Returns or 89?

[kooguy911]

Which do you prefer? Evereyone is always saying how they either love BB, returns, or 89. However, since BB is the most recent, bb usually wins poles like this by a landslide. So im taking out BB. Which is better?

[Two-Face]

BR is great movie but Batman 89 was much better as a story wise.

[Bat Attack]

Batman Returns

[Soundwave88]

Batman 89 is way darker n gothic then BR

[nite-owl]

Batman Returns

[union_jak]

I just think Returns is the greatest film ever, let alone Batman film, but that's me.

[El Payaso]

Batman 89

[BatScot]

Returns... not that I necessarily think it is better than 89, but I find it a bit easier to sit through these days.

[XCharlieX]

89. Returns was a little perverse lol whoa there Penguin.

[ashtonu]

I'd have to say Batman '89. It really captures the gritty, dark feel of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, which I love. BATMAN RETURNS is more like a creepy gothic fairy tale. I like it, but in my mind it didn't quite capture what Batman was meant to be, like '89 did.

Of course, Catwoman is much, much more interesting then Vicki Vale, LOLOL.

[CConn]

B89 for...really quite a few reasons.

Firstly, that was the movie that got me hooked on Batman, that's the movie I watched more than anything else as a child, etc., etc., so that automatically gives it a bit of a leg up.

But beyond that, I also felt it was a lot closer to - not exactly the comics - but the feel of Batman (as ashtonu mentioned - it did really feel a lot like DKR).

I preferred the art direction and the original vision for Gotham a lot more than Returns, and it also wasn't as dark, as, simply put, freaky as Returns. Returns is a good movie to be sure - I enjoy it - but it does get pretty weird at times, whereas B89 isn't tarnished by that...weirdness.

[tinister]

Batman Returns was great. But I watched it and got the distinct impression that Burton was already losing interest in Batman by then. He focused more on Catwoman (awesome!) and Penguin (eww.) got most of the spotlight.

Batman 89 was a more consistent and solid visualization of Batman and his world.

So Batman 89 for me.

[ReptileOrion]

Batman 89....Better villian...Better action scenes....Better Score

[lordofthenerds]

Batman 89. The Joker was awesome it focused more on Batman and it had a better story.

[Silver Sable]

Returns

[batmaluco]

Batman 89.
But I love both.

[Ceb-Man]

I like both of these movies. Before Batman Begins came out, I really liked both of these a lot better than the Shumacher films. They both nailed " the dark" aspect of Batman.
I have to say though, because of so many good memories of 1989 and Batmania was running wild, Batman 89 is my favorate.

[The Chairman]

Batman Returns is my favorite Batman movie, as well as one of my Top 10 faves of all time.

[Kevin Roegele]

Returns is better overall, but 89 has a better portrayal of Batman, and a more triumphant, heroic ending. Hmmmm.....

[Malone]

I liked Batman 89 better. I think that it was just more exciting.

[Two-Face]

Is also that it's Batman's arch-enemy as well.

[union_jak]

You have to give Returns credit for making the Penguin interesting. Michelle Pfeiffer gave one of cinema's most memorable and greatest performances in film as Catwoman.
Yes Commissioner Gordon had less to do, but Alfred did more.

I think if Christopher Walken played Rupert Thorne or Harvey Dent as apposed to Max Shreck it could have only improved it.

[Kevin Roegele]

Returns is just so good; it improves on Batman in almost every way. The villains are deeper, the action is much better, it's more exciting. As a German-expressionism nightmare and a comicbook spectacle it works in every way.

[Bat Attack]

Returns is just so good; it improves on Batman in almost every way. The villains are deeper, the action is much better, it's more exciting. As a German-expressionism nightmare and a comicbook spectacle it works in every way.
:up: :up:

[bdsproductions]

89!

i HATE style over substance in every way, Returns was a horrificly scripted, terrible visuals (Burton i hate you), german expressism or whatever is NOT Batman, B89 visually totally fit Batman.

Returns sucked majorly.

[Cinemaman]

I liked Burton's movies and I think B89 was better than BR.

[tinister]

There was definitely some very well done elements in Batman Returns.

Some of my favorites (I'll probably forget a couple since I haven't seen it in a few years):

1) Almost every Selena Kyle scene.
2) Almost every Cat Woman sequence. Especially her first outing in the costume when she surprises the burglar in the department store - and the would-be rapist.
3) The sexual tension between Catwoman and Bats was really well done.
4) The incredibly well done scene at the ball when Selena and Wayne both realize each other's secret identity.
5) The cool shot of Batman sitting in the batcave all wounded and beat.

Again - probably a few other choice moments that I forgot.

But at the same time - there was just something incosistent with the both the visuals and the timing or editing of the movie that kept all those choice elements from gelling together.

Batman89 had fewer choice moments - but overall - everything flowed better.

So again - 89 for me.

[Kevin Roegele]

89!

i HATE style over substance in every way, Returns was a horrificly scripted, terrible visuals (Burton i hate you), german expressism or whatever is NOT Batman, B89 visually totally fit Batman.

Returns is anything but style over substance. Look at the actual script. Look at how the film explores Bruce Wayne's personality through the Penguin (the lost orphan), Catwoman (the angry vigilante) and Shreck (the business man).

Look at how clever the script is; "I was their number one son, and they treated me like number two."

If you don't know anything about German Expressionism, or Film Noir, or the Tales of Hoffman, then fine; but don't say they don't suit Batman if you don't know what they are.

[Bat Attack]

I find it funny that Batman is off in the side on the Batman Returns laserdisc cover. Even though the movie did focus more on villians than Batman, like Tim Burton says "Less it more" and I agree.

http://i18.ebayimg.com/01/i/04/c7/fd/87_1_b.JPG

[CConn]

Returns is anything but style over substance. Look at the actual script. Look at how the film explores Bruce Wayne's personality through the Penguin (the lost orphan), Catwoman (the angry vigilante) and Shreck (the business man).

Look at how clever the script is; "I was their number one son, and they treated me like number two."

If you don't know anything about German Expressionism, or Film Noir, or the Tales of Hoffman, then fine; but don't say they don't suit Batman if you don't know what they are.The simple fact to the matter is some people simply can't grasp subility in film - it all needs to be laid out in front of them for it to be understandable (which is something BB did very well). Not that I'm knocking them; the same thing happens to me occasionally (I still need someone to explain Blade Runner to me:().

[BatMatt]

The simple fact to the matter is some people simply can't grasp subility in film - it all needs to be laid out in front of them for it to be understandable (which is something BB did very well). Not that I'm knocking them; the same thing happens to me occasionally (I still need someone to explain Blade Runner to me:().
You should read the book, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep", that should help you understand Blade Runner, as will more repeat viewings

[jusblaze21]

Batman 89

[Kevin Roegele]

The simple fact to the matter is some people simply can't grasp subility in film - it all needs to be laid out in front of them for it to be understandable (which is something BB did very well). Not that I'm knocking them; the same thing happens to me occasionally (I still need someone to explain Blade Runner to me:().


I agree, however with films based on comics, some fans will only accept a film as a direct translation of the printed page. Any attempts to bring a fresh approach is usually ignored. "Hey, Burton has spun straw into gold!" "But I want straw, the comics are straw!"

Batman Returns has everything in the comics, but adds so much to it. Burton improves both the Penguin and Catwoman - these are the best ever versions of the characters in any medium - and introduces a worthy new villain in Max Schreck.

[Bat Attack]

I agree, however with films based on comics, some fans will only accept a film as a direct translation of the printed page. Any attempts to bring a fresh approach is usually ignored. "Hey, Burton has spun straw into gold!" "But I want straw, the comics are straw!"

Batman Returns has everything in the comics, but adds so much to it. Burton improves both the Penguin and Catwoman - these are the best ever versions of the characters in any medium - and introduces a worthy new villain in Max Schreck.
:up: :up:

[captain_jimbo]

I loved Batman 1989 and Returns, but I had to vote for Batman 1989 just in front of it. :)

[bdsproductions]

Returns is anything but style over substance. Look at the actual script. Look at how the film explores Bruce Wayne's personality through the Penguin (the lost orphan), Catwoman (the angry vigilante) and Shreck (the business man).

Look at how clever the script is; "I was their number one son, and they treated me like number two."

If you don't know anything about German Expressionism, or Film Noir, or the Tales of Hoffman, then fine; but don't say they don't suit Batman if you don't know what they are.

i know alot about Noir.

i just personally think if your going to do Batman DO BATMAN, don't express him through other characters.

i will admit the dialouge WAS pretty good at times.

Noir TOTALLY suits Batman.

i meant THE LOOK of german expressionism, to a extreme degree does not go well, it's one thing to have Batman in a old, thirties city with big gargoyles and stuff, it's another to have.......Batman Returns.

just my opinion.

[JTStarkiller]

german expressism or whatever is NOT Batman, B89 visually totally fit Batman.

Aren't they both German expressionistic? :confused:

[bdsproductions]

Aren't they both German expressionistic? :confused:

yes but B89 to a much lesser extent.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Batman Returns for me, the action, story and love interest are much better IMO, and Keaton does more of his own stunts as well. At various points in B89 you can see it is not Keaton behind the mask in the action sequences in B89.

[The Joker.]

I think they're both great movies, but Batman Returns has the edge IMO, because it has alot of themes in the movie which is reflected in the villains, which also echoes something in Batman himself.

[Nirr]

Returns, I can't explain it... I just Love the movie

[returntovoid]

I like both B89 and Returns equally but I think Returns is better.

[GothamAlleys]

Returns for me, no contest. Much deeper, much more emotional, much more personal and more serious. Its a sad and dark tale. I cant say enough about how much I love this movie, its without a doubt my favorite Batman movie and oneof my all time favorite movies alltogether.

It follows a classic dark fairy tale formula mixed with modern storytelling and Burton's surreal, gloomy and artistic vision. This way an entirely new genre is created - it's a world of black and white and stripes and spirals, the world of tarnished souls and hurt outsiders (Penguin, Bruce, Selina). I love how Batman was being more like a Phantom of the Opera and a person that has a mysterious dark side. He sleeps sits alone in the dark. Batman/Bruce Wayne doesn't speak a single line until 37 min into the film.
As Burton said: Again, I felt less is more with him in the sense of who he is. (…) Michael’s eyes - it goes back to kind of like silent movie acting. I like when people sort of just look. It’s a movie so you kinda get more between the lines then you do [from] the actual lines (…) There's a loneliness to that character and witheldness. He’s a character that is sad and is private
Even when hes standing there looking there's an electricity about him

He finds hope in Selina, sees her as a fellow tarnished soul who is hurting inside like he does, someone who is also a torn apart outsider. She was his bride of Frankestein.

And then theres this great wintery feel to it. I just love this movie

I agree, however with films based on comics, some fans will only accept a film as a direct translation of the printed page. Any attempts to bring a fresh approach is usually ignored. "Hey, Burton has spun straw into gold!" "But I want straw, the comics are straw!"

Batman Returns has everything in the comics, but adds so much to it. Burton improves both the Penguin and Catwoman - these are the best ever versions of the characters in any medium - and introduces a worthy new villain in Max Schreck.

Exactly. Whether it is faithful or not is irrelevant. In the long run, I being faithful to comics has anything to do with a quality movie.Being faithful to the source and quality are two completely different things which do not affect each other. The great late Stanley Kubrick's The Shining had little to do with the actual book, yet it's a masterpiece. However at the time of the release it fell victim of this misguided criticism, just like Batman Returns.

[Irony-Man]

Batman Returns is one of the best Christmas movies ever.

Check my sig for what I think of both Batman 89 and Returns.

[zkuit]

They're both good movies - what I've found quite bold in Returns was the sexual undercurrent between Batman and Catwoman: apart from the plot, some scenes seemed visually conceived to explore the Bat's secret dreams (the sequence that comes to mind is when they end on the narrow terrace after they first fight and she explores the batsuit with her clawed hand). Do you agree? :yay:

[Bat-Mite]

Batman '89 is more of a true Batman movie, but I prefer Returns.

Returns is Burton unrestrained (he didn't have so much creative freedom for '89) and at the top of his game to boot. I find Batman to be more interesting in it and find the villains to be a lot more deep and interesting as well. The Joker was a bad apple from the very beginning of the movie, but Penguin and Catwoman both have reasons for becoming who they are. Also, I loved the whole winter wonderland thing. It's a very different kind of environment to put Batman in and it ensured that we'd always have a Batman movie to watch at Christmas. :) Well, those of us who like it, anyway.

I can definitely understand its critics, though. It is a huge departure from the more traditional Batman we saw in the first movie. It has all those sex references and a few gruesome elements (Penguin eating a fish, biting a man's nose, and having black blood) that turned some people off and contributed to Burton having the franchise taken from him. And some of the campy elements in it even rival Schumacher, so I can understand those who say it's not as dark as the first one, even though it seems darker to me.

[Fudgie]

Batman 89 wins by default. Returns is just too weird that it doesn't feel like a Batman movie.

[GothamAlleys]

They're both good movies - what I've found quite bold in Returns was the sexual undercurrent between Batman and Catwoman

That reminds me of the comment I got yesterday: Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer have a sexual tension that is so hot you could melt butter on it

[litlgreendude]

89 hands down

[Cain]

Batman Returns

[A Necessary Evil]

Batman Returns > Batman 89

[The Sarge]

While '89 has a better Gotham and overall "batmanish" feel, I prefer Returns.
Usually it's a close call, but lately I've been definitely been leaning toward the ladder.

First off, batman Himself is better. The suit is improved- fist better, and is more smooth, less rough looking. And Keatons performance is perfected. I would sa it's the best batman of ALL films. Put me in the camp that agree's with the "less is more". Remember when he's just out in the batmobile prowling the streets at night in the snow? No one running out to greet him or anything, totally alone. Keatons Performance is a little too much in some parts of 89 for me now.

