Batman's arc

[BatmanFurst]

Let me be clear, I don't mind if people don't like the Burton films. Under normal circumstances, I can happily admit they're not perfect by any means. But if people are going to judge these sort of movies by comparing them to the comics too much, then they're going to be very disappointed. Because for every one of these movies that might take some ideas here and there, you'll likely find them taking twice the amount of liberties. That, and I have no tolerance when agenda-driven people like that YouTube channel and Goyer spread misinformation.

Goyer, in particular, has a notorious reputation for having a big mouth. He said some stupid things over the years in addition to those quotes I listed, e.g. claiming the Martian Manhunter character could never work on film, and went on record to put down B89 on the 25th anniversary home video release, even though the Nolan series recreated ideas and scenes from that movie, and BR to a lesser extent.

But even if Goyer was complimentary and affectionate towards the Burton films, it wouldn't have improved my opinion on the Nolan stuff. Same thing goes for Nolan respecting B89, I don't care. Aside some moments here and there, I don't like those movies at all. I thought TDK, in particular, was awful, and the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot bad movies in this genre. Sorry, but that movie doesn't deserve to be held on such a high pedestal.

Well we can at least agree about spreading misinformation. If it makes you feel any better I don't think any of the fans of Nolan's trilogy really hold Goyer up on a pedestal. People usually blame some of the more ridiculous aspects of Batman Begins on him rather than the Nolan bros.

I know it's a little off topic, but I'm curious as to why The Dark Knight in particular didn't work for you.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well we can at least agree about spreading misinformation. If it makes you feel any better I don't think any of the fans of Nolan's trilogy really hold Goyer up on a pedestal. People usually blame some of the more ridiculous aspects of Batman Begins on him rather than the Nolan bros.

Given that Nolan relied on Goyer as the go-to guy for getting ideas from comics to make his films, I find the general fan consensus to be rather amusing.

I know it's a little off topic, but I'm curious as to why The Dark Knight in particular didn't work for you.

Oh gee...I've been complaining in detail about that movie for years now, and I don't want to bore you here with a huge write-up. But to get the obvious out of the way, I'll say all the complaints people throw at BvS for its flaws are not only present here, but are actually even worse. Full of nonsensical character moments like Batman's inconsistent moral code, which makes the Joker conflict a pointless farce (and is a constant problem throughout the entire trilogy), really poor character development e.g. Harvey Dent; for all the talk about the supposed realism in this film, Dent's descent into madness is utterly unrealistic, rushed and absurd. Compare that to how the BTAS two-part episode and comics like The Eye of the Beholder and The Long Halloween developed his transformation into Two-Face, the film version is really immature.

Worst of all, the themes are a complete mess. Batman's supposed arc as a symbol just twists and turns for no logical reason other than to sacrifice himself to cover up for Harvey Dent, who doesn't do anything to justify his reputation despite what we're told "he's the best of us". Never mind that Batman taking the fall in the end so people don't lose hope over learning Dent became a murderer, only undermines his belief they could persevere and reject Joker's nihilism during the ferry scene. As well as the unrealistic attempts at the moral dilemma. Batman and Dent can get away with the conspiracy to kidnap somebody like Lau in his own country without facing any consequences, but we're supposed to accept that revealing Dent's crimes could somehow release every crook he put away? That's nonsense.

I could say a bit more, but again, I don't want to dwell, and this comment is already long enough than I wanted it to be. And given I've said a lot in the TDK sub-forum, I would only beat a dead horse at this point. It's just a badly written movie. If it weren't for the hype that's still strong to this day, and if it was directed by anybody else, lots people would've been scathing towards this film. Unfortunately, the worst part about this film's legacy is, as long as a character pays lip service to certain ideals, people will accept anything. I know that sounds condescending, I'm sorry, but I don't accept that.

[The Laughing Fish]

With that all said, going back to B89, I can understand some people's gripes with the movie in some aspects of Batman's character. For instance, I thought it was rather strange we never got a follow-up scene, or a reaction, once he avenges his parents in the end. It treats it as if Batman has no time to deal with it, and he's immediately focused in the business as Gotham City's official guardian.

