To: The Burton Haters

[Catman]

Batman has killed in the following issues:

Detective Comics #28 (Using a handgun and snapping someone's neck with the bat-rope.)
Batman #1 (A machine gun mounted on the batwing) Which we also saw in the `89 film
Batman #15 (using a machine gun against the Nazi's)

In the Dark Knight Returns he rode a tank and had a shotgun in the Two-Face part of the story.

Nuff said!

[BatMatt]

well i dont like batman killing, but i do like the scene when he destroys Axis chemicals. Its not so much he's killing people, but destroying everything the Joker used to poisen Gotham.

[skruloos]

While it is true that Batman did kill in the earlier comics, they were few and far between. And in the majority of Batman comics, it is known that Batman established a code to not kill and that is what has become the accepted version of Batman, which I for one appreciate. My ideal version of Batman does not kill and would never kill.

[Catman]

I understand, but some people hate the Burton films because Batman killed. Sure there is a code, but Batman has killed and Burton seemed to like that aspect and included it in the film. Also remember this was produced in 1988 and released in 1989, so we were in the beginning of post-crisis. You could say that Burton combined Batman's pre and post crisis origin. Or atleast Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren did.

[Batman15]

that wasnt a shotgun in DKR, it shot a rope.

[DocLathropBrown]

Well, technically, it was a shotgun, it just fired a rope. ;)

[P. Cushing]

This is heavy.

[Joker]

I didnt like him killing The Penguin.I mean he didnt even try to save him.I know he was the villain but we all know Batman saves their worthless asses no matter how evil they are.

[Psycwarloch]

He tried to save the joker

[Adam West]

Interesting that all the villains that died in the Bat-films did so by falling to their death.

A metaphor for their descent into madness...or just lazy writing on behalf of the screenwriters?

[skruloos]

Originally posted by Catman
I understand, but some people hate the Burton films because Batman killed. Sure there is a code, but Batman has killed and Burton seemed to like that aspect and included it in the film. Also remember this was produced in 1988 and released in 1989, so we were in the beginning of post-crisis. You could say that Burton combined Batman's pre and post crisis origin. Or atleast Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren did.
Actually, I think the no-killing code was established in either the 50's, when the Comics Code was enacted or in the 60's when Batman was first "rebooted".

[DocLathropBrown]

The Penguin technically wasn't killed by Batman. The Penguin pressed the button that released the bats. You can't fault Batman for that one.

As for the Joker, Batman was only trying to keep him from getting away. If you try and tell me that Batman knew the Gargoyle was going to break away from the parapet, I may commit suicide. :-b

[Catman]

Originally posted by skruloos
Actually, I think the no-killing code was established in either the 50's, when the Comics Code was enacted or in the 60's when Batman was first "rebooted".

In addition with the no-killing code you can re-use villains.

[VaderLives]

True, but they couldn't afford to get Jack Nicholson back.

[Silent Storm]

Originally posted by VaderLives
True, but they couldn't afford to get Jack Nicholson back.

I somehow doubt that, with all the money that Batman made, they should have been able to get him back.

[Kevin Roegele]

Originally posted by DocLathropBrown
The Penguin technically wasn't killed by Batman. The Penguin pressed the button that released the bats. You can't fault Batman for that one.

As for the Joker, Batman was only trying to keep him from getting away. If you try and tell me that Batman knew the Gargoyle was going to break away from the parapet, I may commit suicide. :-b

True. Batman didn't directly kill the Penguin or the Joker (or Two-Face). But he was indirectly responsible. If Batman didn't finish them off it would be unsatisfying, but if he he directly killed them, there would be complaints.

[Joker]

Originally posted by DocLathropBrown
The Penguin technically wasn't killed by Batman. The Penguin pressed the button that released the bats. You can't fault Batman for that one.

As for the Joker, Batman was only trying to keep him from getting away. If you try and tell me that Batman knew the Gargoyle was going to break away from the parapet, I may commit suicide. :-b

He could of tried to save The Penguin though.He didnt even check to see if he was alive.

[Silent Storm]

Originally posted by Ock
He could of tried to save The Penguin though.He didnt even check to see if he was alive.

That's true too. And we all know Catwoman never died. I don't complain about the villians dying though. It seems like the more sensible way to do it in the movies.

[Batman]

I just didnt like in the way he went about killing people like putting the bomb in that goon of The Penguins and killing the goons of The Jokers like he did were just all done in cowardly fashion is what annoyed me about those films.

[Stable1987]

Tim Burton was all wrong for Batman.

His movies are worthless.

[dude love]

Originally posted by Ock
He could of tried to save The Penguin though.He didnt even check to see if he was alive.

Thats because Selina was more important to him.

[Batman]

Originally posted by Stable1987
Tim Burton was all wrong for Batman.

His movies are worthless.

So true.As far as Batman movies go,yeah his movies are worthless but he has made some good films before such as Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands,but Batman is not one of them and he was so wrong for them.

[ab38416]

edit

[Catman]

wow! I completely forgot about this thread. Thanks for bringing it back. lol.

[Kevin Roegele]

Interesting how Batman kills some thugs himself, but after watching the Penguin die (apparently) then tries to convince Selina not to kill Schreck and that they should take him to the police.

[Superman Prime]

Isn't it weird watching Batman Returns, and hearing the name Schrek? I always think about the ogre Shrek. Heheh.

[El Payaso]

Leave the non killing code for pansies such as Spidey and Supes.

[Kevin Roegele]

The Penguin technically wasn't killed by Batman. The Penguin pressed the button that released the bats. You can't fault Batman for that one.

As for the Joker, Batman was only trying to keep him from getting away. If you try and tell me that Batman knew the Gargoyle was going to break away from the parapet, I may commit suicide. :-b

Plus, the Joker died in the first comic he appeared in (Batman #1).

[Joker]

Plus, the Joker died in the first comic he appeared in (Batman #1).

No, he didn't. He was incarcerated in prison at the end.

[Buttman]

True, he may've not known the Gargoyle would break off, but he had absolutely every intention of murdering The Joker, when he left that night. "I'm gunna' kill you," Rockets & Machine guns aimed at him, punching him off a roof, etc etc.

The whole "Batman has killed in the comics" thing, you gotta remember, he's killed in like, 4 people maybe. In what? 67 years? At LEAST one comic a month since then? Let's say, with the current run. You got Batman, Detective, Legends, and All-Star. 4 x 67 = 268. Including standalones and GNs, let's say, Batman has had roughly 500 adventures/comics. If you consider he ussually faces half-a-dozen goons each issue, the opportunities for Batman to have killed another human being are in the thousands. Thats 4 times, out of several thousand chances. Batman kills more than 4 goons over the period of the Burton movie. Keep in mind too, according to continuiality during when the movie was made, Batman has never killed. As far as I'm concerned, Batman shouldn't have killed, or, if they really had too, to wrap up the movie, Only The Joker and Penguin. The goons are only "tools" of villians, afterall.

I still love the movies though. :cwink:

[Kevin Roegele]

No, he didn't. He was incarcerated in prison at the end.

Only at the end of the first story....read the whole issue. In the second, he stabs himself - but in the last panel the paramedics are shocked to find he's going to live. So I was wrong.

[DocLathropBrown]

Interesting how Batman kills some thugs himself, but after watching the Penguin die (apparently) then tries to convince Selina not to kill Schreck and that they should take him to the police.

He killed earlier in the film because after killing Naiper, he was consumed by the darkness (a nice nod to Batman being more ruthless in the books after Jason Todd had died). Bruce says that "you go out and find another face, and another" in BF as a reference to his condition in BR. After he meets Selina and knows her true identity, he sees himself reflected in her, and it brings him back from the darkness. Shocks him, makes him think: "What am I doing, am I that much like her?" Thus, why he doesn't kill in the second half of BR, he's partially redeemed. But Selina goes AWOL before he can come all the way.

At the end of BR, he's stuck in purgatory, alone, forever alone. And by getting the chance to save Robin from self-destruction, another person in his similar state, he fully redeems himself by the end of BF.

[Kevin Roegele]

He killed earlier in the film because after killing Naiper, he was consumed by the darkness (a nice nod to Batman being more ruthless in the books after Jason Todd had died).