The writing is so much better too. 89 was aright, but it really falls apart in areas. Why is Joker going up to the clocktower to get picked up? How did all those henchmen get up there? Why does Vicki looked drugged out when Joker dances with her?
Returns seems a bit more tongue in cheek with it's campyness. And I totally dig it. The creepy parts are great, and for me, german expressionism and batman just kind of fit in an awesome way. Peanut butter in my chocolate.

[Hobgoblin]

89. Returns was a little perverse lol whoa there Penguin.

Thats why I love it so much.:woot:

[Jokers_Wild]

Batman Returns. Plus, it's the first Batman movie I got to see in theaters when it came out!

[ALP]

Batman '89 is more of a true Batman movie, but I prefer Returns.

Returns is Burton unrestrained (he didn't have so much creative freedom for '89) and at the top of his game to boot. I find Batman to be more interesting in it and find the villains to be a lot more deep and interesting as well. The Joker was a bad apple from the very beginning of the movie, but Penguin and Catwoman both have reasons for becoming who they are. Also, I loved the whole winter wonderland thing. It's a very different kind of environment to put Batman in and it ensured that we'd always have a Batman movie to watch at Christmas. :) Well, those of us who like it, anyway.

I can definitely understand its critics, though. It is a huge departure from the more traditional Batman we saw in the first movie. It has all those sex references and a few gruesome elements (Penguin eating a fish, biting a man's nose, and having black blood) that turned some people off and contributed to Burton having the franchise taken from him. And some of the campy elements in it even rival Schumacher, so I can understand those who say it's not as dark as the first one, even though it seems darker to me.

Please...tell me what defines "TRUE Batman?"

I've heard it stated so many times before but can never agree with it. How is B'89 more of a true Batman movie? By stating that, you are essentially confining Batman and the mythos into whatever stereotypical form you think Batman just fit into. As you refer to '89 Batman as the "traditional" one.

There is no such thing as one true Batman story or movie. Just look to the comics, Dark Knight Returns, Arkham Asylum, anything by Kelly Jones. Every single one of them is just as valid and just as true as the next. Anyway, I do fully agree with everything in your first paragraph.

[The Joker]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did. Batman was not as eclipsed by the villain in Batman '89 as he was in Returns either.

[ALP]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did. Batman was not as eclipsed by the villain in Batman '89 as he was in Returns either.

???

Usually many people say that Joker eclipsed Batman in '89. I see what you mean though.

[Sinestro]

Neither

[The Joker]

???

Usually many people say that Joker eclipsed Batman in '89. I see what you mean though.

Well Joker did eclipse him in B'89, but it wasn't as bad as in Returns with a triple whammy of villains. And all of them with big roles.

[GothamAlleys]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did.


Thats the way I read that post too, but as I always repeat, I couldnt care less if its identical to the way comics were or not. I care if its good. None of the movies are really faithful to the comics and all of them deviate plenty. Doesnt take away from either Burton's or Nolan's movies and I dont think it would add anything to their quality. Its nice if they have the core from the comics, but let them go their own way. Burton and Nolan didnt know squat about comic books and look how nicely it turned out

[Bat-Mite]

He probably means Batman '89 didn't deviate from the comic books as much as Batman Returns did.This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg

[Smalley]

This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg
I agree, I just love the crazy, unfaithful off-the-wall-ness of Returns.

[The Joker]

His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg

Wow, where did you get that from?

[Bat-Mite]

Wow, where did you get that from?Someone posted it on here a couple of years ago and I made sure to save it. I believe the original source was a Tim Burton art book.

[EliteF50]

I love them both, but Returns is better. I love the action, the atmosphere, the characters, the writing, etc.

[Draven]

I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been..

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg

Do you know who didn't want Burton to use something like this? Was it the studio or did Nicholson not like it and then the studio said no?

[ALP]

Someone posted it on here a couple of years ago and I made sure to save it. I believe the original source was a Tim Burton art book.

Yeah there are several drawings and some paintings of the Joker and other Bat characters that Burton did. Many are in his recent art book. Here's one page of Joker concepts:

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2443/joker1o.jpg

[MessiahDecoy123]

LOve that Joker!

Every scene with Nicholson is iconic.

The 89' movie hasn't been matched by another bat-film yet IMO.

[Bat-Mite]

Do you know who didn't want Burton to use something like this? Was it the studio or did Nicholson not like it and then the studio said no?I'd be surprised if Nicholson objected to it, considering some of the roles he's played. If anyone made a stink about it, it was probably the studio, since they were constantly forcing script rewrites and such. I really don't know that much about what he was and wasn't allowed to do in the film, but I know he was forced to put a cathedral into the film's finale because someone (I think it was Jon Peters) saw the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway and decided that the movie needed a gothic cathedral.

[GothamAlleys]

This. Usually, I want comic book faithfulness, but the lack of faithfulness turned out to be Returns' biggest strength. It did its own thing and did it well. I only wish Burton had been allowed as much freedom in the first movie. His design for the Joker makes me wonder about what might have been...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg


I think it was great that Tim did one faithful to the comics movie and one personal movie. This way we have both, plus, Joker has been my favorite villain even before the movie, and I wouldve been dissapointed at the time to see something radically different from what was in comics when it comes to this character. While I applaud the remaking of the characters that Returns and Nolan's movies did, in this instance Im happy that we got a comic book looking Joker

[El Payaso]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.

[returntovoid]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.

Yeah, because Heath's Joker looked like Beetlejuice. :hehe:

If Sam Hamm and Bob Kane didn't have anything to do with B89, Burton's Joker would have looked like Beetlejuice. :rolleyes:

[The Joker]

If this is to be believed: http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg


Burton's Joker was going to go around wearing a big Scarecrow type hat, sunglasses, a scarf, and some big buttoned up overcoat....

[Bat-Mite]

I have always thought that a Burton Joker would have looked like Heath Ledger's Joker.Same here. Nolan's Joker is a perfect fit with Burton's Penguin and Catwoman.

[ALP]

Same here. Nolan's Joker is a perfect fit with Burton's Penguin and Catwoman.

Only visually!

But you're right...look at Burton's track record. His characters are usually tattered and dirty. Joker in B'89 was far more 'clean' and vain than any other Burton characters. Heath's Joker is all dirty, dusty, with hair going everywhere and circles around his eyes just like Beetlejuice and the Penguin. If Joker in B'89 were a full on Burton design his hair would have been more unkempt and dark circles around his eyes.

[Sturm316]

If this is to be believed: http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8745/timburtonsjoker.jpg


Burton's Joker was going to go around wearing a big Scarecrow type hat, sunglasses, a scarf, and some big buttoned up overcoat....

It's definitely to be believed as it first appeared in the Official Batman Movie Magazine back in 1989.

I think I lean more towards Batman 89, just because it was the first Batman movie and the one that made me a fan of the character. But I can be persuaded easily towards Returns.

[returntovoid]

If Sam Hamm and Bob Kane got involved in Batman Returns, Tim Burton's Penguin would've just been a one-dimensional lame ass long nosed fat Al Capone rip-off Mobster in a tuxedo with trick umbrella's but nothing more deeper and Catwoman would've just been a jewel thief that steals for no goddamn reason, although the thief incarnation can work with the right origins. Sam Hamm's early draft for Returns had the plot of Penguin and Catwoman stealing hidden gold beneath Wayne Manor, had Robin and Bruce Wayne marries Vicki Vale. That would've been horrible, good thing Burton rejected that draft and wanted Hamm completely out of the project plus they got someone witty like Daniel Waters to write the screenplay.

I think Tim Burton's Scarecrow would've been f'ing brilliant and also Arkham Asylum. :awesome: Just f'ck WB for firing Burton because of silly things like McDonalds and ignorant soccer moms but karma got back at them when Batman & Robin become a flop. :funny::lmao:

[Bat-Mite]

Just f'ck WB for firing Burton because of silly things like McDonalds and ignorant soccer moms but karma got back at them when Batman & Robin become a flop. :funny::lmao:The batnipples are now forever engraved in film, to their eternal shame. They may be back on top now, because of Nolan, but nobody will ever let them forget their previous disgrace!

[GothamAlleys]

It's definitely to be believed as it first appeared in the Official Batman Movie Magazine back in 1989.

I think I lean more towards Batman 89, just because it was the first Batman movie and the one that made me a fan of the character. But I can be persuaded easily towards Returns.


Its also on Tims website

[Spider-Aziz]

"Batman Returns" is the first movie I watched in a theater, as a child I really loved it a lot. Every time I watch that movie now it feels like I'm watching an "Addams Family" movie with Batman like themes, I really enjoy "Addams Family" films, but the combination doesn't work for me at all, more particularly when they zoom on the frozen park. That's the only Batman movie I can't stand to watch

The 1989 movie I watched on a betamax cassette, then on a VHS, now I watch it on a DVD, it still holds great deal of enjoyment to me, nothing pushed it from being my favorite movie so far

[ALP]

If Sam Hamm and Bob Kane got involved in Batman Returns, Tim Burton's Penguin would've just been a one-dimensional lame ass long nosed fat Al Capone rip-off Mobster in a tuxedo with trick umbrella's but nothing more deeper and Catwoman would've just been a jewel thief that steals for no goddamn reason, although the thief incarnation can work with the right origins. Sam Hamm's early draft for Returns had the plot of Penguin and Catwoman stealing hidden gold beneath Wayne Manor, had Robin and Bruce Wayne marries Vicki Vale. That would've been horrible, good thing Burton rejected that draft and wanted Hamm completely out of the project plus they got someone witty like Daniel Waters to write the screenplay.

I think Tim Burton's Scarecrow would've been f'ing brilliant and also Arkham Asylum. :awesome: Just f'ck WB for firing Burton because of silly things like McDonalds and ignorant soccer moms but karma got back at them when Batman & Robin become a flop. :funny::lmao:

You're being pretty harsh! Hamm did write the first Batman which you apparently love after all. I do love what Daniel Waters did though. Too bad he's done absolutely nothing even noteworthy since then.

[returntovoid]

You're being pretty harsh! Hamm did write the first Batman which you apparently love after all. I do love what Daniel Waters did though. Too bad he's done absolutely nothing even noteworthy since then.

I don't hate Sam Hamm, I thought his Batman 1989 script was great but I just don't think that he put enough effort into his early rejected screenplay for Batman Returns with the plot and psychological themes. The hidden treasure plots sounds very formulaic like some pirate flick, Catwoman was way too villainous rather than the morally ambiguous anti-heroine she was in the finished film, how can Bruce Wayne discard his real persona and just marry someone normal like Vicky Vale??? Sam Hamm did great with B89 but then he disappoints Tim Burton with this draft.

[BubbaSparx]

B89 ...

Returns was absolutely ridiculous.

[Smalley]

I don't hate Sam Hamm, I thought his Batman 1989 script was great but I just don't think that he put enough effort into his early rejected screenplay for Batman Returns with the plot and psychological themes. The hidden treasure plots sounds very formulaic like some pirate flick, Catwoman was way too villainous rather than the morally ambiguous anti-heroine she was in the finished film, how can Bruce Wayne discard his real persona and just marry someone normal like Vicky Vale???

Plus, they had zero chemistry together.
B89 ...

Returns was absolutely ridiculous.
...which is why it kicks so much more ass than '89 :yay:

[returntovoid]

Plus, they had zero chemistry together.

That's true, even though Basinger was likable as the character.

After all, a normal woman has not been Batman's soul-mate at all.

[BubbaSparx]

...which is why it kicks so much more ass than '89 :yay:

Using the same logic, being that Returns was so ridiculous, Forever and Batman n Robin > B89 too.

:doh:

[Smalley]

Using the same logic, being that Returns was so ridiculous, Forever and Batman n Robin > B89 too.

:doh:
Yes, except that you have to consider that Burton's kind of ridiculousness > Schumacher's.

[Ipodman]

I find it hard to vote... I like things in both films, notably vicki in 89 and catwoman in returns... but I disliked things in both too

[ALP]

I don't hate Sam Hamm, I thought his Batman 1989 script was great but I just don't think that he put enough effort into his early rejected screenplay for Batman Returns with the plot and psychological themes. The hidden treasure plots sounds very formulaic like some pirate flick, Catwoman was way too villainous rather than the morally ambiguous anti-heroine she was in the finished film, how can Bruce Wayne discard his real persona and just marry someone normal like Vicky Vale??? Sam Hamm did great with B89 but then he disappoints Tim Burton with this draft.


Yeah then again Sam Hamm hasn't done anything noteworthy since then either. Not that I ever recall(though he did some cool good comics here and there)

Vale was just flat out bland, Catwoman was exciting and sexy. Overall B'89 just doesn't have good supporting roles. Michael Gough is the only stand out co-player imo. Billy Dee was underutilized, Vale was boring, etc. But in Returns Shreck was brilliant and using multiple villains was a good idea. Of course Hingle/Gordon did very little(in both) but this rendition is based on the earlier comics where Gordon had only a bit role.

[BubbaSparx]

Yes, except that you have to consider that Burton's kind of ridiculousness > Schumacher's.

Not really ...

[Chris Wallace]

I didn't like Returns at all, so it's an easy choice for me.

[Matuatay]

I had to go with Batman Returns because when it came out I was thrilled that we got 2 villains, a far better looking Gotham City, imo, and a much better soundtrack/score. And Penguin was by far my favorite villain at the time. (I hadn't discovered Two-Face yet.)

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Having watched Batman Returns for the first time in about two years, I can now certainly say Batman is my favorite of the two. Batman Returns is...okay. It's worth a watch every now and then. I've never been a big fan of Nicholson's Joker, but comparing it to Penguin and Catwoman, I've found a new appreciation for the Jacker.