If I could see one argument against Batman killing in the Burton films, it would be simply for the fact that it robbed us of the chance to see the big name villains like the Joker and Penguin to star together hit back at Batman in a future movie. The problem is nobody at WB or Burton at the time thought of an ongoing story arc past the first film; I think was unsure that he'd want to come back to do a second one because he didn't really enjoy his experience directing the first film. He only came back to make BR because he was guaranteed more creative freedom.

Come to think of it, it's a real shame we've had all of these live action films, but we've never had a movie where Batman has to fight every villain he had put away. Hollywood always prefer to kill the bad guys off. The closest we ever got was Suicide Squad, but A) Batman only appeared in cameos capturing Deadshot and Harley Quinn and B) it wasn't a Batman movie anyway.

[BatmanFurst]

With that all said, going back to B89, I can understand some people's gripes with the movie in some aspects of Batman's character. For instance, I thought it was rather strange we never got a follow-up scene, or a reaction, once he avenges his parents in the end. It treats it as if Batman has no time to deal with it, and he's immediately focused in the business as Gotham City's official guardian.

If I could see one argument against Batman killing in the Burton films, it would be simply for the fact that it robbed us of the chance to see the big name villains like the Joker and Penguin to star together hit back at Batman in a future movie. The problem is nobody at WB or Burton at the time thought of an ongoing story arc past the first film; I think was unsure that he'd want to come back to do a second one because he didn't really enjoy his experience directing the first film. He only came back to make BR because he was guaranteed more creative freedom.

Come to think of it, it's a real shame we've had all of these live action films, but we've never had a movie where Batman has to fight every villain he had put away. Hollywood always prefer to kill the bad guys off. The closest we ever got was Suicide Squad, but A) Batman only appeared in cameos capturing Deadshot and Harley Quinn and B) it wasn't a Batman movie anyway.

I think this really started the trend of killing the villains off with each film. Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy also took a similar approach. With this film I think they killed the Joker off for 2 reasons.

1. Keep this a self contained story just in case it flopped.

2. Not have to worry about handing over millions of dollars to get Nicholson back.


To be honest I kinda wish this was the only Batman film that got made from the 80's/90's just because I feel like the sequels have sullied its reputation to a degree. Even though Burton presumably had a tough time with Jon Peters, I still think it's a stronger film than Returns. When it comes to Batman I do prefer Burton being a little more restrained.

[thecolorsblend]

I know it's a little off topic, but I'm curious as to why The Dark Knight in particular didn't work for you.

Oh boy, now you've done it.

Anyway. As for me, the Nolan films have aged amazingly well. I started off really ambivalent about them. Then I became rather hostile, due in no small part to the behavior of members from a different Batman page, the name of which we do not speak here. It's enough to say that they bordered on a religious cult at times and that really affected my enjoyment of the Nolan movies.

Until TDKRises, that is. That began a really gradual rehabilitation of Nolan's films for me. Today, I rather enjoy all three of them. They're just one filmmaker's take on Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. They're highly enjoyable, though I don't regard them as definitive.

In particular, I enjoy TDKRises because it gave Batman an ending. People can like that ending or they can hate it. But he finally has an ending to his story and I cherish that fact. TDKRises is good... and I think simply being good makes some people rather hate it because it follows TDK, which is widely regarded as terrific. Being merely good on the heels of a terrific film is a pretty significant problem for some people and I understand that. But TDKRises is still good and I enjoy it and its two predecessors.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think this really started the trend of killing the villains off with each film. Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy also took a similar approach. With this film I think they killed the Joker off for 2 reasons.

1. Keep this a self contained story just in case it flopped.

2. Not have to worry about handing over millions of dollars to get Nicholson back.

I suppose WB preferred to take a more conservative approach because of the collapse of the Superman franchise a few years earlier. And yes, Nicholson's greed, for a lack of a better word, might've played a factor too.

Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man series had the potential to unite the villains altogether to face off against Spider-Man, but that franchise was cancelled prematurely.

To be honest I kinda wish this was the only Batman film that got made from the 80's/90's just because I feel like the sequels have sullied its reputation to a degree.

I think that's subjective. The sequels in the Reeve Superman series were inferior to the Donner film, but it didn't hurt that movie's reputation. For me, I don't like nearly all of the Phase Three MCU films, but it doesn't hurt my enjoyment of the previous films of that franchise.

[The Dark Knight]

To be honest I kinda wish this was the only Batman film that got made from the 80's/90's just because I feel like the sequels have sullied its reputation to a degree.

I don't feel that way. Returns has a strong following, and Forever also has merit, even if it's still not my ideal interpretation. The film that derailed the train was the Clooney film. And that was eight years after Batman 1989. Its tone, visuals and change in actors (sans Alfred and Gordon) from B89 made the franchise feel divorced from where it started. I don't associate the Burton films with Batman and Robin at all. B&R is like it's own thing.

Even though Burton presumably had a tough time with Jon Peters, I still think it's a stronger film than Returns. When it comes to Batman I do prefer Burton being a little more restrained.

I find Returns to be the more interesting and emotionally powerful film, but in terms of a more pure Batman experience, its hard to go past B89. Burton essentially made a greatest hits package featuring Batman's greatest foe.

[BatmanFurst]

To be honest I kinda wish this was the only Batman film that got made from the 80's/90's just because I feel like the sequels have sullied its reputation to a degree.

I don't feel that way. Returns has a strong following, and Forever also has merit, even if it's still not my ideal interpretation. The film that derailed the train was the Clooney film. And that was eight years after Batman 1989. Its tone, visuals and change in actors (sans Alfred and Gordon) from B89 made the franchise feel divorced from where it started. I don't associate the Burton films with Batman and Robin at all. B&R is like it's own thing.

Even though Burton presumably had a tough time with Jon Peters, I still think it's a stronger film than Returns. When it comes to Batman I do prefer Burton being a little more restrained.

I find Returns to be the more interesting and emotionally powerful film, but in terms of a more pure Batman experience, its hard to go past B89. Burton essentially made a greatest hits package featuring Batman's greatest foe.

I don't consider the Schumacher films to be sequels to the Burton films. Gotham looks different, and Kilmer/Clooney's Batman are nothing like Keaton's. There's also a line in Forever that exposes that it's a reboot. In reference to Chase Meridian Bruce says "I've never been in love before".

I have mixed feelings about Batman Returns. On the plus side Michelle Pfeiffer is awesome as Catwoman. I still think it's the best performance by any actress in a Batman film. The relationship between her, and Batman is the strongest aspect of the film. I like the concept behind the Penguin and, contrary to popular belief, I do think Devitto gives a good performance. For me Devitto becomes that character, I never see him while watching the film. I also think it's a gorgeous film to look at. While I do prefer Anton Furst's Gotham, Bo Welch still did a great job with Returns.

On the other hand, I do agree with some of the criticisms concerning Batman. I'm one of the people that doesn't have an issue with how much screen time Batman/Bruce Wayne had in the first film, but I do think it's a problem here. Batman doesn't feel like an important character in Returns. Also, there's a lot of aspects that I loved about Batman in the first film aren't included here. He doesn't use theatricality, he doesn't use his suit in combat, there isn't much detective work, and he isn't kept in the shadows like the first film. Keaton does the best he can, and I do think there are a few great moments with Batman but I do wish the film focused on him a bit more. On top of that the film doesn't fully come together for me. I do think it'd be stronger without The Penguin, and possibly Max Shrek. Overall I do admire the film for how different it is from the first film even if it doesn't work 100%.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't consider the Schumacher films to be sequels to the Burton films. Gotham looks different, and Kilmer/Clooney's Batman are nothing like Keaton's. There's also a line in Forever that exposes that it's a reboot. In reference to Chase Meridian Bruce says "I've never been in love before".