How do you know that? Has Burton stated it anywhere? Batman kills before and after the Joker, I don't think there's any 'consumation by darkness'. Plus, I don't think Burton even looked at the comicbooks of the time whilst making Batman Returns.

Bruce says that "you go out and find another face, and another" in BF as a reference to his condition in BR.

But that's in Batman Forever, a film by completely different writers, directors and actors.

After he meets Selina and knows her true identity, he sees himself reflected in her, and it brings him back from the darkness. Shocks him, makes him think: "What am I doing, am I that much like her?" Thus, why he doesn't kill in the second half of BR, he's partially redeemed. But Selina goes AWOL before he can come all the way.

At the end of BR, he's stuck in purgatory, alone, forever alone. And by getting the chance to save Robin from self-destruction, another person in his similar state, he fully redeems himself by the end of BF.

It works that way, but I don't believe it was written purposely that way, unfortunetly. Forever is supposed to be a more family friendly movie, not really a sequel to Returns in any way.

[ab38416]

edit

[cryptic name]

Tim Burton was all wrong for Batman.

His movies are worthless.

no movie is worthless. and tim burton's batman films are works of art, even if not your ideal interpretation of the character.

[DocLathropBrown]

How do you know that? Has Burton stated it anywhere? Batman kills before and after the Joker, I don't think there's any 'consumation by darkness'. Plus, I don't think Burton even looked at the comicbooks of the time whilst making Batman Returns.

Who says it came from Tim? My eyes are pointed at Daniel Waters, maybe even what was left of Sam Hamm's first draft of BR that got used. Of course, it's a bit of a stretch... I don't consider it a truly conscious nod to the comics.

But that's in Batman Forever, a film by completely different writers, directors and actors.

The Encore show "The Directors" had an episode about Tim Burton, and from what I hear (I'm still trying to track it down, myself), he talks about how he made a preliminary draft of BF that the Batchlers used, which deals with the redemption aspect, to tie up BR. It's too bad so much else from BF tried to move away from what Burton did so that people missed the connection.

It works that way, but I don't believe it was written purposely that way, unfortunetly. Forever is supposed to be a more family friendly movie, not really a sequel to Returns in any way.

Then how do you explain the flashbacks of Bruce's parents' deaths done to look so much like what Burton had done, Bruce saying his parents were killed by a maniac (Would you consider Joe Chill a maniac?) and Chase's line about needing "Skintight Vinyl and a Whip" to get under Batman's skin?

It's a sequel, but indeed, Schumacher wanted to move away from Burton and almost made people miss the connections. With the Burton storyline wrapped up, that's why B&R had little-to-no connection with the previous films and a plot that did not specifically evoke the previous three, either. The only reason BF has sequel elements to BR is because of Burton working with the Batchlers.

[Kevin Roegele]

....

[Kevin Roegele]

The Encore show "The Directors" had an episode about Tim Burton, and from what I hear (I'm still trying to track it down, myself), he talks about how he made a preliminary draft of BF that the Batchlers used, which deals with the redemption aspect, to tie up BR. It's too bad so much else from BF tried to move away from what Burton did so that people missed the connection.


Oho, I see. I'll be on the lookout for that episode as well.

[ReptileOrion]

well i dont like batman killing, but i do like the scene when he destroys Axis chemicals. Its not so much he's killing people, but destroying everything the Joker used to poisen Gotham.

I agree....it was a very cool and powerful scene. I also view it as Batman getting retribution for the death of his parents (Burton continuity...lol) and also taking a proactive approach to ending the Joker's menace on the city. :batty:

[Rynan]

He could of tried to save The Penguin though.He didnt even check to see if he was alive.

I hate to say it, but if I saw a pudgy bird man fall about 30 feet into a concrete pool with 4 feet of water in it(give or take), I would go with Batman's first thought and just assume he cracked his skull open at the bottom of the pool.

And his defense, Batman did look mighty shocked when The Penguin turned to be alive. I can't blame him. I mean, how many people do you know that can walk from a fall like that and still have the mental facilities to try to kill you an umbrella?

[ab38416]

Penguin didn't die from the fall. He died because Catwoman destroyed that giant air-conditioner. He was overheated.

[SelinaAndBruce]

Yeah I always got the feeling from Batman Returns that that was going to be Batman's realization that killing perhaps was not the best method after his talk with Selina and seeing her obsession with revenge.

[CConn]

Penguin didn't die from the fall. He died because Catwoman destroyed that giant air-conditioner. He was overheated.
It was the dead of winter, though. :confused:

[ab38416]

It was the dead of winter, though. :confused:

Tell that to Daniel Waters.

[Catman]

wow! I completely forgot about this thread. Thanks for bringing it back. lol.

And I forgot about it again! :cmad: :csad: :o

Interesting how Batman kills some thugs himself, but after watching the Penguin die (apparently) then tries to convince Selina not to kill Schreck and that they should take him to the police.

He just doesn't want Selina to be a murderer. :huh:

[dude love]

Leave the non killing code for pansies such as Spidey and Supes.

Supes didn't seem so concerned about Luthor and co when he launched NKI into space. For all he knows they could've burned up in the Earth's atmosphere. So Spidey is the only pussy. He cries for cripes sakes.

[BurtonBegan]

Burton was the best thing that ever happened to Batman, we could've easily ended up with a 'Batman and Robin' from day one if anyone else had been chosen to direct. He rejuvenated the character, and told two stories that were non patronising and packed with physicological connotations as well as action.
Without Burton on board, I also doubt that we would've had one of the most amazing film scores of all time as Elfman wouldn't have been brought onboard.

[Joker]

Penguin didn't die from the fall. He died because Catwoman destroyed that giant air-conditioner. He was overheated.

That didn't make much sense, though. He had been strutting around Gotham wearing heavy clothes, and that didn't bother him.

How would the air conditioner getting busted affect him? I assumed it was the toxic stuff dribbling from his mouth that killed him. He fell into the same pool of sewage he was going to drown the children in.

Poetic justice that it was that which killed him.

[ShaneHelms]

The water that Selina pulled Shreck into, is the same place Penguin falls.

Hmm.

[Catman]

Burton was the best thing that ever happened to Batman, we could've easily ended up with a 'Batman and Robin' from day one if anyone else had been chosen to direct.

True. Without B89 there would have never been a Batman: The Animated Series. :csad: That was even stated on the DVD.

[Kevin Roegele]

True. Without B89 there would have never been a Batman: The Animated Series. :csad: That was even stated on the DVD.

Without the 60's TV show, the comics themselves would have ended.

[CFE]

Without the 60's TV show, the comics themselves would have ended.

Everything is circular.

I agree about Batman killing the goons; he shouldn't have...

I mean, when he headlocked the main Joker goon and hurled him down the belltower of the cathedral. Batman's smart; he knew no one would've survived that fall. He knew what he was doing.

Just like he knew what he was doing strapping Dynamite to the Strong Man in Returns.

The "Well Batman killed in the original comics" argument doesn't work for me. Despite Burton, Hamm and Co wanting to go back to the 39 roots, The "Look Up in the Sky" documentary states the "No Killing" code of ethics came to play in the 50s books.

You don't screw around with then-30 yr old rules, Burton.

Then again, it was a comic book movie...I'm surprised DC didn't step in and let Burton know that Batman hadn't killed a criminal in 30+ years.

Ah forget it; trying to make a reason for either side of this argument is making my brain hurt...:csad:

Bottom Line: Batman is NOT A MURDERER. Period.

Frank Miller stated it. (YO)
Nolan, Goyer and Bale stated it. (BB)
DiDio and Levitz would most likely state it.

CFE

[Joker]

The water that Selina pulled Shreck into, is the same place Penguin falls.

Hmm.

Actually, it's not. Schreck's cage was on the other side from the spot Penguin fell into.

[ab38416]

That didn't make much sense, though. He had been strutting around Gotham wearing heavy clothes, and that didn't bother him.

It was the heat from the fire. It might be confusing in the movie but it's more clear in the script. Here's how Waters wrote it:

Penguin rises like a wraith behind him, soaking and
bleeding and sweating. Wiping his brow and gasping for
breath, he stumbles toward the shorted-out compressor,
using his long, elegant umbrellas for support.

PENGUIN
(pants)
Gotta crank the a.c. Stuffy in
here.

