vicki Vale thing. But I can say that out of the three, the one that bothers me the most is the Vicki Vale scene. Not really because Alfred wouldn't let her in the cave, but because it's the worst scene in the movie and feels so tacked on and soap opera-ish.

Welcome GoNerdYourself.

I don't mind that scene, but admittedly it's very soap opera the way it's acted. But I actually appreciate it for the fact it completes Vicki's journey into discovering who Bruce is. I thought Vicki was the most relatable character for people who never knew anything about Batman, as she is picking up the pieces together on who Bruce Wayne is and why he is doing the things he does. As soon as Knox shares the old news on the Waynes tragedy, that's when everything makes sense to Vicki and the rest of the audience.

I enjoy the scene with Bruce and Vicki in the Batcave because it lays out both of their agendas. Vicki wants to love Bruce. But Bruce can't really feel love in the same way that a regular, healthier person can.

"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

Sad, really.

Anyway, good scene.

[The Dark Knight]

"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

That's right. He's literally the only man in the world operating from a cave underneath his mansion, dressing up as a bat. In Bruce's mind, that's what it takes to make a real difference. Anyone who attempts to clean up crime any other way is simply doing it wrong.

[The Laughing Fish]

I enjoy the scene with Bruce and Vicki in the Batcave because it lays out both of their agendas. Vicki wants to love Bruce. But Bruce can't really feel love in the same way that a regular, healthier person can.

"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

Sad, really.

Anyway, good scene.

Would you say that Bruce suffered from learned helplessness? I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand, it's a condition where somebody is unable to break through from their depression to the point they develop a habit of adopting painful stimuli, and they're incapable of learning how to adapt to situations and escape from their struggle. Bruce not being able to have a proper romantic relationship to fill that emptiness in his life seems to be a good example of that.

[thecolorsblend]

Would you say that Bruce suffered from learned helplessness? I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand, it's a condition where somebody is unable to break through from their depression to the point they develop a habit of adopting painful stimuli, and they're incapable of learning how to adapt to situations and escape from their struggle. Bruce not being able to have a proper romantic relationship to fill that emptiness in his life seems to be a good example of that.

He does somewhat break through. I view the four movies as taking place all in the same universe so the character we first meet in B89 is the same guy in B&R.

He eventually moved to a healthier space. By the time B&R rolled around, I do believe  he was capable of falling in love with a woman and having a normal relationship with her. He simply had self-imposed responsibilities to the city which he believed were more important. Plus, I think by then he had come to enjoy being Batman. That was more interesting to him than marrying Julie Madison and settling down. But I do believe he either loved her or was capable of loving her.

[The Dark Knight]

Sure, it's canon, and elements of BF flow on quite well. But I personally don't view BF and B&R as the pure continuation of the Butonverse. For the life of me I just can't imagine Michael Keaton's Batman sliding down a museum's dinosaur's back and attending gala balls.

[thecolorsblend]

Sure, it's canon, and elements of BF flow on quite well. But I personally don't view BF and B&R as the pure continuation of the Butonverse. For the life of me I just can't imagine Michael Keaton's Batman sliding down a museum's dinosaur's back and attending gala balls.

This is where the recasting works really well for me. I can't picture that either... and so Val Kilmer and George Clooney allow me to absorb the stories without being distracted by the Keaton issue. The replacement in actors illustrates the growth the character has undergone.

[riddler]

I'm sure all four scripts and dialogues were tailored for the actors and likewise the actors tailored their acting based on the movies they were in. Keaton was a comedic actor before, had he stayed he either would have lightened up his role or the dialogue would be changed. Actually it seems well documented Joel Schumacher wanted Batman Forever to be darker, perhaps if Keaton were on board they would have lightened them up. A lot of people do think George Clooney would have done well if he were in a darker bat film, I don't know why they can easily picture Clooney as a serious Batman but not Keaton as a more comedic one?

Let's play alternate history for a second and pretend Christopher Reeves left the Superman role after the second film but the next two ended up the exact same way. People would be claiming Reeve wouldn't have done all those silly gags in the third film or embarrassing action shots in the fourth and likely blaming the actor change on those films not turning out well. Of course in reality we know that Reeves tailored his acting based on the films he did (similar to Kilmer and Clooney he played into the films he was in at the time) and people blame the studios instead of the main actor for the faults of Supes 3 and 4.