That was a deleted scene. But yes, I actually agree with you that it's difficult to tie BF as a sequel to what Burton had started, only for the fact that Keaton and Kilmer look nothing alike, as you said. Some people might not mind, but recasting does hurt in this particular instance. It's hurts continuity for me. Although I'm not too bothered that Gotham looked different in BF, it's not like the city looked the same in each Burton film either.

With that said, BF does tie together with Batman's history in the Burton films, specifically when he speaks from his own personal experience how blind destructive vengeance is while trying to discourage Dick from killing Two-Face. BF has its problems, but I admire the film for this character arc. I can see somebody making a case to tie Batman's character with Burton and BF, as Batman started to change when he sees himself in Catwoman losing her mind over revenge towards the end of BR, and BF begins a path towards making peace with himself. He couldn't save Selina, but he succeeded in saving Dick, even if it meant spilling blood on his hands one more time.

Again, I don't personally find BF to be a true sequel to BR. All I'm saying is, I can understand the argument why it could be seen as one.

I'm one of the people that doesn't have an issue with how much screen time Batman/Bruce Wayne had in the first film, but I do think it's a problem here. Batman doesn't feel like an important character in Returns.

I emphathise with the complaints over Batman's small amount of screentime in BR, it's one of the reasons why I prefer B89. But I completely disagree with the claim Batman is a far less important character in the sequel. He might not appear as often as he could have, but Batman is still integral to what's going on, beyond the fact that he's the hero of the story. His premature romance and conflict with Catwoman alone makes his role very important in the film. They're basically a mirror image of each other, showing how poisonous vengeance is and the consequences it brings. You could even make draw parallels with the other villains as a darker reflection of Bruce Wayne/Batman, i.e. Penguin being the freakish outcast and Max Shreck who uses his power as a businessman to manipulate and deceive the public with impunity.

Also, there's a lot of aspects that I loved about Batman in the first film aren't included here. He doesn't use theatricality, he doesn't use his suit in combat, there isn't much detective work, and he isn't kept in the shadows like the first film.

He does investigate the Penguin's history on the Batcomputer during the film, which confirms his suspicions (albeit regrettably) that Cobblepot is up to no good, and connects his involvement with the Red Triangle Gang. I don't think it's any less significant than discovering which chemicals the Joker had contaminated to create Smylex in B89. And sure, it's not detective work by any means, but I love that Batman not only saves himself when the Penguin had hijacked the Batmobile, his uses his own words against him with a recording of badmouthing Gotham City, derailing his election campaign. After Adam West, Keaton's Batman is still the smartest Batman in live action.

On top of that the film doesn't fully come together for me. I do think it'd be stronger without The Penguin, and possibly Max Shrek.

I have to disagree. One of the fascinating things about this movie is it's a web of all of these devious characters that find themselves being manipulated by each other. Penguin blackmailing Schreck into finding his birthright, Schreck manipulating Penguin into starting an election campaign to satisfy his power plant agenda and a rebellious Catwoman teaming up with Penguin to get back at Batman but then sees herself used an accessory to frame Batman for the Ice Princess's murder. And of course, unlike Batman avenging his parents over the Joker as painted as triumphant at the end of B89, we see the negative side of vengeance when a mad Catwoman kills Max Schreck, and the emotional cost it came with. It may not be the sort of fans would've preferred, but it's quite rich in content when you analyse the characters.

[The Laughing Fish]

he isn't kept in the shadows like the first film.

I forgot to address this in my last post.

Let's face it, BR is not the only sequel to do this. As a matter of fact, it appears to have started a trend. Every time Batman becomes well known to the wider public, he loses that advantage and is forced to fight right in the open in the next movie. I suppose it does make it realistic. In some comics, a lot of people in Gotham City still believe Batman is an urban legend, despite his heroics. That requires a lot of suspension of disbelief.

That being said, there is that one moment where the Organ Grinder sees Batman's shadow reflecting on a wall, before being grabbed from above.