He drops one umbrella. With his free flipper, Penguin
vainly twiddles the singed dials. Nothing -- the unit's
kaput. Fiery rubble continues to rain down on the lair,
raising the temperature even higher. penguin turns away
in defeat from the busted air-conditioner.

Penguin is waddling, slower and with greater difficulty,
toward the once-icy, now-nearly-melted moat.

PENGUIN
I'm overheated, is all ... I'll
murder you, momentarily ...

With a last ounce of strength he pulls open his collar.

PENGUIN
But first, a cool drink ...

Then one more step ... and he bellyflops in front of
one glistening, beckoning chunk of ice that was blown
out of the water.

PENGUIN
Of ice-water ...

[Kevin Roegele]

Everything is circular.

I agree about Batman killing the goons; he shouldn't have...

The "Well Batman killed in the original comics" argument doesn't work for me. Despite Burton, Hamm and Co wanting to go back to the 39 roots, The "Look Up in the Sky" documentary states the "No Killing" code of ethics came to play in the 50s books.

You don't screw around with then-30 yr old rules, Burton.

Then again, it was a comic book movie...I'm surprised DC didn't step in and let Burton know that Batman hadn't killed a criminal in 30+ years.

Ah forget it; trying to make a reason for either side of this argument is making my brain hurt...:csad:

Bottom Line: Batman is NOT A MURDERER. Period.

Frank Miller stated it. (YO)
Nolan, Goyer and Bale stated it. (BB)
DiDio and Levitz would most likely state it.

CFE

Frank Miler stated it? Miller has Batman kill the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.

I like Batman killing people. I love the Bob Kane stories, and I love Burton's movies. It makes sense to me that Batman kills those who he thinks deserving.

The superhero version of Batman, sure, I don't want him killing people. He's a role model and a force for good.

The mysterious, winged vigilante Batman, I'm all for behaving in a disturbing and sometimes deadly way. He's a neccesary evil, he's dressed as a bat, he's terrifying and his sanity is questionable.

[CFE]

Frank Miler stated it? Miller has Batman kill the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.

Batman didn't kill Joker in DKR...He broke his neck, but left just enough for him to live. Joker then broke his neck further until he killed himself, leaving the police to suspect that Batman did it.

And Frank stated it in Batman: Year One, when Batman refused to allow the teenager to fall from the fire escape when we first see Bruce in the costume.

Batman inner monologue page 31 - "NO...I'm no Killer..."

CFE

[Kevin Roegele]

Batman didn't kill Joker in DKR...He broke his neck, but left just enough for him to live. Joker then broke his neck further until he killed himself, leaving the police to suspect that Batman did it.

Oh yeah.

[Cain]

I mean, when he headlocked the main Joker goon and hurled him down the belltower of the cathedral. Batman's smart; he knew no one would've survived that fall. He knew what he was doing.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/illest_rebel/BATMAN/Batman390003.jpg

[CFE]

And on top of that, Burton kind of contradicted himself, didn't he?

B89:

Batman holds up Nick the Punk over the street:

Nick: Don't kill me, man!
Batman: I'm not going to kill you...

Batman holds the Joker

Batman: I'm gonna kill you.

Batman Returns

Batman didn't hesitate blowing up the strong man yet opted to take Shreck to jail.

One or the other, Burton. One or the other...

Either he was gonna follow the "No Kill" rule or he wasn't. I think the "going back and forth" throughout the films is what frustrates fans.

CFE

[Kevin Roegele]

And on top of that, Burton kind of contradicted himself, didn't he?

B89:

Batman holds up Nick the Punk over the street:

Nick: Don't kill me, man!
Batman: I'm not going to kill you...

Batman holds the Joker

Batman: I'm gonna kill you.

Batman Returns

Batman didn't hesitate blowing up the strong man yet opted to take Shreck to jail.

One or the other, Burton. One or the other...

CFE

He didn't kill Eddie (or was it Nick?) because he wanted him to tell his friends about him. Obviously Johnny Gobbs wasn't so fortunate. But no big loss.

He killed the Tatooed Strong Man because it was a kill-or-be-killed situation. Shreck was never a physical threat to Batman so Bats had no need to kill him.

[Cain]

Did you even watch the films and realize what had happened to the character in them to inspire each and every one of those actions?

I swear man Bruce's arc in the first Batman trilogy will probably go down as the most misinterpreted in the history of comic movies.

[ab38416]

edit

[CFE]

That's all part of the character arc Burton had crafted for Batman. He becomes revenge-fueled when he learns Jack Napier killed his parents. He stays this way until he realizes that Selina Kyle is going down the same path as him. So he tries to save her and redeem himself. But he doesn't get complete redemption until Forever, when he prevents Dick Grayson from killing his "creator".


Holy s**t...

19 years of watching these films, and I never saw that arc before until now. I had always considered each film to be a seperate chapter in and of itself.

Thanks for making me see this. I don't think I'll watch the films the same way again (well, maybe...)

And you know what? This makes me even MORE pissed that we didn't get Burton's Batman 3...:cmad:

CFE

[Cain]

It's especially evident in Returns duiring the masquarade ball scene. Not only are these 2 the only ones without any physical masks but the whole conversation between them is Batman's epiphany. When he goes "who the hell do you think you are?" she says "I don't know" then the "kiss under the mistletoe" line comes and that's when he has that look in his eyes like "Oh ****, she is me".

That's when he realizes how wrong the path of darkness he took was because for once he sees it from the outside. That's why later he tells her "were the same, split right down the center". Him getting out of the car at the end so quickly is him holding on to some hope that he could prevent someone else from dealing with the darkness he lived the same way he vowed to prevent others from becoming orphans. That hope is lost again after Returns until he finally accepts responsibility for Dick in the next movie.

The 90's Batman movie trilogy was ahead of it's time in terms of how it dealt with it's hero's evolution. It's too bad most people don't realize that because they're so caught up in believing other people's misinformation about those films. I do also wish Burton had closed it out despite enjoying what Forever did, for shame that we'll never see that film.

[Gilpesh]

That's all part of the character arc Burton had crafted for Batman. He becomes revenge-fueled when he learns Jack Napier killed his parents. He stays this way until he realizes that Selina Kyle is going down the same path as him. So he tries to save her and redeem himself. But he doesn't get complete redemption until Forever, when he prevents Dick Grayson from killing his "creator".


To then kill him, himself.

Nice character arc there.

[ab38416]

edit

[Gilpesh]

I don't think he intended to kill him.

He threw up loads of coins that he knew Two-Face was obsessed with, fully well knowing that he would try and catch his real coin and not think of his footing.

That goes against everything previously established.

Um, that's my point.

Two-Face lost his balance. His obsession with the coin lead to his demise.

Which the greatest detective must have known with the fact that he threw the coins at Two-Face with no particular aim at keeping them close to the beam. So Batman counted on two things, Two-Face's obsession with his coin and that he would not think about his balance.

I prefer the way it plays out in the novel, with Two-Face committing suicide.

I'm talking about the movie. Not the novel. But that would have shown how far gone Two-Face was. Still doesn't make that the end of the movie.

[Catman]

Without the 60's TV show, the comics themselves would have ended.

Also true :csad:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/illest_rebel/BATMAN/Batman390003.jpg

hahaha awesome :oldrazz:

[BubbaGump]

Can't Batman kill in self-defense...like a cop?

"DO I LOOK LIKE A COP?"

I know, but just wondering.

[ab38416]

edit

[Gilpesh]

You're right. He probably did want to kill him. But that still doesn't invalidate the character arc. The point was to steer Robin away from the path of vengeance. Batman killing Two-Face was an act of necessity, not retribution. Batman did it to save Chase and Robin and, of course, himself. There's a difference between self-defense and revenge.

Riiiight.

He's supposed to redeem himself through helping Robin... to go right back to killing bad guys... especially Two-Face who was actually once a very good person.