Don't get me wrong, I think Pfeiffer and DeVito did great jobs with their roles, but they don't pop off the screen the same way Nicholson did. Small parts of Batman Returns I find to be dumb, like the remote control batarang and the line, "Eat floor." Overall, Batman Returns is enjoyable, but not as much as the first one.

[ALP]

"Eat floor" is the only line in BR that I thought was just flat out bad! All of the other dialogue is either good or blends in and not stand out.

For me, Tim Burton is the single greatest portrayer of on-screen villains. I loved every villain he touched. Schumacher just disgraced the villains, Nolan toned down Ra's and Scarecrow far too much for my liking and Two Face killed far too quickly, but Burton was the only one to consistently pump his villains up with "interesting adrenaline." And as far as the Jokers, I no doubt will say that Heath Ledger gave a brilliant tour de force, thus far he's the only villain Nolan has taken above and beyond. But on the other hand I simply prefer the representation that Jack gave in '89, even if it feels slightly lite these days.

[Elevator Man]

"Eat floor" line doesn't bother me. It felt appropriate.

[ALP]

When I saw B'89 for the first time in several years I had become a big comics fan and knew Batman's origin well so when B'89 first started I remember being confused why the woman at the beginning was calling her husband "Harold" as they were searching for a taxi. See, I thought B'89 was going to begin with his origin and I was like "This is the Wayne family, so why the heck is she calling him Harold? Isn't he Thomas Wayne?" And then when the johnny gobb thugs rob them I was like "aren't they suppose to kill the parents." It wasn't until Batman showed up that I realized that family in that scene weren't the Waynes. Good times :funny:

[returntovoid]

"Eat floor" is the only line in BR that I thought was just flat out bad! All of the other dialogue is either good or blends in and not stand out.

I liked the "Eat floor" line, I don't think it's bad.

For me, Tim Burton is the single greatest portrayer of on-screen villains. I loved every villain he touched. Schumacher just disgraced the villains, Nolan toned down Ra's and Scarecrow far too much for my liking and Two Face killed far too quickly, but Burton was the only one to consistently pump his villains up with "interesting adrenaline." And as far as the Jokers, I no doubt will say that Heath Ledger gave a brilliant tour de force, thus far he's the only villain Nolan has taken above and beyond. But on the other hand I simply prefer the representation that Jack gave in '89, even if it feels slightly lite these days.

http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

so when B'89 first started I remember being confused why the woman at the beginning was calling her husband "Harold" as they were searching for a taxi. See, I thought B'89 was going to begin with his origin and I was like "This is the Wayne family, so why the heck is she calling him Harold? Isn't he Thomas Wayne?" And then when the johnny gobb thugs rob them I was like "aren't they suppose to kill the parents." It wasn't until Batman showed up that I realized that family in that scene weren't the Waynes. Good times :funny:

There were definitely deliberate parallels to the Wayne's murder.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

When I saw B'89 for the first time in several years I had become a big comics fan and knew Batman's origin well so when B'89 first started I remember being confused why the woman at the beginning was calling her husband "Harold" as they were searching for a taxi. See, I thought B'89 was going to begin with his origin and I was like "This is the Wayne family, so why the heck is she calling him Harold? Isn't he Thomas Wayne?" And then when the johnny gobb thugs rob them I was like "aren't they suppose to kill the parents." It wasn't until Batman showed up that I realized that family in that scene weren't the Waynes. Good times :funny:
Same here. I was thinking, ""Don't they live there? Why does Bruce need a map?"

[GothamAlleys]

When I saw B'89 for the first time in several years I had become a big comics fan and knew Batman's origin well so when B'89 first started I remember being confused why the woman at the beginning was calling her husband "Harold" as they were searching for a taxi. See, I thought B'89 was going to begin with his origin and I was like "This is the Wayne family, so why the heck is she calling him Harold? Isn't he Thomas Wayne?" And then when the johnny gobb thugs rob them I was like "aren't they suppose to kill the parents." It wasn't until Batman showed up that I realized that family in that scene weren't the Waynes. Good times :funny:

I was confused too as far as I remember. Back in 89 I was just a year into the comics and I didnt remember Bruce's parents' names, so I thought its little Bruce untill they showed Batman on the rooftop hearing the screams. That confused me quite a bit

[Spider-Aziz]

One major flaw in Batman Returns story has a fun outcome, but still, it doesn't excuse that scene
How did the Penguin chronies know the exact design of the Bat-Mobile?

[WolfCypher]

I rewatch Returns, and the more I realize how campy and silly some points are.

I rewatch Batman, and I still enjoy it fully. Plus, Prince soundtrack.

[mothy]

One major flaw in Batman Returns story has a fun outcome, but still, it doesn't excuse that scene
How did the Penguin chronies know the exact design of the Bat-Mobile?
in a script, toy batmobiles are being sold at stores. i gather he got one.

[Smalley]

in a script, toy batmobiles are being sold at stores. i gather he got one.
Yes, that explains it all.
:cwink:

[returntovoid]

I rewatch Returns, and the more I realize how campy and silly some points are.

"You look like someone who takes himself too seriously.... you need to lighten up" ***Cillian Murphy Scarecrow voice***

Seriously speaking, besides the humorous lines and animatronic Penguins, I don't see what was so campy about Returns. By the way, those Penguin were obviously dragged by some magnetic device.

I do like Batman to be dark but neither do I want it to lack comic relief.

[Spider-Aziz]

Yes, that explains it all.
:cwink:
Very

[RustyCage]

I rewatch Returns, and the more I realize how campy and silly some points are.

I rewatch Batman, and I still enjoy it fully. Plus, Prince soundtrack.

Really? @ bold

[Spider-Aziz]

Really? @ bold
I agree with you about Prince, but Return does have plenty of campiness, and not all of the fun kind

[Chris Wallace]

I rewatch Returns, and the more I realize how campy and silly some points are.

I rewatch Batman, and I still enjoy it fully. Plus, Prince soundtrack.

Agreed.

[Smalley]

Really? @ bold
Yeah; that soundtrack is one of the reasons why '89 seems so 80's and dated in 2010, while Returns retains its great "out-of-time" quality to this day...

[The Joker]

Burton said something similar regarding the Prince songs. He said they really date the movie.

[RustyCage]

I agree with you about Prince, but Return does have plenty of campiness, and not all of the fun kind

I'm not saying Returns doesn't have it's camp, but to bash one movie for camp and then praise the other for having Prince in it is quite a puzzle. :funny:

[Smalley]

Burton said something similar regarding the Prince songs. He said they really date the movie.
Then he was correct in saying so. Burton had so much less creative control in general for '89, it's kind of sad. This paper (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=1) I found online about the Burton films really drives home that point and explains it very well...
I'm not saying Returns doesn't have it's camp, but to bash one movie for camp and then praise the other for having Prince in it is quite a puzzle. :funny:
Heh, seconded.

[ALP]

in a script, toy batmobiles are being sold at stores. i gather he got one.

LOL, that really makes no sense whatsoever. Toy model cars do not have schematics like real cars that weigh a ton.

"You look like someone who takes himself too seriously.... you need to lighten up" ***Cillian Murphy Scarecrow voice***

Seriously speaking, besides the humorous lines and animatronic Penguins, I don't see what was so campy about Returns. By the way, those Penguin were obviously dragged by some magnetic device.

I do like Batman to be dark but neither do I want it to lack comic relief.

Well I'm not sure campy is the best word, 'cartoony' might be better.

A good example includes the charred skeletons in Burton's films. Imagine someone being burned and electrocuted so badly that nothing is left but their charred remains. It's a pretty graphic thought but compare it to how Burton handled it. In B'89 Joker uses the joybuzzer to turn the man to skeletal ash but it's done in such a cartoony manner that it doesn't feel gruesome or realistic. The same is in BR. When Batman pulls back the rubble he sees Shreck's remains. It's a charred skeleton with a full head of hair and eyeballs...none of which would ever remain on a real burned skeleton. By making these events 'cartoony' Burton kept it from being overly graphic. Which in turn makes some people refer to it as campy. And I'm not saying it specifically right or wrong.

[returntovoid]

Burton said something similar regarding the Prince songs. He said they really date the movie.

As much as I hate the music of Prince, I think it suits The Joker's clownish wackiness. The fact that he does it after murdering everyone in the museum, dancing while there are dead corpse scattered around makes it subtly disturbing and showcases The Joker's utter disregard for human life as he enjoys himself in music right after committing homicide.

I agree that it really dates the film and after all, 1980's music has not aged that well even though there are 80's classic that stand-out today. Every film has flaws, all it takes is nitpicking them and there are exceptions when films are flawless.

[GothamAlleys]

I thought the Prince songs fit the scenes perfectly, I never got why the movie got criticized for it. I mean, Joker dances to the music while doing silly stuff or crimes in comics, so what do you think hes singing and dancing to? Pop music I would guess, party music for a party time, right? Not a fan of Prince but those Prince songs from 'Batman" fit their moments plus they arent heavily dated like a straight on synthesized 80s pop music wouldve been

[Spider-Aziz]

Prince songs are so bad they verily fit the diabolical mode of a mass murderer:P

[The Joker]

Yeah, I never cared for the Prince songs either. If the Joker was going to dance to music, it certainly wouldn't be to Prince!

[El Payaso]

Yeah, I never cared for the Prince songs either. If the Joker was going to dance to music, it certainly wouldn't be to Prince!
What then?

[The Joker]

What then?

I don't know, I've never seen him dance to any songs. But if he did, I certainly don't think it would be something like Prince. It would be to something more classical, IMO.

[ALP]

Gainsborough, Vermeer, Van Eyck, Francis Bacon... just a few of the artist's whose paintings I recognize in the museum scene. The fact that Joker kills the patrons and then destroys priceless artworks is simply a stroke of genius. I love that scene. The only thing completely off about it was that Joker's goons were acting goofy in the background. They should have let Joker do the wacky stuff instead of dancing around the room like him.

As far as the music. Ideally, Joker should have been dancing and destroying paintings to the tunes of Gioschino Rossini or Giuseppe... would have just added more sophistication to the charaacter.

[The Joker]

The only time I've seen him play music when getting up to some naughtiness was when he played "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies" from the Nutcracker Suite by Tchaikovsky in 'Christmas with the Joker' in BTAS.

[ALP]

Georges Bizet, Giacomo Puccini, Friedrich von Flowtow, Francesco Cilea... just a few more I imagine artsy Joker would love.

[El Payaso]

I don't know, I've never seen him dance to any songs. But if he did, I certainly don't think it would be something like Prince. It would be to something more classical, IMO.

Prince is classic. :yay:

But how is that Joker should be so stuck into old worldwide accepted stuff? I thought he was a rupturist. I mean, dancing to classical music while... ruining classic paintings?

I took the Prince music in the museum as exactly mocking at the place's ellegance. The last thing I expected was Joker breaking into a museum and put... museum music. In fact classical music is what we hear in the museum when Vicky was waiting.

But if you want oldest more classic music, well didn't he put some old classic romantic tune on while talking to Vicky? :)

[Chris Wallace]

As I recall, he did.

[ALP]

Prince is classic. :yay:

But how is that Joker should be so stuck into old worldwide accepted stuff? I thought he was a rupturist. I mean, dancing to classical music while... ruining classic paintings?

I took the Prince music in the museum as exactly mocking at the place's ellegance. The last thing I expected was Joker breaking into a museum and put... museum music. In fact classical music is what we hear in the museum when Vicky was waiting.

But if you want oldest more classic music, well didn't he put some old classic romantic tune on while talking to Vicky? :)

El Pay strikes again!!!

Very good points. :joker:

[PreK]

I don't know, I've never seen him dance to any songs. But if he did, I certainly don't think it would be something like Prince. It would be to something more classical, IMO.
Because Joker is such an elegant gentleman, through and through?

:huh:

[The Joker]

Prince is classic. :yay:

It wasn't back then.

But how is that Joker should be so stuck into old worldwide accepted stuff? I thought he was a rupturist. I mean, dancing to classical music while... ruining classic paintings?

Why does he have to be dancing at all? How often does he dance to music when doing his evil deeds? Never.

I took the Prince music in the museum as exactly mocking at the place's ellegance. The last thing I expected was Joker breaking into a museum and put... museum music.

The last thing I expected was Joker putting music on at all. Especially when he said they should "Broaden their minds" to that rubbish.

In fact classical music is what we hear in the museum when Vicky was waiting.

How sweet.

But if you want oldest more classic music, well didn't he put some old classic romantic tune on while talking to Vicky? :)

Yes, he played 'A summer place'. But that was just to set a romantic setting in order to woo Vicki.

Because Joker is such an elegant gentleman, through and through?

:huh:

It's no different from The Penguin. He's no elegant gentleman, but he thinks he is.

Joker wouldn't sully himself with such music as Prince.

[ALP]

It would have been no fun if Joker were dancing and destroying the art to no music at all.

Joker saying, "Gentlemen lets broaden our minds, Lawrence," and then dancing to Prince sort of undercuts the silliness of it. To Jack broadening their minds included destroying millions of dollars worth of art while listening to ridiculous music. Two things no one should do, and certainly not at the same time.

[El Payaso]

It wasn't back then.

It's been since the 70's but okay. If he wasn't back then but it is now, what prevents you from enjoying it today?

Why does he have to be dancing at all? How often does he dance to music when doing his evil deeds? Never.

He danced and even sung in The Killing Joke.

Now how many times is the Joker a face-painter? Never. Bad idea per se then?

The last thing I expected was Joker putting music on at all. Especially when he said they should "Broaden their minds" to that rubbish.

Could it possibly be that Joker was being sarcastic?

How sweet.