As far as the Batman killing issue, I hate how it's so often discussed (not here but mainly by Nolanites claiming his films are the best due to the lack of killing). I watched the Batman 1966 movie and he even killed in that one; The villains capture Bruce Wayne to lure Batman to save him and they put a trap for Batman at the bottom of the window he'd have to jump through which would fling him out the window and into the ocean where the Penguin had an exploding octopus. Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Here's the bottom line for me; Bob Kane could have easily nixed things like the Jokers death, the Jack Napier backstory, removal of Joe Chill, and Batman killing but he didn't. He also could have denounced the film the way many other creators do. Ronald Dahl and Peter Benchley for instance wreaked havoc on the set when their works were being adapted into movies. So since Kane endorsed Batman killing, why can't the fans?

[The Laughing Fish]

Keaton was a comedic actor before, had he stayed he either would have lightened up his role or the dialogue would be changed. Actually it seems well
documented Joel Schumacher wanted Batman Forever to be darker, perhaps if Keaton were on board they would have lightened them up.

I think I read somewhere that Keaton did a lot of improvisations to the dialogue, and insisted that Batman ought to have less lines if he were supposed to be this creature of the night. It wouldn't surprise me, B89 had a lot of improvisations during production.

Whether or not Keaton simply hated the Schumacher's idea for a more comedic direction, or if he would prefer to make another film without Burton, is anyone's guess.

As far as the Batman killing issue, I hate how it's so often discussed (not here but mainly by Nolanites claiming his films are the best due to the lack of killing). I watched the Batman 1966 movie and he even killed in that one; The villains capture Bruce Wayne to lure Batman to save him and they put a trap for Batman at the bottom of the window he'd have to jump through which would fling him out the window and into the ocean where the Penguin had an exploding octopus. Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Here's the bottom line for me; Bob Kane could have easily nixed things like the Jokers death, the Jack Napier backstory, removal of Joe Chill, and Batman killing but he didn't. He also could have denounced the film the way many other creators do. Ronald Dahl and Peter Benchley for instance wreaked havoc on the set when their works were being adapted into movies. So since Kane endorsed Batman killing, why can't the fans?

RE: 1966, I don't remember that. But I do remember a scene where the Penguin tried to ambush the Batcave with his goons, and Batman and Robin had unwittingly killed some goons when making contact caused them to evaporate.

RE: Bob Kane, despite being the author of the Golden Age comics where Batman kills, there is this stubborn attitude by some people who suggest that period was a bastardisation and doesn't have any relevance in Batman's history. Which is utterly idiotic. Not only that was the character's debut, he had killed many times in the comics over the years, particularly in the 70s and 80s. Never mind the films. But you'd be surprised at how people will ignore or even twist the facts, as long there's a film has Batman paying lip service to something he supposedly believes in.

I guess another reason is the reception towards Kane's legacy seems to be a touchy topic of discussion among fans. The whole backstory about Kane obtaining full creator credit at the expense of Bill Finger, despite Finger's contributions made the character to what he is today, has left a bad taste in the mouth. So that might explain why some people disregard his approval and involvement in the Burton films.

Finally, I've concluded that if a large number of critics and comics creators throw their support or contempt for a film, it helps to sway popular consensus. For instance, the same people who complained about Burton and Snyder for Batman killing and how they deconstructed him on screen, never said a word about Nolan doing the same thing, and that certainly influences people into thinking Nolan's take was free of wrongdoing. If somebody as respected like Denny O'Neil says "Christopher Nolan understood Batman more than I did", people will believe it because he's seen as somebody with credibility. Of course, when you watch the film and you realise Batman is nothing more than an irresponsible, James Bond knock-off with unreliable moral stances, one would question what the hell O'Neil is even talking about. Now, O'Neil still has an appreciation for Burton's films, but if he like many other comics artists and writers overwhelmingly respected them, it wouldn't surprise me that would influence on some people's reaction for them.

[Silver Nemesis]

Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.