[Ibn]

The bottom line here is that if you hate Burtons Batman b/c he killed, but love Nolans Batman, you're absolutely out of your mind and in Dreamland. Nolan's Batman did the same thing as Burtons when it comes to demolition killing. Except, at least with Burtons movie, you don't actually see the goons get it, whereas it is BLATANT in Begins that he MURDERS a large amount of ninjas. And talk about contradictions, in order to not kill the prisoner....... he killed ninjas ten fold. Then leaving Ra's to die? I thought it was up to the law to decide a criminal's fate? So shouldn't he have saved him to bring him to justice? Completely unjustified. This Batman was far from an angel, and you know what, I'm FINE with it. I would have left Ra's just like I would have let the Joker fall to his death. I think that, since we're obsessed with realism, it's completely understandable for there to be some deaths in the world of Batman. This Burton hate is pathetic. All are great movies, great BATMAN movies. Lets jump the **** off our high horses and just enjoy what were given for Christ's sake.

[Gilpesh]

The bottom line here is that if you hate Burtons Batman b/c he killed, but love Nolans Batman, you're absolutely out of your mind and in Dreamland. Nolan's Batman did the same thing as Burtons when it comes to demolition killing. Except, at least with Burtons movie, you don't actually see the goons get it, whereas it is BLATANT in Begins that he MURDERS a large amount of ninjas. And talk about contradictions, in order to not kill the prisoner....... he killed ninjas ten fold. Then leaving Ra's to die? I thought it was up to the law to decide a criminal's fate? So shouldn't he have saved him to bring him to justice? Completely unjustified. This Batman was far from an angel, and you know what, I'm FINE with it. I would have left Ra's just like I would have let the Joker fall to his death. I think that, since we're obsessed with realism, it's completely understandable for there to be some deaths in the world of Batman. This Burton hate is pathetic. All are great movies, great BATMAN movies. Lets jump the **** off our high horses and just enjoy what were given for Christ's sake.

Sorry but Nolan's Batman used killing as a last resort. Burton's did it whenever to even the smallest of goons (ie the bell tower goon he threw down that drop).

[Cain]

Sorry but Nolan's Batman used killing as a last resort. Burton's did it whenever to even the smallest of goons (ie the bell tower goon he threw down that drop).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/illest_rebel/BATMAN/115.jpg

[Catman]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/illest_rebel/BATMAN/115.jpg

hahaha thats awesome! :woot:

[dude love]

Sorry but Nolan's Batman used killing as a last resort. Burton's did it whenever to even the smallest of goons (ie the bell tower goon he threw down that drop).

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.

As far as killing Two-Face goes. Batman was beyond redemption a that point. He saved Dick Grayson from the life of vengeance. I think if Burton had done BF it would've ended with Dick thanking Bats for saving his life (Both in the literal sense and a thematic sense) and gone off to become Nightwing so Burton could keep a solo Batman for Batman 4 and beyond.

[BurtonBegan]

If Burton had done Batman Forever I think its fair to say he would have done a lot of things differently, not making it rubbish for kick off.

As for the killing, I don't know what peoples problem is, it makes it more real. If Kim Basinger is in trouble, do you sit a goon down with a cup of tea and discuss his childhood, or do you throw him to his doom?

[CFE]

So how does the Begins mentality fit into this "no-killing" argument, do you think?

"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

I wish Batman would just stick with whatever he's gonna stick with. Either kill criminals or not...

CFE

[Ibn]

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.


Yep.

[Gilpesh]

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.

Ra's would have easily used the League of Shadow to destory Gotham again because as Ra's said, they had infiltrated all levels of government in Gotham, so leaving him alive would not get him a fair trail that would put him behind bars.

As for the killing, I don't know what peoples problem is, it makes it more real.

And completely less Batman when he just kills kills kills and doesn't care. That's why some people call it Burtonman and Burtonman Returns.

If Kim Basinger is in trouble, do you sit a goon down with a cup of tea and discuss his childhood, or do you throw him to his doom?

You knock him unconscious and leave him on the ground where the cops can get him later, or did you not know that people can be knocked unconscious.

[CFE]

You knock him unconscious and leave him on the ground where the cops can get him later, or did you not know that people can be knocked unconscious.

Actually, I was thinking just that the other day.

If Batman can dispatch goons without killing them, why wouldn't he? It takes an excessive amount of doing to kill a man (given he is aware of your opposition against him. If you came up behind him without him knowing, then it'd be far easier to kill him) rather than knock him unconscious. I'd think Batman would want to get things done efficiently and without having to do more than is absolutely necessary.

CFE

[Gilpesh]

And just to clarify.

I think Burton made a good movie but not a good Batman movie.

[Kevin Roegele]

The answer to all these questions is that there is no one singular version/vision of Batman.

Some versions kill, other do not.

[DocLathropBrown]

To then kill him, himself.

Nice character arc there.

Bruce already had murder on his soul, he could live with it. He had to do it so that Dick would never be tempted to again, to make sure Dick doesn't go down the same path of darkness he did when he killed Naiper (Bruce's "Revenge-is-your-whole-life" speech is a commentary about what he went through in BR). It wasn't in self-defense or even revenge.

Of course, Bruce doesn't know that Robin alreayd turned down the chance to kill Two Face. Oh well. :cwink:

[GoogleMe94]

In the Dark Knight Returns he rode a tank and had a shotgun in the Two-Face part of the story.

I LOVED THAT. btw, that tank wasnt the Batmobile, it was a tank.

as for batman killing, seriously, even if he NEVER killed in the comics, WHO CARES? i like my batman badass and cool as ice, like in burtons movies. the whole "thou shalt not kill" comics stuff is BS, it makes him look like a wimp to me. if hes always too afraid to kill villians, i dunno, to me it makes him just not batman to me. i dont like viewing batman as a saviour, thats more for superman. i like batman the anti hero, not the 'true hero' hero. i liked how burton did batman, and the comics version just pales in comparison. its also why i didnt like bales batman, just too much of a consious and not enough badass. "why do we fall?"? so we can kick ppl's asses, not worry about whther they live or die. hee hee.

[CFE]

The answer to all these questions is that there is no one singular version/vision of Batman.

Some versions kill, other do not.

Agreed. That sums up this entire thread.

CFE

[GoogleMe94]

^^problem is, most ppl on this forum (especially the nolan fanboys) tend to argue how batman should not kill, and that starts all kinds of fights and arguments. but i do agree, there is no one singular version of batman, and all fans have to except that. some kill, some dont.

[Gilpesh]

^^problem is, most ppl on this forum (especially the nolan fanboys) tend to argue how batman should not kill, and that starts all kinds of fights and arguments. but i do agree, there is no one singular version of batman, and all fans have to except that. some kill, some dont.

And the Burton ones.

[dude love]

Burton fans argue Batman should not kill? Did you even read that post?

[Gilpesh]

Burton fans argue Batman should not kill? Did you even read that post?

Ah... I did. I was just saying that Burton fans also start all kinds of fights and arguments and it is not limited to Nolan fans like the other poster said.

[dude love]

Ra's would have easily used the League of Shadow to destory Gotham again because as Ra's said, they had infiltrated all levels of government in Gotham, so leaving him alive would not get him a fair trail that would put him behind bars.


Well if that's the case the he might as well 'not save' every villain he fights.

Ah... I did. I was just saying that Burton fans also start all kinds of fights and arguments and it is not limited to Nolan fans like the other poster said.

Ah.... no. He said Nolan's fans tend to argue Batman shouldn't kill. That's what results in fights. Clearly you haven't been here very long because you'd know that back when Begins came out the Nolan fans would start a fight at the single mention of Burton's name.

[Ibn]

And just to clarify.

I think Burton made a good movie but not a good Batman movie.


Whatever. That's every Burton haters biggest copout. There was nothing NOT Batman about either movie. They were both classic BATMAN films. Seeing as though Batman was there, and the Joker, and the Penguin, and Selina Kyle, and even Harvey Dent as a nod to the fans, and ALOT of similarities to the comics. Classic Batman tales.