I know. museums always have classical music. For a rupturist like Joker who thinks improving classic paintings is to randomly add some color to them, I'd bet that he thought Prince would be perfect for a museum.

Plus he stated he was "an artist and loved parties." So him being in a museum while listen to 'Partyman' sounds natural.

Yes, he played 'A summer place'. But that was just to set a romantic setting in order to woo Vicki.

But you see that Joker doesn't only listen to Prince. He has a place for classics too.

Joker wouldn't sully himself with such music as Prince.

Why not? What makes Prince absolutely uneligible by Joker?

[GothamAlleys]

Prince songs are so bad they verily fit the diabolical mode of a mass murderer:P

But Joker character isnt a diabolical mass murderer in the comics. Hes a clown i his appearance AND behavior. he has fun and acts clownish when commiting murders and crimes

I don't know, I've never seen him dance to any songs.

He did that in comics, sang while dancing too

Why does he have to be dancing at all? How often does he dance to music when doing his evil deeds? Never.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JrMAg7gZ5FQ/TNOyfHZnTOI/AAAAAAAAAbA/FIGda565Oxc/s1600/henchmen_01.jpg

Joker#5
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/lovegunner/Batman/jokerdance.jpg

[The Joker]

It's been since the 70's but okay. If he wasn't back then but it is now, what prevents you from enjoying it today?

It sounds awful, and dates the movie terribly.

He danced and even sung in The Killing Joke.

He wasn't dancing to music. He was singing his own looney song to Gordon.

Now how many times is the Joker a face-painter? Never. Bad idea per se then?

That's subjective. There are some people, a minority for sure, but they're there that don't like that angle.

Could it possibly be that Joker was being sarcastic?

No, considering he actually believed he was improving the paintings of the museum.

I know. museums always have classical music. For a rupturist like Joker who thinks improving classic paintings is to randomly add some color to them, I'd bet that he thought Prince would be perfect for a museum.

It had nothing to do with it. He clearly liked Prince since he played him at the parade, too.

But you see that Joker doesn't only listen to Prince. He has a place for classics too.

Not the point. He played more Prince for longer periods, than he did for the two minutes he listened to that.

Why not? What makes Prince absolutely uneligible by Joker?

It just doesn't suit him at all. It'd be like The Penguin listening to rock music. Or Batman listening to Justin Bieber in the Batcave.

He did that in comics, sang while dancing too

Covered that above. He was singing and dancing to his own crazy song. Not to some musician.

Joker#5
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/lovegunner/Batman/jokerdance.jpg

Now that's more in line with his kind of tastes. Dancing to the classic 'There's no business like show business' tune from the 40's. Like the "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies" from the Nutcracker Suite by Tchaikovsky in 'Christmas with the Joker' in BTAS that he played.

[El Payaso]

It sounds awful, and dates the movie terribly.

Does it sound Joker? Because that's what counts here. You saying Prince sounds awful is like saying 'I believe that what Joker did to the paintings looked awful and in bad taste.' I mean, of course, that's the point.

Now, does it date the movie? No more than the Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" song did to the GB movie. Yeah, some movies were made in the 80's, big deal.

He wasn't dancing to music. He was singing his own looney song to Gordon.

Yes... so? You said "Why does he have to be dancing at all? How often does he dance to music when doing his evil deeds? Never." And you see that's not true.

You certainly didn't mention that the important thing was him dancing to his own songs only.

He seems to like dancing and singing once in a while. It had happened in comics.

That's subjective. There are some people, a minority for sure, but they're there that don't like that angle.

Liking/disliking Prince is as subjective. Of course there are people who didn't like the face-painting angle but was the angle wrong because it had never been done in comics? Or was it wrong according to the number of people who disliked it?

No, considering he actually believed he was improving the paintings of the museum.

And for him, to 'improve' them was to make them the opposite of what they were. Randomly throwing painting was his 'improvement.'

Maybe he thought Prince in a museum was the opposite of classical music and therefore it was equally rupturist.

It had nothing to do with it. He clearly liked Prince since he played him at the parade, too.

What can I tell ya, Prince was perfect for a parade too.

Not the point. He played more Prince for longer periods, than he did for the two minutes he listened to that.

For the two minutes *in the movie* you mean? Are we under the impression that we saw every single moment Joker listened to some music here?

Fact is, he doesn't only listen to Prince. I listen to the Ramones more than I do to Mozart, but fact is I listen to both.

It just doesn't suit him at all. It'd be like The Penguin listening to rock music. Or Batman listening to Justin Bieber in the Batcave.

If there were a point behind rock for Penguin and Bieber for Batman as there is for Prince for the Joker then I could start understanding what's behind your reasoning other than drawing a humorous comparison.





Covered that above. He was singing and dancing to his own crazy song. Not to some musician.



Now that's more in line with his kind of tastes. Dancing to the classic 'There's no business like show business' tune from the 40's. Like the "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies" from the Nutcracker Suite by Tchaikovsky in 'Christmas with the Joker' in BTAS that he played.

Mh, so Joker has to be some old-fashioned old man when it's about music taste? Why would that be?

[ALP]

It just doesn't suit him at all. It'd be like The Penguin listening to rock music. Or Batman listening to Justin Bieber in the Batcave.

C'mon Joker, this is really a bit ridiculous. I hope you're speaking in hyperbole.

I understand the point of not liking the Prince music. But the music was silly and daft just like the Joker character. There is absolutely no correlation between Batman and Bieber or Penguin and rock music.

[The Joker]

Does it sound Joker?

No, not at all.

Because that's what counts here. You saying Prince sounds awful is like saying 'I believe that what Joker did to the paintings looked awful and in bad taste.' I mean, of course, that's the point.

You mean having an opinion? Ya don't say :cwink:

Now, does it date the movie? No more than the Ray Parker Jr's "Ghostbusters" song did to the GB movie. Yeah, some movies were made in the 80's, big deal.

Ghostbusters was supposed to be set in the era it was made in. Batman '89 has no time frame in that regard, even though Gotham has an old world look about it.

Which is one reason why I like Returns better. Nothing in the soundtrack dates it horribly like Prince does to Batman '89.

Yes... so? You said "Why does he have to be dancing at all? How often does he dance to music when doing his evil deeds? Never." And you see that's not true.

If you can't see the difference between him dancing on the spot to his own crazy song as opposed to him having Prince blazing out of a stereo and jigging to it, then the point is lost on you, dude.

You certainly didn't mention that the important thing was him dancing to his own songs only.

I wasn't even trying to say that. I'm saying Joker doesn't dance to the likes of Prince. He certainly doesn't play music like that from a stereo while going about his crimes.

He seems to like dancing and singing once in a while. It had happened in comics.

Once in a while? We've got one example.

Liking/disliking Prince is as subjective. Of course there are people who didn't like the face-painting angle but was the angle wrong because it had never been done in comics? Or was it wrong according to the number of people who disliked it?

You weigh it up on facts to form that opinion. Some people didn't like it purely from a visual perspective. Other said it felt out of character.

I can't tell them they're wrong for feeling that way.

And for him, to 'improve' them was to make them the opposite of what they were. Randomly throwing painting was his 'improvement.'

In his crazy mind that was an improvement.

Maybe he thought Prince in a museum was the opposite of classical music and therefore it was equally rupturist.

There's a million types of music that's the opposite to classical. He clearly just liked Prince because he used it again later, too, at the parade. It wasn't a one off use of it strictly for this crime.

What can I tell ya, Prince was perfect for a parade too.

I disagree.

For the two minutes *in the movie* you mean? Are we under the impression that we saw every single moment Joker listened to some music here?

Unless you have proof that he listened to it on more than that one occasion, yes. You can only judge based on what we were shown.

I know he liked Prince because he used it more than once. How often did you see him use classical music?

Fact is, he doesn't only listen to Prince. I listen to the Ramones more than I do to Mozart, but fact is I listen to both.

The difference is here he was playing the classical for someone elses benefit. He was trying to set a romantic tone for Vicki in order to woo her. The candles, the music, the soft lighting etc.

If there were a point behind rock for Penguin and Bieber for Batman as there is for Prince for the Joker then I could start understanding what's behind your reasoning other than drawing a humorous comparison.

Can you fathom a reason why Batman or Penguin would willingly listen to such music while engaging in their activities?

Mh, so Joker has to be some old-fashioned old man when it's about music taste? Why would that be?

You tell me. The only taste in music we've seen from Joker outside this movie is classical. Could it be that he has a taste for good music? Or maybe he likes to use it in some kind of perverted way when doing his evil deeds. This lovely classical piece playing while he's doing atrocious things.

[The Joker]

C'mon Joker, this is really a bit ridiculous. I hope you're speaking in hyperbole.

Nope. Deadly serious.

I understand the point of not liking the Prince music. But the music was silly and daft just like the Joker character. There is absolutely no correlation between Batman and Bieber or Penguin and rock music.

You saw Joker as silly and daft in the movie? Destroying a museum's priceless artwork wasn't silly and daft. It was psychotic.

[Fudgie]

The Prince music was one of the worst aspects of the flick. It was so anti Joker. It just helped make Nicholsons Joker look like a buffoon.

[RustyCage]

I thought the Prince music (despite me not being a fan) was one of the few things that kept me awake during the movie. It's rather boring to me (compared to Returns), but that stuff injected some twisted fun in.

[Spider-Aziz]

But Joker character isnt a diabolical mass murderer in the comics. Hes a clown i his appearance AND behavior. he has fun and acts clownish when commiting murders and crimesHe is in the movie, that's a fit

[Smalley]

I thought the Prince music (despite me not being a fan) was one of the few things that kept me awake during the movie. It's rather boring to me (compared to Returns), but that stuff injected some twisted fun in.
And that's pretty much exactly why I find Returns to be far superior; I just can't imagine anyone liking '89 better with how dull it really is as a film...

[Happy Jack]

The Prince music dates the film very badly (as well as some other stuff), which is a shame because Burton tried so hard to make his Gotham feel timeless. It's something Returns doesn't have much of a problem with, and one of the reasons why I think it's a better film.

[Smalley]

The Prince music dates the film very badly (as well as some other stuff), which is a shame because Burton tried so hard to make his Gotham feel timeless. It's something Returns doesn't have much of a problem with, and one of the reasons why I think it's a better film.
More than that, I can't think of a single concrete thing that really dates Batman Returns to having been made back in '92, that ties it to that year in any way. So yes, that is a good part of why it's the better film than '89 :yay:

[ALP]

Nope. Deadly serious.

You saw Joker as silly and daft in the movie? Destroying a museum's priceless artwork wasn't silly and daft. It was psychotic.

Yeah, you're just thinking in a different manner of silly and daft. When I say silly I mean things like throwing a parade and when I say daft I mean bizarre and crazy like covering his face and yelling "I'm melting."

In fact he's quoting Wizard of Oz, a film from the 30s. And notice the only painting he stops from being defaced is Francis Bacon's "Figure with Meat," a rather recent painting and Francis Bacon was alive and painting when B'89 was made. Coincidence or no? Because this goes along with the idea of him being a purveyor of pop culture so listening to the modern Prince fits in a way. Am I saying dancing to Prince was a good decision? No because it does date the film but I think a reason can be argued for it.

And that's pretty much exactly why I find Returns to be far superior; I just can't imagine anyone liking '89 better with how dull it really is as a film...

I do not like B'89 better, but I think it a wonderful film. Definitely not boring. I still love Jack but I have gained an all new appreciation for Michael Keaton. His performance was mesmerizing and I only wish he were in more of BR. Looking back I personally feel Jack is but the icing on the cake. It's Keaton's Wayne/Batman that add the strongest dynamic. Keaton was just very silent and not flamboyant and silly like in Beetlejuice so I think he gets overlooked. I feel like I appreciate the film more now that I have hit such a ripe old age(will begin funeral plans when I turn 20:cwink:)

More than that, I can't think of a single concrete thing that really dates Batman Returns to having been made back in '92, that ties it to that year in any way. So yes, that is a good part of why it's the better film than '89 :yay:

You're not looking hard enough! Some of the technology dates the films as well. There is one thing in particular that stands out to me in BR and it is the television that Wayne is looking at. It's a large big boxy tv, the kind that absolutely no one uses anymore. And it's not at all an antique type thing, it's just an outdated invention. But it's nothing big like in B'89. Like in B'89, Vale uses one of those ugly clunky phones from the 80s.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hfHjj9ezz-I/SZ5F4keTlcI/AAAAAAAAC-8/M8ZBt56P5Cg/s400/early-cell-phone.jpg

You can tell Burton did his best to make BR timeless, you don't even see much modern technology in the film at all. I can't even remember seeing many cars in BR. Just when Selina is driving to the center of the city and at the end when Alfred is driving Bruce. And in both instances, it looks like antique cars are being used. On the other hand, in B'89 there's a ton of old 70s/80s cars everywhere such as the ones Joker's goons use.

[Smalley]

You're not looking hard enough! Some of the technology dates the films as well. There is one thing in particular that stands out to me in BR and it is the television that Wayne is looking at. It's a large big boxy tv, the kind that absolutely no one uses anymore. And it's not at all an antique type thing, it's just an outdated invention. But it's nothing big like in B'89. Like in B'89, Vale uses one of those ugly clunky phones from the 80s.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hfHjj9ezz-I/SZ5F4keTlcI/AAAAAAAAC-8/M8ZBt56P5Cg/s400/early-cell-phone.jpg

You can tell Burton did his best to make BR timeless, you don't even see much modern technology in the film at all. I can't even remember seeing many cars in BR. Just when Selina is driving to the center of the city and at the end when Alfred is driving Bruce. And in both instances, it looks like antique cars are being used. On the other hand, in B'89 there's a ton of old 70s/80s cars everywhere such as the ones Joker's goons use.
Wayne's TV does look pretty dated in its large boxy-ness by today's standards (especially considering Wayne's supposed to be a millionaire), but I don't think it especially sticks out as dating the film to '92; it is all black, and pretty stylish-looking, and worked and fit in perfectly for an early 90's film. I never even noticed its mild outdated-ness until you just brought it up :yay: While, on the other hand, '89's Prince music blatantly and painfully dated that film to its decade of release.

