Michael Uslan on BATMAN RETURNS

[BatmanReturns88]

Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

Anybody care to elaborate on that statement ? What's your take on it ? What do you guys think ?

[Silver Nemesis]

I think he was referring to the trend for Elseworlds stories that peaked in popularity during the nineties. Many had a grotesque gothic fantasy vibe, not a million miles from what Burton did in Batman Returns.

Check out the Batman Vampire trilogy, Batman: Holy Terror (1991), Batman/Dark Joker: The Wild (1993), Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop (1993), Batman: Castle of the Bat (1994), Batman: Masque (1997), 'The Tyrnat' (Shadow of the Bat Annual Vol 1 #2, 1994), Batman: The Book of the Dead (1999), Batman: Nosferatu (1999), and Batman: Haunted Gotham (1999-2000) for some of the nineties Elseworlds comics Uslan might have been referring to.

His "soulless" comment probably alludes to the violent nihilistic tone of the movie, as well as the fact it disregards Batman's moral code from the comics. Many Elseworlds stories contained similarly dark and nihilistic atmospheres. Some also depicted Batman as a killer.

[Azrael]

It's possible he had Shadow of the Bat in mind too (this monthly debuted at around the same time Returns did). I remember some very atmospheric Batman stories in its earlier issues. Same goes for Legends of the Dark Knight (the first issue came out in 1989).

 

[Silver Nemesis]

Of course many of the comics of that era were consciously reflecting the popularity of the Burton films. Some on a purely visual level (see how Anton Furst's Gotham designs were incorporated following 'The Destroyer' storyline in 1992), other times more substantially. Check out these panels from 'Shaman: Book I' (Legends of the Dark Knight Vol 1 #1, November 1989). Remind you of a scene from Batman 89?

So it's possible Uslan was referring to Burton's influence on the comics of that period. Though that wouldn't explain his remarks about Batman Returns being "soulless" and "vampiric". I wish he'd elaborate on the film's connection (or lack thereof) with the source material.

[BatmanReturns88]

Thank you so very much guys for taking time out of your schedules and giving me detailed answers - I really appreciate it !

[The Dark Knight]

Thank you so very much guys for taking time out of your schedules and giving me detailed answers - I really appreciate it !

Our pleasure. I hope you stay around the forums.

[thecolorsblend]

Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

It's worth remembering that Uslan came of age on a very different type of Batman comic than was widely available in the 1990's. He may have been expressing a derisive opinion about Batman comics of that era. We all have our favorite eras while we maybe don't get into other eras as much. There's no reason to think Uslan should be any different in having favorites.

[BatmanReturns88]

Have always wondered what Michael Uslan means when he says: "The second BATMAN film was - in my estimation - the Batman of the 1990s. Almost souless, very dark, almost vampiric."

It's worth remembering that Uslan came of age on a very different type of Batman comic than was widely available in the 1990's. He may have been expressing a derisive opinion about Batman comics of that era. We all have our favorite eras while we maybe don't get into other eras as much. There's no reason to think Uslan should be any different in having favorites.

Oh yeah, that does make sense.

I think Batman Returns is a masterpiece.

[thecolorsblend]

I think Batman Returns is a masterpiece.

It does a lot of things... and it does most of them really well. It's not perfect but I'll take Batman Returns with all its flaws any day over forgettable conveyor belt BS tripe like Guardians of the Galaxy.

[The Dark Knight]

Batman Returns is good, but I wouldn't label it a masterpiece. I may be way off base, but right now, I don't think any movie is a masterpiece. Movies at their core should entertain and elicit some form of a reaction, good or bad. Consensus is something that is never going to be reached with any product. So we just have our own opinions. Someone may trot out the company line of 'Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time.' Someone else may say, that's boring old rubbish. If we enjoy a film, that should be enough.