[GoogleMe94]

Whatever. That's every Burton haters biggest copout. There was nothing NOT Batman about either movie. They were both classic BATMAN films. Seeing as though Batman was there, and the Joker, and the Penguin, and Selina Kyle, and even Harvey Dent as a nod to the fans, and ALOT of similarities to the comics. Classic Batman tales.

i know. i totally agree, they were and are great Batman films, if not the best ones. they made buttloads of money at the boxoffice and are both considered classics of the genre. its only uber comics nerds that will say they suck. the nolanites will say they are not good batman films, of course, to push the success of the nolan series, but fortunatly the majority of fans arent as ignorant and like all 3 films the same amount, and just the younger 12-13 year old fans who probably have never seen the older films will talk sh** about them. any true batman fan will be able to appreciate all the batman films, even the schumacher ones, because even though those were campy and silly, they were still BATMAN films, that just happen to be set in the campy 50's/60's time periods of the character's history. personally, i am of the opinion that burton captured the true raw spirit of the modern batman, the dark vigelante of the night, even if gordon wasnt like the modern comics and so on and so forth (he was actually more like the "orginal" gordon from the early bob kane days).


i will be the first to admit that i dont read the comics, least not much today, because i simply could care less about them. but i have read a fair share in my lifetime to see that the burton batman films have much of the same classic iconic imagery that you find in any of todays comics (more then Begins had, thats for sure). only image i can recollect from the comics that begins had was gordon and batman on the rooftop at the end, but thats it. i dont remember anything in begins happeneing in the comics. i enjoy all the movies, but IMO burton got batman right the most. no, he didnt get every little damn detail, but its a movie and its not meant to be just like the 100,000,000,000 different comic books out there. his versions captured a certain time period of batman, a mix of different times actually. but they were nonehtheless batman films, ripped from certain comics, even if it is no particular one. just cuz begins was baseing its story off year one doesnt make it a perfect adaptation. why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest, cuz there were no memorable visuals, dialogue or villians, it was just like any normal action movie. i think what made it the the least fav. for me was the uncle ben moral-talk ripoff lines, like "why do we fall? so we can pick ourselves up" UGH! and noone can forget "its what i DOOO that defines me!". just, no. thank God keaton wasnt faced with one of these horrible one liners. and i certainly cant see keatons batman seriously saying "im batman......nice coat!" oh please, that would suck. but he didnt, which is a great thing.

[Dfens]

i know. i totally agree, those were great batman films. only the nolan fanboys will they are not, or just the younger 13 year old fans who probably have never seen the older films. any true batman fan will be able to appreciate all the batman films, even the schumacher ones, because even though those were campy and silly, they were still BATMAN films. personally, i am of the opinion that burton captured the true raw spirit of batman, even if gordon wasnt like the modern comics and so on and so forth. i dont read the comics, because i simply could care less about them. but i do enjoy the movies, but IMO burton got batman right. no, he didnt get every little damn detail, but its a movie and its not meant to be just like the 100000000000 different comic books out there. his versions captured a certain time period of batman, a mix of different times actually. but they were nonehtheless batman films, ripped from certain comics, even it is no particular one. just cuz begins was baseing its story off year one doesnt make it a perfect adaptation. why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest.

Hilarious post. Easily the ****ing stupidest post I've ever read. I don't care if I get banned again (I'll be back) but this is just pure idiocy.

[GoogleMe94]

i dont even think you read the whole thing, you are just being a troll. you are the one that is rediculous, not me. a wonder that anyone can take you seriously on these boards, just run back to the dark knight board and kiss nolans ass some more instead of trolling the misc. batman films board. i hope you do get banned "again", because you certainly deserve it. should be an ignore option on this site, it works wonders for your kind on imdb.

[Kevin Roegele]

I think the definition of geek is someone who cannot bear the thought that their concept of a fictional character might be presented a different way by another. And then wastes their time arguing about it online, without ever realising that every single person has a different idea of exactly what that character is.

I cannot think of another character that is so adable that they can go from absolute camp crimefighter to athletic superhero to almost demonic vigilante. Batman has been blessed with some of the greatest creators in the mediums of both comicbook and film, and each has created a unique interpretation of the character, which is in turn why he has lasted so long.

This is something to be celebrated, not argued about! The mere act of arguing than any version of Batman is more 'true' than another is nonsensical as there is no one true Batman. He doesn't really exist. Even arguing that one movie version of Batman is truer to the comics than another is folly, because one can easily point straight to the comics that it resembles, and those it doesn't.

[GoogleMe94]

^^agreed. i think thats what i was trying to say in my post. and yes, everyone has there own opinions of what is there favorite or not. thats something that cannot be helped. but like i said, even the schumacher films can be appreciated, cuz there was a time too where batman was like that, thought fans like to forget that period. but i totally agree that batman is the most flexible of any superhero, there is not just one version of the character. you cant say that about any other comic book character.

[SHADOWBAT69]

I think the definition of geek is someone who cannot bear the thought that their concept of a fictional character might be presented a different way by another. And then wastes their time arguing about it online, without ever realising that every single person has a different idea of exactly what that character is.

I cannot think of another character that is so adable that they can go from absolute camp crimefighter to athletic superhero to almost demonic vigilante. Batman has been blessed with some of the greatest creators in the mediums of both comicbook and film, and each has created a unique interpretation of the character, which is in turn why he has lasted so long.

This is something to be celebrated, not argued about! The mere act of arguing than any version of Batman is more 'true' than another is nonsensical as there is no one true Batman. He doesn't really exist. Even arguing that one movie version of Batman is truer to the comics than another is folly, because one can easily point straight to the comics that it resembles, and those it doesn't.


But thats the problem Kevin. The vast majority of poeple on the internet cant like all the interpretations of Batman, in any medium. Thats why there are so many arguments. Its sad actually. I can enjoy all the Batman movies for different reasons, however there are only 2 that I actually "love" or "really like". Same with the various cartoon incarnations and the comics thru the years. The thing is, most are so narrow minded they only want one version of Batman and that, to them, is the only "true" version. And, as all of us have seen here on SHH, you just cant argue the point.

[ab38416]

edit

[ab38416]

edit

[El Payaso]

the whole "thou shalt not kill" comics stuff is BS,

It's Comic Code Authority. ANother reason to say 'Not necessarily' to that.

But kudos to Nolan, because he explained very well why his Batman doesn't kill.

[The Empire Ape]

It's Comic Code Authority. ANother reason to say 'Not necessarily' to that.



No. The superheroes stopped killing before.

[Mr. Socko]

This thread goes nowhere. Catman created it getting the attention of the "Burton Haters" to point out that Batman has killed before. First off, everyone on a Batman board already knows this. Secondly, I'm sure people who dislike Burton's films dislike them for more than just Batman killing. What is the intention of this thread? Now that you've shown us that Batman has killed before, are the Burton Haters now going to turn around and all of a sudden embrace the films? Hardly. The Burton fans will remain Burton fans, the Burton haters will remain Burton haters. If you were dispell everything in Batman'89 and prove that not a single thing in it is accurate to the comics, that still wouldn't stop me of thinking it's a good film.

I dislike the Ghost Rider movie. But if you show me an issue containing Johnny Blaze eating jelly beans, do you believe I will now like the film?

[BubbaGump]

I LOVED THAT. btw, that tank wasnt the Batmobile, it was a tank.
http://i10.tinypic.com/631pp49.jpg

[BubbaGump]

any true batman fan will be able to appreciate all the batman films

i enjoy all the movies, but IMO burton got batman right

why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest, cuz there were no memorable visuals, dialogue or villians, it was just like any normal action movie.

Yeah, I know I'm quoting a semi-old post, but anyone notice Googleme94 contradict himself here?

[BubbaGump]

Well, he didn't really contradict himself.

oh rly?

[Mr. Socko]

Yeah, I know I'm quoting a semi-old post, but anyone notice Googleme94 contradict himself here?


Lmao!

I don't understand him. I see that he likes the previous films, as I do. But everytime he gets a chance he rips into Nolan's movies.

[Mr. Socko]

Yah, 'rly' He just said that all Batman fans should be able to appreciate all the movies. He didn't say we couldn't have a probs with them. He was just vocal on his probs with BB


He said all Batman fans should be able to appreciate all of the films. Then he says "why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest, cuz there were no memorable visuals, dialogue or villians, it was just like any normal action movie."

So he is either A) Contradicting himself or B) Appreciates lame movies with "no memorable visuals, dialogue, or villains."

Nay?

[BubbaGump]

Lmao!

I don't understand him. I see that he likes the previous films, as I do. But everytime he gets a chance he rips into Nolan's movies.

Sometimes, it just comes out of nowhere. He doesn't even wait for opportunities to bash BB. :oldrazz:

"So uhh...lasagna."

Googleme94: F*** Nolan and his realism!