[Cain]

I fail to see why it even matters though. It's fact that the movie was shot in 1988. It's a fact that Prince was a big artist at the time. It's a fact that they wanted to exploit merchandising in every way possible. It doesn't make me enjoy the movie any less.

Not just because I actually enjoy the Prince songs either. Just like the 1960's aesthetics & pop culture figures don't make me enjoy the live action TV series any less than I actually do. At the end of the day yes it dates it's product but guess what? lots of flicks will always be dated yet that doesn't in anyway affect it's level of enjoyment. Flicks like The Goonies and The Lost Boys with their 80's look and music come to mind as examples.

I'd say the one thing that makes me prefer Returns to '89 is the way themes that became linchpins of modern Batman mythology were handled. Duality, trauma, a romance that could never be etc. I think the latter did that much better and effectively than the former. Doesn't mean I don't like '89 at all though just that I prefer BR to it for those reasons. One seeming more dated than the other doesn't affect how they entertain me so I just don't see the sense in that debate truthfully.

[Smalley]

I guess it does matter to me, because something being obviously dated gets on my nerves; it's the reason why I don't watch the original Star Trek show anymore, and choose the follow-ups. I'm not hating on old works of media at all, I love some of 'em, but if they're annoyingly dated in some way, then, well...

[Elevator Man]

I guess it does matter to me, because something being obviously dated gets on my nerves; it's the reason why I don't watch the original Star Trek show anymore, and choose the follow-ups. I'm not hating on old works of media at all, I love some of 'em, but if they're annoyingly dated in some way, then, well...

Then well you need to grow up. Heres a reality check for you everything and everybody ages. That's life. The movies that are out now will be dated 10 years (and maybe sooner) from now. Technology, food, animals,etc.,etc.,etc.etc,efreakintc. You should stop watching movies period if you have this problem. B/c guess what ? Movies like TDK, for example, will age. Everybody and thing ages including you and me that's a part of life. So get over it.

Oh and the Prince songs never bothered me at all. I could care less about Prince's music outside of B89, btw.

[ALP]

Then well you need to grow up. Heres a reality check for you everything and everybody ages. That's life. The movies that are out now will be dated 10 years (and maybe sooner) from now. Technology, food, animals,etc.,etc.,etc.etc,efreakintc. You should stop watching movies period if you have this problem. B/c guess what ? Movies like TDK, for example, will age. Everybody and thing ages including you and me that's a part of life. So get over it.

Oh and the Prince songs never bothered me at all. I could care less about Prince's music outside of B89, btw.

:facepalm:

You do realize that factor is a reason why numerous films are re-made? You're telling someone they should stop watching movies if they don't like that certain ones are dated yet that is why the movie makers do exactly what they do. Guillermo Del Toro is writing and producing the remake of "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" because he said he loved the original as a kid but felt it was very out-dated and could use a modernization. Are you so daft you think a brilliant filmmaker like Del Toro also needs to "grow up" and "get over it" because he's remaking a film he thinks is outdated?:dry:

Some of us just love timeless films. The '31 rendition of Dracula I feel is incredibly out-dated, so much that I cannot enjoy the overall product. It has a nice atmosphere and a great Dracula(Lugosi remains my favorite) but because of the censors at the time, the film lacks far too many elements to be a good Dracula film. On the other hand, the '57 rendition of Dracula starring Christopher Lee and our very own Michael Gough holds up incredibly well. The effects are still brilliant, the cinematography gorgeous, and the story is paced well unlike the 30s version. Wizard of Oz from '39 is another film I absolutely love for the same reasons, it still looks gorgeous to this very day. It holds up well and has a nice timeless quality to it. And to not go too much further, there are also films that serve as pop culture vessels. They are dated and work perfectly that way such as The Goonies and The Lost Boys as Cain mentioned.

But to criticize someone and suggest they should stop watching films for saying they don't like certain things that out-date films is just flat out stupid. Especially when you don't even know their full reasons(I've just explained mine).

:doh:

[Travesty]

You can tell Burton did his best to make BR timeless, you don't even see much modern technology in the film at all. I can't even remember seeing many cars in BR. Just when Selina is driving to the center of the city and at the end when Alfred is driving Bruce. And in both instances, it looks like antique cars are being used. On the other hand, in B'89 there's a ton of old 70s/80s cars everywhere such as the ones Joker's goons use.
In BR, there was really only 4 cars they used: The Batmobile, cop cars, Alfred's Rolls, and than EVERY regular car was this model, just painted in different variations...even the Taxis. That is one thing that bugged the **** out of me, was the same model car.

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv349/Travesty7007/cap026.jpg



As for the big 80's phone, what scene do we see Vicki use it? I don't remember her ever using a cellphone.

[Travesty]

I'm actually watching BR right now, and I have the commentary on, and I can't stand listening to Burton talk. The guy says "ya know" every two seconds, ya know?:dry:

[ALP]

In BR, there was really only 4 cars they used: The Batmobile, cop cars, Alfred's Rolls, and than EVERY regular car was this model, just painted in different variations...even the Taxis. That is one thing that bugged the **** out of me, was the same model car.

Wow I did not notice that. Was there a reason for it and was that also the car Selina was driving?

As for the big 80's phone, what scene do we see Vicki use it? I don't remember her ever using a cellphone.I thought for sure it was one of those old cellphones she was using. But taking a look at the scene where she's talking to Knox it's just a normal rotary phone she's using. Hmm, guess I was imaging an old cell... or mistaking it for that one. If so my mistake!

[Travesty]

Wow I did not notice that. Was there a reason for it and was that also the car Selina was driving?Ha, I forgot about that. She was driving a VW Bug.

But next time you watch BR, check out every car. The Taxis and every car, even the ones that The Batmobile plows through are ALL the same, just different colors. :hehe:

And I'm not sure what cars they are, but they look like old Jettas, or some kind of VW with the VW label cut out, and a light replacing it in the middle.

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm actually watching BR right now, and I have the commentary on, and I can't stand listening to Burton talk. The guy says "ya know" every two seconds, ya know?:dry:Funny punchline

There is a joke to be scene here, right?

[Travesty]

Funny punchline

There is a joke to be scene here, right?
Ya know, it's true, ya know, that while listening to, ya know, ummmmmm, ya know, Burton, ummm, ya know, talk, he ummm, ya know, he says "ya know", like ummmm, ya know, a lot. Ya know?:oldrazz:

It's true, though. Just listen to the guy.:cwink:

[ALP]

Agreed, Burton is one of my favorite filmmakers but when he is alone on his commentaries, it's dreadful to listen to. The absolute worst is the commentary on Edward Scissorhands. He mumbles, has no clue what to say, and half way through the film stops talking and returns 30 minutes later wtf lol

But what the hell, I like him so much I've listened to all of his commentaries(except for Charlie b/c that one is very rare to find and not on blu-ray or dvd). His best commentaries are on Pee Wee's Big Adventure in which he's joined by Paul Reubens and Big Fish where the commentary is just him being interviewed by Salisbury I think. He only does a good commentary when he has someone to bounce around with him.

[Travesty]

Agreed, Burton is one of my favorite filmmakers but when he is alone on his commentaries, it's dreadful to listen to. He's been one of my favorites ever since I saw Pee Wees Big Adventure and Beetlejuice when I was very young. Then, B89 came out, and again, he didn't disappoint.:yay:

I still like his stuff, but his earlier movies were better, IMO. Also, I wish he would start using different actors for his movies, besides using Depp all the time. I love Depp, and he's one of my favorites, but it just gets stale seeing a director use the same actors in all their movies. Nolan is also going down this route, which I hope he stops. After TDKR, I hope we don't see Caine in another Nolan movie. Again, I love Caine, but it just gets old.....

[ALP]

I don't really have a big problem with Burton using the same actors as long as they do a good job. Thing is, movies like Alice in Wonderland were the exact opposite of good. Sweeney is the only film this decade I'd call a Burton masterpiece...he's not as good as he use to be but I still like him. I plonked down $100 for his latest art book after all. Would love the Elfman box set but i don't have that kind of money!

I love Johnny Depp and Christopher Lee. On the other hand I feel like Bonham Carter added almost nothing to any of the Burton films she's been cast in besides Sweeney. She's never the main character(except voicing the CB) so I don't mind but even her Red Queen didn't quite do it for me(like I said, just couldn't enjoy the overall film). I thought his Wonka film was much better- although Wilder's Wonka was GOAT. But as I've said countless times before, Burton from the 80-90s has my favorite filmography, not a single film I do not love. Big Adventure introduced me to Pee Wee Herman and he's been my favorite character ever since. And Beetlejuice was masterful and hilarious.

Funny because I watched very very few films as a little kid, not till I was in America. But I happened to have come across a few greats by Burton and am very thankful. The only greater poet of childhood than Tim Burton is well...check my avvy for the answer:woot:

Oh and I actually hope Nolan uses gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman in a film outside Batman :funny:

[Spider-Aziz]

Ya know, it's true, ya know, that while listening to, ya know, ummmmmm, ya know, Burton, ummm, ya know, talk, he ummm, ya know, he says "ya know", like ummmm, ya know, a lot. Ya know?:oldrazz:

It's true, though. Just listen to the guy.:cwink:LOL
I asked cause the last thing you said in that post is "Ya Know", and not with quoting Mr. Burton

[Travesty]

LOL
I asked cause the last thing you said in that post is "Ya Know", and not with quoting Mr. Burton
Oh, ha, yeah, I did that on purpose.:cwink:

[El Payaso]

Burton started weak but when he evolved into a stroing filmmaker almost every thing he made was gold. Batman, Edward Scossorhands, Batman retrurns, The Nightmare Before Christmas and Ed Wood were all masterpieces to me (and every time Depp was there it was refreshing and just great). I even accepted Mars Attacks! as a fun entertaining parody. But after that he has been weak or not as good as before. Sure, he made Big Fish and Sweeney Todd but the rest is just average (and Depp is no longer challenging himself to better things).


I love Caine, but it just gets old.....

:joker: Well, every man has to age.

[GothamAlleys]

More than that, I can't think of a single concrete thing that really dates Batman Returns to having been made back in '92, that ties it to that year in any way.


I know, Returns does wonders in this area. You cant really put a year on it or, of course, identify any specific city. Its both timeless and "placeless", and the operatic score also helps to maintain that

[ALP]

Not that I necessarily see it that way but it's an interesting take that some people view Returns as a dark dream. BR represents Bruce Wayne having a nightmare and both Catwoman and Penguin serve as extensions of himself. Penguin represents Wayne through a looking glass. Whereas Bruce lost his parents by force(being killed), Penguin lost his parents by choice(abandoning him). Both men hide from the world in their own dark recesses(Wayne Manor and the sewers) before making a grand theatrical entrance and catching Gotham by storm. The press at first loves The Penguin before learning his true evil nature and then they abandon him. Batman, through the looking glass, is at first viewed with great skepticism before being embraced by the public. On the other hand it is Catwoman who represents Wayne's duality and his method of dealing with torment. Their lifes are almost meaningless until they don their costumes and become more than just man(or woman).

And the terrific line, "You're just jealous because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask." "You might be right."

[Hobgoblin]

In a way, I saw BR's Penguin as an opposite of Batman. Joker usually gets that honor, but here, Penguin makes good points as well. Both Wayne and Cobblepot come from wealthy, almost aristocratic families. It almost made me wonder if Thomas and Martha had known the Cobblepots, in one way or another. Whereas Bruce has a philanthropic side, Oswald is purely the elitist. Bruce never seems to notice his wealth, but when he does, he mocks it. "You know, I dont think I've ever been in this room." Oswald, on the other hand, does nothing but talk about his lost social status. "I wasnt born in a sewer, ya know." "Reclaim my birthright?" "They wouldnt put me on a pedestal, so I'm layin em out on a slab!"

[returntovoid]

Not that I necessarily see it that way but it's an interesting take that some people view Returns as a dark dream.

I've never heard a theory that Returns was a nightmare.

It's not the first time I heard a theory like this, many thought the ending for Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver was a dream sequence and that Travis Bickle died but it's just a theory.

[ALP]

I've never heard a theory that Returns was a nightmare.

It's not the first time I heard a theory like this, many thought the ending for Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver was a dream sequence and that Travis Bickle died but it's just a theory.

Well it's such a fantasy that it can be taken that way. I don't particularly think it's true but it's an interesting to think about.

Are you a big Burton fan? You should check out The Collectives, they use to always analyze Burton films in different ways, it's slower these days though.

There's also really interesting takes in the books, Tim Burton: A Child's Garden of Nightmares and Burton: Animating Live Action. Tons of 'em out there.

[El Payaso]

Are you a big Burton fan? You should check out The Collectives, they use to always analyze Burton films in different ways, it's slower these days though.

Were you part of the Burton Collective, and if so, who?

[ALP]

Were you part of the Burton Collective, and if so, who?

Ah yes, before the apocalypse I joined around '06 as Baltus Van Tassel. What can I say, Michael Gambon is boss:woot:

I wasn't an earlier member, I know some go back as far as 2000! Good times though, four years ago. And then it was gone. Were you a member?

[El Payaso]

Ah yes, before the apocalypse I joined around '06 as Baltus Van Tassel. What can I say, Michael Gambon is boss:woot:

I wasn't an earlier member, I know some go back as far as 2000! Good times though, four years ago. And then it was gone. Were you a member?