[BubbaGump]

He said all Batman fans should be able to appreciate all of the films. Then he says "why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest, cuz there were no memorable visuals, dialogue or villians, it was just like any normal action movie."

So he is either A) Contradicting himself or B) Appreciates lame movies with "no memorable visuals, dialogue, or villains."

Nay?

Wha-what he said.

[Catman]

everyone on a Batman board already knows this.

You joined in Mar 2005. I have been here since Jul 2002. Believe it or not but once upon a time 90% of the members didn't know that Batman had killed in the comics. And the debate of Batman killing was brought up ATLEAST once a week. Before Begins all we did at the Bat forums was debate the Burton/Schumacher movies and this topic was no stranger. Also...keep in mind that this thread was created like 10 months before Begins was released. It is a reflection of its times.

[Superman Prime]

Sometimes, it just comes out of nowhere. He doesn't even wait for opportunities to bash BB. :oldrazz:

"So uhh...lasagna."

Googleme94: F*** Nolan and his realism!

It begs the question of if he truly cares either way, or is just on SHH to piss off the vast majority.

[The Empire Ape]

Even Superman killed. All heroes. It's nothing special.

[Mr. Socko]

You joined in Mar 2005. I have been here since Jul 2002. Believe it or not but once upon a time 90% of the members didn't know that Batman had killed in the comics. And the debate of Batman killing was brought up ATLEAST once a week. Before Begins all we did at the Bat forums was debate the Burton/Schumacher movies and this topic was no stranger. Also...keep in mind that this thread was created like 10 months before Begins was released. It is a reflection of its times.

Then they weren't big Batman fans, now were they? If there was ever a time where the board was so ignorant, that 90% of the members didn't know Batman killed, I can say I'm glad I wasn't around. That would be the equivalent of going to Bluetights.net and 90% of the members there not knowing that Superman didn't have the ability to fly when he was first created.

As for that debate being brought up once a week, that's pretty damn stupid considering all someone had to do when the board was first created was post a scan from a 'comic' which all of a sudden appear to be quite disassociated with most members of this board.

[Catman]

Then they weren't big Batman fans, now were they?

It's not that. Its just that many people only care about the recent stuff. They don't take the time to go to the library and get books with old issues and what not.

all someone had to do when the board was first created was post a scan

No one did that.

[BubbaGump]

No one did that.

...if there was ever a time when the board was so ignorant...:oldrazz:

[Mr. Socko]

...if there was ever a time when the board was so ignorant...:oldrazz:


The board didn't even gain a proper IQ level until you joined Bubba. I tried my best to help for the past 2 years :oldrazz:

[BubbaGump]

The board didn't even gain a proper IQ level until you joined Bubba. I tried my best to help for the past 2 years :oldrazz:

I'm here now.

[Darkness Falls]

Lmao!

I don't understand him. I see that he likes the previous films, as I do. But everytime he gets a chance he rips into Nolan's movies.

yeah what's his deal :huh:
hasn't he realised they're all good

[Warhammer]

Yeah, I know I'm quoting a semi-old post, but anyone notice Googleme94 contradict himself here?

Haha, it was like a little kid wrote that post.
Seriously, who writes like that?

[Nepenthes]

I don't like Batman Returns because it's *shock* a puerile movie. My distaste has very little to do with Batman killing. The entire movie is hardly a fair representation of Batman at all, so to single out one aspect like him killing dudes makes no sense.

[El Payaso]

And what exactly was that un-fair about BR's Batman's representation...?

[Kevin Roegele]

And what exactly was that un-fair about BR's Batman's representation...?

Because it's not exactly like Nepenthes imagines the comics are like.

I'm so tired of this arguement. The Batman Movies boards never seem to progress beyond anything other than this and basic Schumacher criticism.

[Bat-Mite]

I don't see much wrong with Batman Returns. I didn't like Batman '89 for a number of reasons, and even though BR wasn't the most faithful representation of the characters (though Penguin's changes were for the better), it was still a terrific movie and had the best live action Catwoman ever. It seemed like Burton was getting a better feel for Batman, and that his movies would have gotten better as he went along. It's a shame that Batman 3 was taken from him... I'd be interested in knowing what all he was going to do with it. Also, if nothing else, I'm thankful for BR because it gives me a Batman movie that I can watch around Christmas time to get in the spirit of the season. :)

[Gianakin_]

Ditto.

[GoogleMe94]

I don't see much wrong with Batman Returns. I didn't like Batman '89 for a number of reasons, and even though BR wasn't the most faithful representation of the characters (though Penguin's changes were for the better), it was still a terrific movie and had the best live action Catwoman ever. It seemed like Burton was getting a better feel for Batman, and that his movies would have gotten better as he went along. It's a shame that Batman 3 was taken from him... I'd be interested in knowing what all he was going to do with it. Also, if nothing else, I'm thankful for BR because it gives me a Batman movie that I can watch around Christmas time to get in the spirit of the season. :)

totally! well, i dont know if it makes a good Christmas movie, LOL, but i get what ya mean. damn i always hated the penguin from the comics, its like burgess merediths penguin that kills and sells drugs. lame. burtons penguin is THE Penguin, nuff said. and catwoman.....HOT!!

[Samurai Pasta]

I like certain things about Batman 89, but Batman Returns just doesn't do it for me besides the set designs.

[AgentGraves!]

I blame Burton for batman forever!

[El Payaso]

I blame Burton for batman forever!
lol

[AgentGraves!]

lol


no really i do...the guy PRODUCED it...that would mean that he was 100% OKAY with what was going down and as a result....we got B&R...


(insure sarcastic thumbs up)


THANKS MR.TIM BURTON!!! your the best!

[The Empire Ape]

he didn't "produce" it. His name was just thrown in because he was there at the beginning of the project. He has nothing to do with the finished product.

[SHADOWBAT69]

Burton even said himself in an interview that he didnt understand why they kept his name. Tho in another interview, I believe it was Peter Macgregor, that said it was because he did get the ball rolling and to help ease the transition. Which really doesnt make mch sense t me. It was said on both sides that it was obvious that WB didnt want Burton back. I think it was just to help smooth over an already rocky move. Which I dont think helped much.lol

[AgentGraves!]

regaurdless its his fault the only plus side to it all....we got Batman Begins the definitive batman

[Gianakin_]

Not really definitive, but pretty damn good.

[El Payaso]

regaurdless its his fault

He was producer in name only and Schumacher was directing, explain me why Burton is to blame.

we got Batman Begins the definitive batman

The definitive bible of generic action movie and cliché dialogue as a Bat-flick. That's another vision of it.

[Kevin Roegele]

regaurdless its his fault the only plus side to it all....we got Batman Begins the definitive batman

The definitive Batman movie is the 1989 one as it set the template for everything that followed.

[AgentGraves!]

sorry sir..but i strongly disagree..for all the same reasons why people still debate the matter..one of the stronger points....

the joker did not "cap" bruce's mama and papa

and to tell you the truth (imho) the only reason why b89 seems remotely the definitive batman is because it was the first one out. ever. other than the '40's batman movies...oh and the 60's movie that then later sprawled out into the tv show...it was the first "dark" batman...and i thumb my nose at it..YES, i did enjoy it but it wasn't batman too me...YES it was batman but not the batman that i know..and YES i get what Ulsan said that each incarnation of batman in the films seem to mirror diff batmans through out his career...but i mean can you see past the notion that the batman film was the first "major" batman film and thus is somehow put upon a pedistal due to that???

there was a lot of good in b89 as there is a lot of good in bb but prehaps if we scale it maybe, just maybe if you open up your heart a little more...BB out weighs b89 on a lot of levels. Truth be told B89 was my heart and soul love of a batman film...then in June of o5...i saw that i was with the wrong batman film and my heart required the love of Bo5...so I broke it off...with much class, we still talk about this or that here and there, that sort of thing. b89 still has a soft spot in my heart but i will remember that, that part of my heart is soft because b89 broke it. and Bo5 was there to mend it...like a band-aid. or a fresh bag of gummy bears....or even...like a Michale Buble CD to come home too and relax and let the world's weight lift like a cloud off your blistered shoulders....whadda say? huh? give Bo5 a hug and relize that Bo5 is the right one...prehaps even..THE ONE...hm?