I was there for quite some time. I remember I started some riots. But I suspect we should continue this chat by PM. :yay:

[Elevator Man]

:facepalm:

You do realize that factor is a reason why numerous films are re-made? You're telling someone they should stop watching movies if they don't like that certain ones are dated yet that is why the movie makers do exactly what they do. Guillermo Del Toro is writing and producing the remake of "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" because he said he loved the original as a kid but felt it was very out-dated and could use a modernization. Are you so daft you think a brilliant filmmaker like Del Toro also needs to "grow up" and "get over it" because he's remaking a film he thinks is outdated?:dry:

Some of us just love timeless films. The '31 rendition of Dracula I feel is incredibly out-dated, so much that I cannot enjoy the overall product. It has a nice atmosphere and a great Dracula(Lugosi remains my favorite) but because of the censors at the time, the film lacks far too many elements to be a good Dracula film. On the other hand, the '57 rendition of Dracula starring Christopher Lee and our very own Michael Gough holds up incredibly well. The effects are still brilliant, the cinematography gorgeous, and the story is paced well unlike the 30s version. Wizard of Oz from '39 is another film I absolutely love for the same reasons, it still looks gorgeous to this very day. It holds up well and has a nice timeless quality to it. And to not go too much further, there are also films that serve as pop culture vessels. They are dated and work perfectly that way such as The Goonies and The Lost Boys as Cain mentioned.

But to criticize someone and suggest they should stop watching films for saying they don't like certain things that out-date films is just flat out stupid. Especially when you don't even know their full reasons(I've just explained mine).

:doh:

First off I wasn't talking to you. Second you're making matters worse using Del Toro as an example about why movies are being remade because they are outdated. Which is BULL. Here's a reality check for you if you think that. Hollywood is only remaking movies b/c they are completely out of ideas. Sure the TPTB will use "the film is dated" excuse and the "it's more closer to the book "routine (Burton is guilty of that one himself).

Back to Del Toro. You talk about Del Toro like he's 100% original. When this was the man who was going to direct the Hobbit (which is based off a book, of course). He's also the man who directed the Hellboy movies which didn't come out of his head but from a comic book. He also has a few more movies he's trying to remake that you didn't mention. Frankenstein (for the 50 billionth time) and At the Mountains of Madness. So if you thouight that was clever using Del Toro for an example ? It wasn't.

Btw, I'm a admirer of his work and don't hate him or his films. Just to get that clear.

A lot of directors(Burton, Del Toro, Jackson, Zemechis, Bay, to name a few) are guilty of remaking movies and used the "updating and closer to the book" excuse, which I don't have a problem with. If the movie wasn't worth being remade after seeing the final product. That's the problem.

Another thing sometimes TPTB want to remake a movie to use CGI effects like b/c the other films effects are outdated. The recent Clash of the Titans and Nightmare on Elm St. remake are guilty of this. As well as cash in on old franchises. So they remake or reboot them

I was ticked b/c he act like movies came out yesterday. Yeah of course the original star trek tv series came out in the sixties. He'd known that if he'd paid any attention to what year the show came out before he started watching it. I'll give another example yeah Superman the movie came out in the 70s. You can tell by the clothing, hairstyle, and the way things looked then. Does that stop that movie from still being a good movie. Or a good movie at all looking at it for the first time today.

I just couldn't get over that. B/c of a movies age and how it ages turns him off ? Every movie ages, TDK, Tron Legacy, Avatar, Thor (2011), Inception, Black Swan, Green Lantern (2011), etc.etc. Everything ages. They will age b/c of the way technology and the actors look now won't look that way 10-20 years from now.

Thet really bothered me. If a song was written in the eighties with an artist who was popular in the eighties (and still is) with eighties sounding instruments in an eighties movie. Then yeah it's gonna sound eighties and dated but that's not the film's or anybody involved with the film and music's fault b/c it was made and came out in the 80s. So he needs to get over it.

[ALP]

First off I wasn't talking to you.
This means what to me? If you only one one person to read and reply to your message you should try private messaging.

Back to Del Toro. You talk about Del Toro like he's 100% original. When this was the man who was going to direct the Hobbit (which is based off a book, of course). He's also the man who directed the Hellboy movies which didn't come out of his head but from a comic book. He also has a few more movies he's trying to remake that you didn't mention. Frankenstein (for the 50 billionth time) and At the Mountains of Madness. So if you thouight that was clever using Del Toro for an example ? It wasn't.

No, you said one needs to grow up and get over it if they don't like if a film is dated. A professional like Del Toro has specifically said he feels certain films are dated which is why he is specifically re-making one. Therefore, does he too need to grow up and get over it?

Because I'd take his opinion over yours just about any day of the week.

[Elevator Man]

This means what to me? If you only one one person to read and reply to your message you should try private messaging.



No, you said one needs to grow up and get over it if they don't like if a film is dated. A professional like Del Toro has specifically said he feels certain films are dated which is why he is specifically re-making one. Therefore, does he too need to grow up and get over it?

Because I'd take his opinion over yours just about any day of the week.

You can take a dog's opinion over mines any day of the week for all I care. I was just defending my comment.

BTW, I don't remember Del Toro saying that he refuses to look at a movie b/c of it's age and how dated it is. Like the original poster (I originally was replying to) was saying. All Del toro is doing is remaking a movie b/c he believes it's dated. That's what you said. So how does Del Toro really have anything to do with the oriiginal poster i was replying to said ?
HUH?

[ALP]

You can take a dog's opinion over mines any day of the week for all I care. I was just defending my comment.

BTW, I don't remember Del Toro saying that he refuses to look at a movie b/c of it's age and how dated it is. Like the original poster (I originally was replying to) was saying. All Del toro is doing is remaking a movie b/c he believes it's dated. That's what you said. So how does Del Toro really have anything to do with the oriiginal poster i was replying to said ?

I have addressed every point you have raised and your current reply is now about as relevant as ma rainey's black bottom.

:ikyn

[returntovoid]

Are you a big Burton fan?

Yup, I'm a sucker for atmospheric films.

[Cain]

Not that I necessarily see it that way but it's an interesting take that some people view Returns as a dark dream. BR represents Bruce Wayne having a nightmare and both Catwoman and Penguin serve as extensions of himself. Penguin represents Wayne through a looking glass. Whereas Bruce lost his parents by force(being killed), Penguin lost his parents by choice(abandoning him). Both men hide from the world in their own dark recesses(Wayne Manor and the sewers) before making a grand theatrical entrance and catching Gotham by storm. The press at first loves The Penguin before learning his true evil nature and then they abandon him. Batman, through the looking glass, is at first viewed with great skepticism before being embraced by the public. On the other hand it is Catwoman who represents Wayne's duality and his method of dealing with torment. Their lifes are almost meaningless until they don their costumes and become more than just man(or woman).

And the terrific line, "You're just jealous because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask." "You might be right."


I view it this way not the nightmare thing though Gotham could be representative of Bruce's psyche since it's so cluttered and a character in itself. I view it this way though because the movie is obviously expressionistic in it's execution and everything in bold lends itself to that very well since that's a big element of expressionistic cinema. Using supporting characters and the backdrops as a window into the mind of the protagonist. Also Shreck was another warped perspective of Bruce himself as well. The businessman and socialite.

[ALP]

Nice assessment Cain, I had forgotten about Shreck. :up:

I remember reading that TAS was originally going to use Max Shreck but instead decided to create Roland Daggett(the guy who owned the cosmetic company that ruined Clayface). I think it would have been a brilliant choice to introduce Shreck, but on the other hand, the character died in BR! But it's a different continuity so I suppose it wasn't a big deal. Would have been genius had Walken did the voice hehe.

[Elevator Man]

I have addressed every point you have raised and your current reply is now about as relevant as ma rainey's black bottom.

:ikyn

Like i said i don't care how relevant my comments are to you. Do me and yourself a favor and mind your own business and don't respond to my comments if "my comments are relevant as ma rainey's black bottom."

[CConn]

Grr. Anger anger. Grr.

[Bat-Mite]

Like i said i don't care how relevant my comments are to you. Do me and yourself a favor and mind your own business and don't respond to my comments if "my comments are relevant as ma rainey's black bottom."It's incredibly silly to tell someone to mind their own business on a public message board. By posting here, you automatically make everything you say everyone's business, and not just the people who post here, but the entire internet.

[CConn]

And that's how I know Bat-Mite likes bbws.

[Elevator Man]

It's incredibly silly to tell someone to mind their own business on a public message board. By posting here, you automatically make everything you say everyone's business, and not just the people who post here, but the entire internet.

Really ? You just realized that ? Welcome to the internet. Now could we get back on topic.

[samsnee]

Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it.

[Bat-Mite]

And that's how I know Bat-Mite likes bbws.Only Paula Deen.
Really ? You just realized that ?Nah, I think that would be you. Otherwise, why even bother to tell someone to mind their own business on here when you know that such a demand is pointless? Welcome to the internet.Thanks. I was just admiring the majestic Statue of Pornography on my way in. Now could we get back on topic.Be my guest. :cwink:

[CConn]

Wouldn't she qualify more as a GILF than a BBW?

[the_joker]

Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it.
But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it. :o

My favourite is 89, but I like BR for Catwoman, Christmastime in Gotham and amusing but not overly cheesy one-liners like the aforementioned.

[Mister Meddle]

Batman (1989) was better as a Batman movie but as a film, Batman Returns was better.

[TwilightPro101]

Batman '89.

[Spider-Aziz]

I watched the 89 film again, it still is my favorite movie in general
I tried to watch Returns again, I can't believe how Burton considers it his only good movie, it's a mess

[luke1234]

Batman Returns

more thoroughly envisioned then Batman 89.

[Darkest-Knight]

Batman (1989) was better as a Batman movie but as a film, Batman Returns was better.

I have to agree with you.

[Ponyboy]

Man it's a tough call... I love both of them equally... I had to choose Batman Returns because I liked the fact that Batman was fighting a villain (Catwoman) who was a total mirror of himself. I really love the costumes in both movies... I love the heavy-ness of the first film... The 2nd one wasn't any darker (in my opinion) it was just more bizarre. I like that Tim Burton flair about the picture. Also, for me, Keaton is Batman... so that equals out in both films. If I give 1989 Batman's a 9.0 outta 10 then Batman Returns gets a 9.2. They're so close really

[Fudgie]

1989. Returns was too weird. Didn't feel like a Batman movie.

[RustyCage]

1989. Returns was too weird. Didn't feel like a Batman movie.

How so? It wasn't any more out there, or any less 'Batman', than anything in the books or TAS.

[Fudgie]

It was to me. The sewer freak Penguin with all teh black drool and plannin to kill babies. Not the Penguin to me. Catwoman was a supernatural unkillable man hating psycho. Burton just weirded them up too much for me to enjoy. They didnt feel like Batman characters. 1989 movie felt more Batman to me largely thanks to Nicholsons Joker.

[El Payaso]

It was to me. The sewer freak Penguin with all teh black drool and plannin to kill babies. Not the Penguin to me.

If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same. Burton's is so much better.

Catwoman was a supernatural unkillable man hating psycho. Burton just weirded them up too much for me to enjoy. They didnt fell like Batman characters.

I know, what's coming next? A man who can live only in below zero temperatures? A man who looks like a crocodile? A man who can come back to life with some Lazarus pit? Just over-the-top crap.

[Fudgie]

If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same.

I know that. Thats why I said it doesnt feel like Batman characters.

I know, what's coming next? A man who can live only in below zero temperatures? A man who looks like a crocodile? A man who can come back to life with some Lazarus pit? Just over-the-top crap.

I have no problem with over the top and never said I did. I said Burton weirded up characters so that they didnt feel like the characters they were. The way Burton did Catwoman and Penguin is not the way the characters are in the comics. I didnt like what he did with them. Penguin was just disgusting.

[Ponyboy]

Burton made the characters fit his universe... They were Burton's versions of the characters. Burton, from the onset, never really went with "comic canon" esp with his changing of Joker as the murderer of the Wayne family... (then again Joker has no real origin does he?) What version of the Penguin was Burton going to use? The Burgess Meredith take? Burton took a generally unlikable character and just made him more tragic, and more unlikable.

One could use the same argument you're making to describe unfavourable views on Nolan's Batman. I for one think for all the things Nolan has gotten right, his version of Batman (Bale) has gotten the character all wrong. I don't get the tortured, haunting, brooding Wayne from Bale that Keaton had, for example. That's how I like to see Batman portrayed... it's a driving force behind his mania. I don't get a "driving force" from Bale's version of Batman. Sure, maybe it's there... in the screenplay, but I don't feel it in his portrayal. Frankly he's a bore onscreen. Anyway... the good side of Nolan's Batman are his take on the villains. Two Face and Joker were done extremely well.

[Fudgie]

Burton made the characters fit his universe... They were Burton's versions of the characters.

I know. Thats why I said they didnt feel like Batman characters.

Burton, from the onset, never really went with "comic canon" esp with his changing of Joker as the murderer of the Wayne family... (then again Joker has no real origin does he?) What version of the Penguin was Burton going to use? The Burgess Meredith take? Burton took a generally unlikable character and just made him more tragic, and more unlikable.

Burgess version was better than DeVito. But no I didnt want campy Penguin. Why you think thats the only version of Penguin? Use serious murdering Penguin

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/detective-comics/611-1.jpg

[El Payaso]

I know that. Thats why I said it doesnt feel like Batman characters.

Lol, so you "accidentally" missed the part where I said it was much better. I see, that way it looks like I said something utter obvious. Hadn't we have the chance to read my original post it might have worked.

I have no problem with over the top and never said I did.

No? I thought you complained about them being 'superhuman' and 'weirded up.' That totally sounds like over the top. Considering that Ra's al Ghul is superhuman and Joker is quite weird.

I said Burton weirded up characters so that they didnt feel like the characters they were.

No.

You said that in Burton's movies the villiains "didn't feel like Batman characters." And that doesn't mean 'they didn't feel like their comic counterparts.'

The way Burton did Catwoman and Penguin is not the way the characters are in the comics. I didnt like what he did with them. Penguin was just disgusting.

Ah ok, you didn't like the changes. That's quite a different story. Because given their characteristics in Burton's movies they did feel like Batman characters.





Burton made the characters fit his universe...

Well with thaty logic Nolan would have made the Joker into a face-painter, don't you think? ;)

[Fudgie]

Lol, so you "accidentally" missed the part where I said it was much better.

No I didnt miss it. You were just statin your own opinion. I have nothing to say on it. If you like the weird Burton version better then good for you. Its not gonna change my view. I dont know what response you were expectin there.

No? I thought you complained about them being 'superhuman' and 'weirded up.' That totally sounds like over the top. Considering that Ra's al Ghul is superhuman and Joker is quite weird.

No. I complained Catwoman was made those things when Catwoman is supposed to be just a trained athletic woman in a costume. Not a supernatural whacko who inherited her skills from being licked and chewed by cats.

No.

You said that in Burton's movies the villiains "didn't feel like Batman characters." And that doesn't mean 'they didn't feel like their comic counterparts.'

Course thats what it means. What other way can you take that?

Ah ok, you didn't like the changes. That's quite a different story.

Different to what story? It falls in line with what I've been saying all along. Burton changed the villains into something totally different. Penguin is not a sewer freak with black drool who wants to kill babies. Catwoman is not a supernatural whacko. hey are not the characters of the comics thats why they dont feel like Batman characters.

[GothamAlleys]

How do you feel then about Nolan and Schumacher changing characters into something completely different then what they were in the comics? Two Face didnt kill Graysons parents, nor was he obsessed with Batman. Riddler didnt work for Wayne and wasnt obsessed with him, Ghul was immortal and had nothing to do with teaching Bruce or with Ducard. Scarecrow was not Arkham's owner or Ghul's minion. Two Face did not became crazy because he lost his love and Joker was not involved in his transformation. Joker was not a makeup wearing, scarred Johnny Rotten type

Again, If we would be limited just to being faithful to the comics, we wouldnt get any of the mvies cause none of them are faithful to the comic books (B89 is the closest one), and yet their new takes on the characters are very interesting (Penguin, Catwoman, or Nolan's Ghul or Two Face or Joker). And again, whether it is faithful or not is irrelevant. In the long run, I being faithful to comics has anything to do with a quality movie.Being faithful to the source and quality are two completely different things which do not affect each other. The great late Stanley Kubrick's The Shining had little to do with the actual book, yet it's a masterpiece. However at the time of the release it fell victim of this misguided criticism

[El Payaso]

No I didnt miss it.

Then why didn't you quote it like you did with the rest?

You were just statin your own opinion.

And you were doing... what? Anything different?

I have nothing to say on it.

According to the volume of your replies, I'd say the opposite.

If you like the weird Burton version better then good for you. Its not gonna change my view. I dont know what response you were expectin there.

I wasn't expecting anything special. But if you're going to quote me do it properly and don't try to make my post look like something it wasn't.

No. I complained Catwoman was made those things when Catwoman is supposed to be just a trained athletic woman in a costume. Not a supernatural whacko who inherited her skills from being licked and chewed by cats.

Oh you mean "supernatural." Like what I said you said. Ra's is supernatural. Ergo 'supernatural' feels like a Batman character.

Course thats what it means. What other way can you take that?

The way you wrote it for example. If you write "they didn't feel like Batman characters" you're implying that no Batman character shares those characteristics.

Had you said "they didn't feel like the Batman characters" you could have had a better shot.

Different to what story? It falls in line with what I've been saying all along. Burton changed the villains into something totally different. Penguin is not a sewer freak with black drool who wants to kill babies. Catwoman is not a supernatural whacko. hey are not the characters of the comics thats why they dont feel like Batman characters.

Joker is not a face-painter. Two-Face doesn't die after 4 days. Doc Octopus is not a good fellow who turns bad because of an accident.

On the other hand Penguin is a bitter character who wants to become a respected aristocrat and Catwoman is a troubled woman who plays like a villiain but falls for Batman. Hey, they do feel like the Batman characters, except that - like in every comic book movie - they made some changes here and there.

[Fudgie]

Then why didn't you quote it like you did with the rest?

Cos I had nothin to say on it. You said it was better. What do you want me to say? Repeat myself and say no I dont think so again? Sheesh.

And you were doing... what? Anything different?

No never said I was. But just cos you feel compelled to respond to everything I have to say doesnt obligate me to respond to all of your opinions.

According to the volume of your replies, I'd say the opposite.

Volume of replies on what you think of Penguin? We havent discussed it since.

I wasn't expecting anything special. But if you're going to quote me do it properly and don't try to make my post look like something it wasn't.

How did I make your post look like something is wasnt just by directly responding to one part of it? Unless you were not clear on what you said?

Oh you mean "supernatural." Like what I said you said. Ra's is supernatural. Ergo 'supernatural' feels like a Batman character.

I dont know why you keep sayin that. Are you trying to start a fight or somethin? I said supernatural Catwoman didn't feel like a Batman character cos thats not the way Catwoman is. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

The way you wrote it for example. If you write "they didn't feel like Batman characters" you're implying that no Batman character shares those characteristics.

Had you said "they didn't feel like the Batman characters" you could have had a better shot.

Alright thats a fair comment. In that case I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll be more precise next time.

Joker is not a face-painter. Two-Face doesn't die after 4 days.

Joker having a white face and green hair by make up instead of chemicals didnt hinder him from feelin like the Joker to me. He still had the white face and green hair and red lips and purple suit, and all the Jokers evil chaotic nature. Visual changes are expected. I mean Batman wearing black rubber instead of spandex.

Doc Octopus is not a good fellow who turns bad because of an accident.

No? So he was a criminal before he went bad?

On the other hand Penguin is a bitter character who wants to become a respected aristocrat and Catwoman is a troubled woman who plays like a villiain but falls for Batman. Hey, they do feel like the Batman characters, except that - like in every comic book movie - they made some changes here and there.

I didnt see them that way. Penguin in the comics looks, dresses, and speaks like an aristocrat. He doesn have flippers and black drool and chew fish like some savage animal. He doesnt live in the sewers. He doesnt employ circus freaks. He doesnt want to kill babies. Catwoman was an unhinged lunatic with supernatural ability with a vendetta against her boss.

They didnt feel like the Penguin and Catwoman.

[GothamAlleys]

Just a quick addition. Catwoman was not supernatural, it was just her talk. She was knocked out of the building yet her fall was significantly slowed down numerous times before the fall. The scene were the cats "examin" the unconscious Selina is a homage to the identical scene in the comics when Selina the prostitute was beat up to unconciousness and thrown out to the alley in the winter. Also, she never really dies, yet she counts her lives down after each fall or injury (falls that are all slowed down by sand or garden). Its just playing it close but surely nothing supernatural and Burton even says so black on white. As far as the bullets, its the same thing as with falling - it may appear like shes bulletproof, but if one takes a closer look, she never gets hit in a spot that would cause a fatal wound, only her arms and tights, never torso, and just when Shreck is about to shoot her in the stomach he rusn out of bullets. It was toying with the idea, but clearly nothing supernatural. If she was supernatural, she would simply fell of the window without slowing down. She would really take fatal injuries every time she counted her lives down and she wouldve gotten hit in her chest with the gun

[Ipodman]

I voted Returns because it's the only (?) superhero movie that the hero has a romance with the villain. And there probably isnt gonna be a Nolan Penguin, so... I guess this dude will do

[El Payaso]

Cos I had nothin to say on it. You said it was better. What do you want me to say? Repeat myself and say no I dont think so again? Sheesh.

If you feel that way and you admit that no one is changing anyone else's opinion, how about not saying anything?

But trying to make it look like I was just repeating what you said was misleading. Quote properly or don't do it.

No never said I was. But just cos you feel compelled to respond to everything I have to say doesnt obligate me to respond to all of your opinions.

No one's obligating you. You seem to gladly do it on your own account.

How did I make your post look like something is wasnt just by directly responding to one part of it? Unless you were not clear on what you said?

Ok, I'll just have to go to the basics:

"If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same."
^ looks like I'0m saying they're just different.

"If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same. Burton's is so much better."
^ looks like I'm saying it doesn't matter if they're different or not, Burton's so much better so who cares.


I dont know why you keep sayin that. Are you trying to start a fight or somethin? I said supernatural Catwoman didn't feel like a Batman character cos thats not the way Catwoman is. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because it does feel like a Batman chgartacter since supernatural is part of many of the rogues gallery members.

Alright thats a fair comment. In that case I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll be more precise next time.

Thanks.

Joker having a white face and green hair by make up instead of chemicals didnt hinder him from feelin like the Joker to me. He still had the white face and green hair and red lips and purple suit, and all the Jokers evil chaotic nature. Visual changes are expected. I mean Batman wearing black rubber instead of spandex.

Oh, so changes are expected. In any case being a face-painter is not just a visual change since it's the chemical vat what triggers Joker's madness and that's erased from Nolan's version so someone could come and say "it doesn't feel like the comics character" because it removes a core part of it.

No? So he was a criminal before he went bad?

Was he a warm married man who was willing to teach young learners how to conquer a woman?

I didnt see them that way. Penguin in the comics looks, dresses, and speaks like an aristocrat. He doesn have flippers and black drool and chew fish like some savage animal.

Hey, what can I tell you. Visual changes are expected.

He doesnt live in the sewers. He doesnt employ circus freaks. He doesnt want to kill babies. Catwoman was an unhinged lunatic with supernatural ability with a vendetta against her boss.

They didnt feel like the Penguin and Catwoman.

Shall I list all those changes Nolan made to the Batman characters?

[GothamAlleys]

Shall I list all those changes Nolan made to the Batman characters?

I just did on the last page. And in most of those cases, I find the redone characters as much or even more interesting than thier comic book counterparts. For example, I find the abandoned, disfigured kid more interesting then a shooting mobster with big nose, and I find a guy who had a tragic romance and who was pushed over the edge by the death of his beloved fiance to be more interesting then a guy going whacko cause he looked different

[Ponyboy]

Burgess version was better than DeVito. But no I didnt want campy Penguin. Why you think thats the only version of Penguin? Use serious murdering Penguin



But it doesn't make for interesting MOVIES. The Burgess Meredith version was class, but it wouldn't have translated as well into Burton's bizarro Batman world. Not only that he needed a story. I don't recall what Penguin's actual origin is, but I'm sure it's a lot less sad/tragic/interesting as what Burton did to the character. Perhaps the followthrough on the Penguin as a whole could've been done better (A little less grotesque maybe)...

[GothamAlleys]

Oh and Nolan never even hide the fact that he did change the characters and that he adjusted them for his world

Christopher Nolan: To be honest, myself and David Goyer, we really just kind of dove in and tried to do our version of the character simply based on our memories of the comics without going back to research.

It’s a very interesting thing to sit around and think with “Batman Begins” as a prism for how you view Batman, how does that effect the way you see the Joker. Who would that guy be in our universe? (CBR interview, 2008)

Ultimately we just got caught up in that process of imagining how you would see a character like The Joker through the prism of what we did in the first film.(...) let me put it this way, our Joker - Heath's interpretation of The Joker has always been the absolute extreme of anarchy and chaos, effectively - he's pure evil through pure anarchy. (Empire Magazine #229)

thinking about what this icon is when viewed through the prism of Batman Begins. When viewed in the world we created, in the tone we created. And what we arrived at is somebody who is quite a serious guy, really, considering his name's the Joker and that turned out to be quite similar to his original conception. (IGN)

In comic books Joker was a clown, an entertainer who was like a ringmaster, always energetic and having fun and clownish fun when comitting crime. He was an entertainer, and thats why he was CLOWN prince of crime. Dancing, singing, using all the fun gadgets and circuses and amusement parks as his hideouts. He acted like a real clown, changing clothes very often, playing dress up. And he was a deformed freak. And from his inception throughout over 4 decades he was a thief stilling $ and diamonds. Nolan's Joker is an idealist and anarchist who, unlike his comic book counterpart, didnt care for his own life at all, didnt care for reputation, that hes gonna look bad in front of other Batman villains (like Hammil's Joker did too), didnt fear anyone and dint have an oversized ego. This Joker also either didnt feel or enjoyed pain, he was a masochist

Christopher Nolan: His chief motivation is that of an anarchist. I talked to Heath a lot about it even as we were finishing the script, and we both agreed that the most threatening force society faces is pure anarchy (CBR Interview, 2008)

I talked with him about the anarchic elements that I saw as being the more realistic Joker, the guy who would actually frighten an audience, and he'd already come up with a lot of that on his own. We talked a lot about Alex in A Clockwork Orange, people like that. He'd come up with the same things independently.(Empire Mag #229) CLockwork orange - not comic book Joker. They read the early comics only after they already wrote the script and developed the character

Christopher Nolan: We didn't look at those first stories until after we'd come up with our story and Jonah started working on the job. It's a weird thing. He called me up halfway through his job and said, "By the way, have you looked at his first and second appearance recently?"(IGN)


The point of all this, changing characters doesnt mean squat to me. Never did. The quality counts, whats interesting counts. And this take on Joker was certainly interesting, as was Penguin in BR.

BR and Nolan's movies changed characters radically to fit their vision, so what? They rocked, they were fleshed out, and they were surely interesting and most importantly - they served the story

[Fudgie]

If you feel that way and you admit that no one is changing anyone else's opinion, how about not saying anything?