[Nepenthes]

Because it's not exactly like Nepenthes imagines the comics are like.

sorry, I'm not imagining. It's a case of what the comics ARE like. Certain traits are not subjective

I'm so tired of this arguement. The Batman Movies boards never seem to progress beyond anything other than this and basic Schumacher criticism.

Me too, but it's not true to say that the boards never move beyond it. It's whether you choose to keep participating in a certain arguement or not. Many people are capable of getting past it

[Ibn]

He was producer in name only and Schumacher was directing, explain me why Burton is to blame.



The definitive bible of generic action movie and cliché dialogue as a Bat-flick. That's another vision of it.


I just found out that your name means clown. I feel like a dumbass. As for the arguement....... let it go old friend. One day, one day soon, when the Nolan run is over, and the new bat flicks come, and people are trying to hype those movies and they're director based of hate for the previous one, only then will they understand.................. Only then, can we truly rub they're noses in it. So be at peace. You, and brother Roegele, and the rest of us.

[SHADOWBAT69]

there was a lot of good in b89 as there is a lot of good in bb but prehaps if we scale it maybe, just maybe if you open up your heart a little more...BB out weighs b89 on a lot of levels. Truth be told B89 was my heart and soul love of a batman film...then in June of o5...i saw that i was with the wrong batman film and my heart required the love of Bo5...so I broke it off...with much class, we still talk about this or that here and there, that sort of thing. b89 still has a soft spot in my heart but i will remember that, that part of my heart is soft because b89 broke it. and Bo5 was there to mend it...like a band-aid. or a fresh bag of gummy bears....or even...like a Michale Buble CD to come home too and relax and let the world's weight lift like a cloud off your blistered shoulders....whadda say? huh? give Bo5 a hug and relize that Bo5 is the right one...prehaps even..THE ONE...hm?


what?

[AgentGraves!]

what are you what-ing up there friend?

[Samurai Pasta]

I just found out that your name means clown. I feel like a dumbass. As for the arguement....... let it go old friend. One day, one day soon, when the Nolan run is over, and the new bat flicks come, and people are trying to hype those movies and they're director based of hate for the previous one, only then will they understand.................. Only then, can we truly rub they're noses in it. So be at peace. You, and brother Roegele, and the rest of us.

Oh, come on. Why the hate?

[Mr. Socko]

sorry sir..but i strongly disagree..for all the same reasons why people still debate the matter..one of the stronger points....

the joker did not "cap" bruce's mama and papa

Joker did not 'cap' Bruce's ma and pa

Bruce was not trained by Ra's Al Ghul

nor did he spend his childhood with Tom Cruise's wife.

And at the same time, every one of those things happened. The films are in a completely different continuity than the graphic novels and comic books. They aren't canon with the literary text. The films are one medium that have their own storyline, and the comics are another. Nor are the films translations of the comics. They aren't substitutes, you can't replace Batman Year One with just watching Batman Begins.Two completely different animals. As long as it works in context of the film, things like "Joker killing his parents" aren't real complaints that make the film bad.

and to tell you the truth (imho) the only reason why b89 seems remotely the definitive batman is because it was the first one out. ever. other than the '40's batman movies...oh and the 60's movie that then later sprawled out into the tv show...it was the first "dark" batman...and i thumb my nose at it..YES, i did enjoy it but it wasn't batman too me...YES it was batman but not the batman that i know..and YES i get what Ulsan said that each incarnation of batman in the films seem to mirror diff batmans through out his career...but i mean can you see past the notion that the batman film was the first "major" batman film and thus is somehow put upon a pedistal due to that???

Or perhaps some of us just consider it a good film that has stood the test of time and still holds up as a great Bat-flick though all the years and several other films. I definitely think it's Batman, and certainly one of the several that I know of. You disagree and I can respect your opinion.

there was a lot of good in b89 as there is a lot of good in bb but prehaps if we scale it maybe, just maybe if you open up your heart a little more...BB out weighs b89 on a lot of levels. Truth be told B89 was my heart and soul love of a batman film...then in June of o5...i saw that i was with the wrong batman film and my heart required the love of Bo5...so I broke it off...with much class, we still talk about this or that here and there, that sort of thing. b89 still has a soft spot in my heart but i will remember that, that part of my heart is soft because b89 broke it. and Bo5 was there to mend it...like a band-aid. or a fresh bag of gummy bears....or even...like a Michale Buble CD to come home too and relax and let the world's weight lift like a cloud off your blistered shoulders....whadda say? huh? give Bo5 a hug and relize that Bo5 is the right one...prehaps even..THE ONE...hm?

You're broken heart and band-aid talk is ridiculous, I'm not even going to attempt to fully decipher what you're speaking of.

To insinuate Batman Begins was the one would be to say The Dark Knight stands no chance of being better. I personally think TDK could be an even greater film, and that stance alone disproves Begins as being 'The One.' With whatever you speak of, 'The One' would never require a sequel, let alone a sequel that could possibly be better.

[Numez]

i don't see how anyone can prefer the mediocre begins to the iconic and memorable b89, but i respect their opinion. Having the Joker as the killer of the waynes was a smart move imo. it makes it personal and drives batman even harder. "I made you, you made me" Joker even laughs at this! he's humorous and who knows what he would have done had he survived. he is far from brainless and had a set plan. nolan's villains were crap and didn't seem very motivated.


give Bo5 a hug and relize that Bo5 is the right one...prehaps even..THE ONE...hm?


see, this is the kind of stuff I don't like. and what's a Bo? I see no o in the title of Batman Begins. nolanites have a lot more to argue with because bb was more flawed imo. all the hatred against b89 isn't very well thought up.

[El Payaso]

sorry sir..but i strongly disagree..for all the same reasons why people still debate the matter..one of the stronger points....

the joker did not "cap" bruce's mama and papa

Ducard is not Ra's.
Ra's is not Batman's mentor.
Flass is not fat and dark haired
Comm. Loeb is not black.
Rachel Dawes doesn't exist.
Bruce didn't have a little girl as a friend.
The bat in Wayne manor did go through a window.
Alfred has a moustache and is bald.
Joe Chill was never captured the same night of the Wayne's killing.
Joe Chill wasn't killed by a woman.

Jonathan Kent didn't die while Clark being a teenager.

Otto Octavius was never a good-hearted scientist before becoming Dr. Octopus and wasn't married.

Peter Parker's first love was Gwen Stacy and later he feel in love with Mary Jane, not the other way around.

etc
etc
etc

and to tell you the truth (imho) the only reason why b89 seems remotely the definitive batman is because it was the first one out. ever. other than the '40's batman movies...oh and the 60's movie that then later sprawled out into the tv show...

I get your point.

B89 was the first Batman movie... except it was not the first at all.

That said, HULK was the first Hulk movie to the big screen, but that didn't make it seem like the definitive Hulk.

It seems your first-movie-ever-makes-it-looks-like-definitive theory holds no water.

it was the first "dark" batman...and i thumb my nose at it..YES, i did enjoy it but it wasn't batman too me...YES it was batman but not the batman that i know..and YES i get what Ulsan said that each incarnation of batman in the films seem to mirror diff batmans through out his career...but i mean can you see past the notion that the batman film was the first "major" batman film and thus is somehow put upon a pedistal due to that???

I stick to my HULK example.

You need a better excuse here.

there was a lot of good in b89 as there is a lot of good in bb but prehaps if we scale it maybe, just maybe if you open up your heart a little more...BB out weighs b89 on a lot of levels. Truth be told B89 was my heart and soul love of a batman film...then in June of o5...i saw that i was with the wrong batman film and my heart required the love of Bo5...so I broke it off...with much class, we still talk about this or that here and there, that sort of thing. b89 still has a soft spot in my heart but i will remember that, that part of my heart is soft because b89 broke it. and Bo5 was there to mend it...like a band-aid. or a fresh bag of gummy bears....or even...like a Michale Buble CD to come home too and relax and let the world's weight lift like a cloud off your blistered shoulders....whadda say? huh? give Bo5 a hug and relize that Bo5 is the right one...prehaps even..THE ONE...hm?

What is this "Bo5" thing?

Is it something like:

http://www.britsuperstore.com/acatalog/Vo5_Extreme_Freeze_Gel_150ml.jpg

with a bad spelling?

[The Empire Ape]

Ducard is not Ra's.

Jonathan Kent didn't die while Clark being a teenager.


Actually, he did.

It was the day Superboy became Superman.

:wow:

[AgentGraves!]

NO! b05 = batman begins (2005) =bo5
like batman (1989) = b89

duh now enjoy my post like its a good hearty bowl of camble's

[CFE]

B89 = Batman (1989)
BR = Batman Returns
BF = Batman Forever
B&R = Batman & Robin
MOTP = Mask of the Phantasm
BB = Batman Begins
TDK = The Dark Knight

"Duh" :up:

CFE

[Superman Prime]

NO! b05 = batman begins (2005) =bo5
like batman (1989) = b89

duh now enjoy my post like its a good hearty bowl of camble's

Who the hell invited this guy? :dry:

[CFE]

Who the hell invited this guy? :dry:

You think it's bad now...just wait until TDK is released...

this place is gonna be insane :dry:

CFE

[El Payaso]

BB = Batman Begins....

Bo5 - B05, I assume - is useless since there was not other Batman begins in any other year so we have to make the distinction of the year.

[SHADOWBAT69]

You think it's bad now...just wait until TDK is released...

this place is gonna be insane :dry:

CFE


No. This place is gonna be stupid

Not looking forward to it.:csad:

[AgentGraves!]

Look, I was trying to point out the silly notion of calling Batman (1989) B89...it's silly to me...thats all i was pointing out with the B05 thing...and second. my first movie ever thing does stand...because there are peeps out there that look at Batman (1989) as the FIRST batman film....mostly it was a knock on there door and on the other side is me...saying "hey, batman (1989) is not the first batman movie so stop treating it as one" next on the menu...when i was pointing out that batman begins is the quote unquote the one, i was suggesting the whole new franchise this nolan-ized batch of bat-cookies

[Numez]

We use B89 to disguish between the movie and the character.

[SHADOWBAT69]

next on the menu...when i was pointing out that batman begins is the quote unquote the one, i was suggesting the whole new franchise this nolan-ized batch of bat-cookies

Dude, you make no sense.:huh:


and whats with your fascination with food?

[AgentGraves!]

GAH! at any rate...my debate is still as solid as a catfishes skin

[SHADOWBAT69]

you had a debate? lol :p

[Mr. Socko]

Look, I was trying to point out the silly notion of calling Batman (1989) B89...it's silly to me...thats all i was pointing out with the B05 thing...

It's stupid and useless calling Batman Begins B05, because it is the only film in history titled BATMAN BEGINS.

and second. my first movie ever thing does stand...because there are peeps out there that look at Batman (1989) as the FIRST batman film....

And if you look hard enough I bet you'll also be able to find some people who think Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is the first Willy Wonka film. To quote Nice Guy Eddie...that don't make it f**kin' so!

mostly it was a knock on there door and on the other side is me...saying "hey, batman (1989) is not the first batman movie so stop treating it as one" next on the menu...when i was pointing out that batman begins is the quote unquote the one, i was suggesting the whole new franchise this nolan-ized batch of bat-cookies

It doesn't matter which one you were suggesting. To insinuate Batman Begins is the one, would be to say TDK doesn't stand a chance of being better. And judging from your stance, I highly doubt you believe such a thing.

[El Payaso]

Look, I was trying to point out the silly notion of calling Batman (1989) B89...it's silly to me...thats all i was pointing out with the B05 thing

But there is another movie called BATMAN from 1966. therefore the difference is actually needed. If for me, I'd talk about just "Batman" as the movie from 1989.

my first movie ever thing does stand...because there are peeps out there that look at Batman (1989) as the FIRST batman film....mostly it was a knock on there door and on the other side is me...saying "hey, batman (1989) is not the first batman movie so stop treating it as one"

:huh:

As I recall, you were saying Batman 89 was the first one - to justify its success on the mere fact that it was the first one - and I was the one pointing out that it wasn't the first one. But I'm gload we can agree now.:up:

[CFE]

No. This place is gonna be stupid

Not looking forward to it.:csad:

Fair enough...insanely stupid :csad:

CFE

[Warhammer]

Ducard is not Ra's.
Ra's is not Batman's mentor.
Flass is not fat and dark haired
Comm. Loeb is not black.
Rachel Dawes doesn't exist.
Bruce didn't have a little girl as a friend.
The bat in Wayne manor did go through a window.
Alfred has a moustache and is bald.
Joe Chill was never captured the same night of the Wayne's killing.
Joe Chill wasn't killed by a woman.

Jonathan Kent didn't die while Clark being a teenager.

Otto Octavius was never a good-hearted scientist before becoming Dr. Octopus and wasn't married.

Peter Parker's first love was Gwen Stacy and later he feel in love with Mary Jane, not the other way around.

etc
etc
etc

Word. :up:

It's always the deep fanboys that can't accept that films are adaptations of comics. Hell, 98% of all comic book films are even original screenplays with only elements (homages, certain scenes, little things for the fans, adapted parts of certain comic issues, etc.) from the comics. This is the reason why the whole "Batman doesn't kill" argument is so stupid. You might as well say that Batman sucked because he wore an armored/rubber suit and everything was black.

[DJ Kornphlake]

Batman not killing is one of his defining character traits, though. Yes, he did kill in the beginning of his comic run, but that isn't in the canon.

Take, for instance, Superman's ability to fly. In his first appearances, he could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound". Now it's accepted that he has the gift of flight. How many fans do you think would be pissed off if some director came along and decided that Supes could no longer fly in his movie?

[AgentGraves!]

But there is another movie called BATMAN from 1966. therefore the difference is actually needed. If for me, I'd talk about just "Batman" as the movie from 1989.



:huh:

As I recall, you were saying Batman 89 was the first one - to justify its success on the mere fact that it was the first one - and I was the one pointing out that it wasn't the first one. But I'm gload we can agree now.:up:

I was saying that batman89 was the first batman film...in terms of silver screen sorts. much like the superman movie was the first....even though there was the superman40's films...and just like how the captain marvel tv show was the first captain marvel on screen...even though there was the captain marvel 40's films......

[Mr. Socko]

Batman not killing is one of his defining character traits, though. Yes, he did kill in the beginning of his comic run, but that isn't in the canon.

Take, for instance, Superman's ability to fly. In his first appearances, he could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound". Now it's accepted that he has the gift of flight. How many fans do you think would be pissed off if some director came along and decided that Supes could no longer fly in his movie?


Newsflash: Neither are the films!

That's what you as well as so many others fails to realize. The movies are not substitutes for the comics.

[Numez]

who cares if Batman kills.

[El Payaso]

Batman not killing is one of his defining character traits, though. Yes, he did kill in the beginning of his comic run, but that isn't in the canon.

Take, for instance, Superman's ability to fly. In his first appearances, he could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound". Now it's accepted that he has the gift of flight. How many fans do you think would be pissed off if some director came along and decided that Supes could no longer fly in his movie?

Black armour is not part of Batman suit canon. There are ideas that work, some other don't.

But more than a killing Batman, B89 and BR gave us a Batman that is not afraid to kill when necessary. He wasn't there killing every thug in his way. He even tried to save Jack Napier from falling to the toxic wastes.

That said, it's not part of Superman's personality to kill. Yet, he killed Zod and let Non die in SII.

[DJ Kornphlake]

Newsflash: Neither are the films!

That's what you as well as so many others fails to realize. The movies are not substitutes for the comics.

You're right; they aren't. But that doesn't mean a director should change one of the core aspects of the character.

[Cain]

You're right; they aren't. But that doesn't mean a director should change one of the core aspects of the character.

By that same token a modern storyline where Batman killed Son of the Demon is being slowly brought back into continuity. Things change so much in the DC universe. There is no constant like with Marvel's Earth 616 that's what makes both companies so inherently different. With DC heroes the focus is more on storytelling than character consistency. That's why stories like The Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum & Superman: Red Son exist.

I think the most important aspects in adapting the character are a lone detective who wages a war on crime. Some of my favorite Batman stories of all time are Elseworlds where he has done a lot of "out of character" stuff. As long as the character is not being made a mockery of it doesn't invalidate the "faithfulness" of the interpretation at least to me anyway.