Why would I wanna do that? I'm not here to change anyones mind. I'm here to state what I think. That doesnt mean I have to respond to everything you or anyone else says.

But trying to make it look like I was just repeating what you said was misleading. Quote properly or don't do it.

Dont tell me what to do. I will quote what ever part of your posts I want to. I am not breaking any rules.

No one's obligating you. You seem to gladly do it on your own account.

Yes. So dont tell me what part of your posts to reply to. I'll reply to what ever ones I want of my own account. Thanks.

Ok, I'll just have to go to the basics:

"If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same."
^ looks like I'0m saying they're just different.

"If you're comparing Burton's Penguin to the original, they're not the same. Burton's is so much better."
^ looks like I'm saying it doesn't matter if they're different or not, Burton's so much better so who cares.

Unless someone is blind and cant read your original post then what youre sayin is obvious. Im quotin the pat of your post that deals with what I was saying. They were different to the comics and thats why I didnt like them. You saying they were better was there in your original post. Dont need me to repeat it when I'm not gonna address that.

Oh, so changes are expected. In any case being a face-painter is not just a visual change since it's the chemical vat what triggers Joker's madness and that's erased from Nolan's version so someone could come and say "it doesn't feel like the comics character" because it removes a core part of it.

No cos in the movie Jokers Chelsea grin is apparently what made him crazy cos of his father or wife leaving him depending on which of his stories you believe. Its the same principle. Joker suffered some physical change that made him 'always smiling' and drove him crazy. Bleach skin or cut smile, it was a physical deformity that drove him crazy. Nolan got the core right.

Was he a warm married man who was willing to teach young learners how to conquer a woman?

Actually yeah he was a nice guy who had a fiancee or wife, cant remember which it was but he had a woman he loved. Close enough.

Hey, what can I tell you. Visual changes are expected.

Big difference between changing spandex for rubber, white bleach skin for make up white skin, and a fat short man with a pointy nose into a full on freak dribbling black drool.

Shall I list all those changes Nolan made to the Batman characters?

Go for your life.

[Fudgie]

Just a quick addition. Catwoman was not supernatural, it was just her talk. She was knocked out of the building yet her fall was significantly slowed down numerous times before the fall. The scene were the cats "examin" the unconscious Selina is a homage to the identical scene in the comics when Selina the prostitute was beat up to unconciousness and thrown out to the alley in the winter. Also, she never really dies, yet she counts her lives down after each fall or injury (falls that are all slowed down by sand or garden). Its just playing it close but surely nothing supernatural and Burton even says so black on white. As far as the bullets, its the same thing as with falling - it may appear like shes bulletproof, but if one takes a closer look, she never gets hit in a spot that would cause a fatal wound, only her arms and tights, never torso, and just when Shreck is about to shoot her in the stomach he rusn out of bullets. It was toying with the idea, but clearly nothing supernatural. If she was supernatural, she would simply fell of the window without slowing down. She would really take fatal injuries every time she counted her lives down and she wouldve gotten hit in her chest with the gun

I dont beleive any of that. Nobody takes four shots at close range from a gun like she did and is out prowling on the rooftops the next night or a few nights later or whenever it was when Bruce was out in his limo at the end and spotted her. Her scratches were still fresh on his face so it had to be days. Shreck must have the worst aim ever if he shot four times to a person standing in front of him and only hit her arm or leg.

[GothamAlleys]

She got shot in her arms and thighs only, so thats not fatal. And also, none of her falls were. And it wasnt days later, but it was certainly less then a month. She wasnt actually prowling on the rooftops, just the alleys, the shot at the end was a shot added in the last minute, so it wasnt originally part of the story,n it was just a last minute addition to show that shes really alive

And again, if she was really supernatural it wouldve been shown more clear - she wouldnt fall into sands or have her falls slowed down 4 times, and she wouldve been shot in places that would cause fatal or serious injuries

[El Payaso]

Oh and Nolan never even hide the fact that he did change the characters and that he adjusted them for his world

Christopher Nolan: To be honest, myself and David Goyer, we really just kind of dove in and tried to do our version of the character simply based on our memories of the comics without going back to research.

It’s a very interesting thing to sit around and think with “Batman Begins” as a prism for how you view Batman, how does that effect the way you see the Joker. Who would that guy be in our universe? (CBR interview, 2008)

Ultimately we just got caught up in that process of imagining how you would see a character like The Joker through the prism of what we did in the first film.(...) let me put it this way, our Joker - Heath's interpretation of The Joker has always been the absolute extreme of anarchy and chaos, effectively - he's pure evil through pure anarchy. (Empire Magazine #229)

thinking about what this icon is when viewed through the prism of Batman Begins. When viewed in the world we created, in the tone we created. And what we arrived at is somebody who is quite a serious guy, really, considering his name's the Joker and that turned out to be quite similar to his original conception. (IGN)

In comic books Joker was a clown, an entertainer who was like a ringmaster, always energetic and having fun and clownish fun when comitting crime. He was an entertainer, and thats why he was CLOWN prince of crime. Dancing, singing, using all the fun gadgets and circuses and amusement parks as his hideouts. He acted like a real clown, changing clothes very often, playing dress up. And he was a deformed freak. And from his inception throughout over 4 decades he was a thief stilling $ and diamonds. Nolan's Joker is an idealist and anarchist who, unlike his comic book counterpart, didnt care for his own life at all, didnt care for reputation, that hes gonna look bad in front of other Batman villains (like Hammil's Joker did too), didnt fear anyone and dint have an oversized ego. This Joker also either didnt feel or enjoyed pain, he was a masochist

Christopher Nolan: His chief motivation is that of an anarchist. I talked to Heath a lot about it even as we were finishing the script, and we both agreed that the most threatening force society faces is pure anarchy (CBR Interview, 2008)

I talked with him about the anarchic elements that I saw as being the more realistic Joker, the guy who would actually frighten an audience, and he'd already come up with a lot of that on his own. We talked a lot about Alex in A Clockwork Orange, people like that. He'd come up with the same things independently.(Empire Mag #229) CLockwork orange - not comic book Joker. They read the early comics only after they already wrote the script and developed the character

Christopher Nolan: We didn't look at those first stories until after we'd come up with our story and Jonah started working on the job. It's a weird thing. He called me up halfway through his job and said, "By the way, have you looked at his first and second appearance recently?"(IGN)


The point of all this, changing characters doesnt mean squat to me. Never did. The quality counts, whats interesting counts. And this take on Joker was certainly interesting, as was Penguin in BR.

BR and Nolan's movies changed characters radically to fit their vision, so what? They rocked, they were fleshed out, and they were surely interesting and most importantly - they served the story

Funny how they refer to Ledger's Joker as "his version" of the character. It's like Burton had "his versions" of characters too. And, by extension, every director with a vision.






Why would I wanna do that? I'm not here to change anyones mind. I'm here to state what I think. That doesnt mean I have to respond to everything you or anyone else says.

And yet you do. That's why I can't buy the 'You were just statin your own opinion. I have nothing to say on it' part of yours.

Dont tell me what to do. I will quote what ever part of your posts I want to. I am not breaking any rules.



Yes. So dont tell me what part of your posts to reply to. I'll reply to what ever ones I want of my own account. Thanks.

I'm not telling you what to reply or not. But not to misquote me in order to give my post a sense it didn't have.

I wouldn't tell you what to do, but if you misquote me then I'll be there pointing it out. Not against the rules either.

Unless someone is blind and cant read your original post then what youre sayin is obvious. Im quotin the pat of your post that deals with what I was saying. They were different to the comics and thats why I didnt like them. You saying they were better was there in your original post. Dont need me to repeat it when I'm not gonna address that.

Yes and that way you can reply "I know that. Thats why I said it doesnt feel like Batman characters."

Oh, El Payaso was saying something that was too obvious. According to your misquote of me.

No cos in the movie Jokers Chelsea grin is apparently what made him crazy cos of his father or wife leaving him depending on which of his stories you believe. Its the same principle. Joker suffered some physical change that made him 'always smiling' and drove him crazy. Bleach skin or cut smile, it was a physical deformity that drove him crazy. Nolan got the core right.

Oh ok. It's like it was a physical deformnity was made Oswald Cobblepot a pariah who then tried to recover what he felt was his birthright. Just like in the comics. Deformity being a big nose, a bigh belly or flipper-hands. Burton got the core right.

Actually yeah he was a nice guy who had a fiancee or wife, cant remember which it was but he had a woman he loved. Close enough.

There was Mary Alice Anders a woman who he never ever married to become a kind-hearted husband. Mary Alice married someone else and never died. Not even close.

Big difference between changing spandex for rubber, white bleach skin for make up white skin, and a fat short man with a pointy nose into a full on freak dribbling black drool.

So Burton's Penguin wasn't a fat short man with a pointy nose? Do I have to post a picture?

And yes, going from blue/greay spandex to all black armour, that a big change also.

Go for your life.

Someone else did it, sorry.

[Fudgie]

And yet you do. That's why I can't buy the 'You were just statin your own opinion. I have nothing to say on it' part of yours.

What do you mean yet I do? I choose to respond to whatever posts or part of posts I like. I dont care what you buy. I'm tellin you like it is.

I'm not telling you what to reply or not. But not to misquote me in order to give my post a sense it didn't have.

That is telling me what to reply to. If I want to reply to just one point out of seven points in your post then I will. The only way I could mis quote you is to completely rewrite what you're sayin.

Yes and that way you can reply "I know that. Thats why I said it doesnt feel like Batman characters."

Oh, El Payaso was saying something that was too obvious. According to your misquote of me.

Thats not a misquote. You were sayin they were not like Batman characters. You were admitting it.

Oh ok. It's like it was a physical deformnity was made Oswald Cobblepot a pariah who then tried to recover what he felt was his birthright. Just like in the comics. Deformity being a big nose, a bigh belly or flipper-hands. Burton got the core right.

No Oswald Cobblepot was not physically deformed in the comics. He was just a short fat guy with a pointy nose.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090721072541/batman/images/thumb/7/79/ThePenguin_01.jpg/250px-ThePenguin_01.jpg


http://www.batmanwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/wallpapers/danny_devito_as_the_penguin_wallpaper_-_1440x900.jpg


One has a pointy nose, the other has a pointy nose, flippered hands, white face, black spit, and pointy teeth. You see the obvious difference.

There was Mary Alice Anders a woman who he never ever married to become a kind-hearted husband. Mary Alice married someone else and never died. Not even close.

Yes it is. It shows Ock was a nice guy who once had a good woman and was happy in love before he became Ock. Raimi obviously got that from there.

So Burton's Penguin wasn't a fat short man with a pointy nose? Do I have to post a picture?

Post all the pictures you like. When ya do I'll point out to you just how he was so much more than just a short fat guy with a pointy nose. He was a full on disgusting looking freak. Not like a short fat dapper gentleman.

And yes, going from blue/greay spandex to all black armour, that a big change also.

Yeah so what? That dont change anything about Batmans characteristics.

[El Payaso]

What do you mean yet I do? I choose to respond to whatever posts or part of posts I like. I dont care what you buy. I'm tellin you like it is.

That is telling me what to reply to. If I want to reply to just one point out of seven points in your post then I will. The only way I could mis quote you is to completely rewrite what you're sayin.

Thats not a misquote. You were sayin they were not like Batman characters. You were admitting it.

My original point was that yes, it’s one of the characters who was changed the most but it was all for the better since the original character is quite bland.

No Oswald Cobblepot was not physically deformed in the comics. He was just a short fat guy with a pointy nose.

He was short and fat with a big nose and he was tortured by his classmates because of that, making him feel he was deformed and abnormal. Oswald grew a bitter man. The core was kept and some parts were exagerated or changed as in every adaptation.

In Burton’s case he gave Oswald real reasons to feel abnormal, not just a big belly and pointy nose as in the comics. Burton also exagerated the pariah feeling, Oswald wasn’t just mocked by classmates, he was thrown away like garbage by his own parents. Compared to the roiginal character’s story, Burton’s take is brilliant.

Yes it is. It shows Ock was a nice guy who once had a good woman and was happy in love before he became Ock. Raimi obviously got that from there.

As Burton got the tortured soul bitter Oswald from the comics but altered some things.

Post all the pictures you like. When ya do I'll point out to you just how he was so much more than just a short fat guy with a pointy nose. He was a full on disgusting looking freak. Not like a short fat dapper gentleman.


He tried to turn into a gentleman and in fact dressed himself classy. Of course that couldn’t hide his hideous nature.

But Octopus didn’t wear green and yellow leotards either, did he?

Yeah so what? That dont change anything about Batmans characteristics.

Opposite to the Penguin, Batman has little room for improvement he's such a great character. Oswald was changed a lot because the original had to be improved. When you say he didn’t feel like the original character I’d just say ‘good’ in this case.

[The Joker]

In Burton’s case he gave Oswald real reasons to feel abnormal, not just a big belly and pointy nose as in the comics. Burton also exagerated the pariah feeling, Oswald wasn’t just mocked by classmates, he was thrown away like garbage by his own parents. Compared to the roiginal character’s story, Burton’s take is brilliant.

I'm a big fan of the comic book Penguin, and I think his story would have worked just as well. I mean Selina Kyle in the comics is a well to do beautiful woman who socializes in Gotham's rich social circles. She is not a lowly pathetic secretary and social pariah, but Burton chose to portray her that way, and it worked. It could have worked for Penguin, too.

But Payaso is right regarding the rejected nature of Penguin. Penguin craves acceptance to society more than anything. That's why he likes to pretend he his some kind of high class gentleman, by wearing the tux, the monocle, the cigarette holder. He is like the gentleman of crime. He thinks he's a cut above, even though he's as bad as the Joker, Two Face, and the other criminal freaks of Gotham.

Although Burton chose to approach it from the abandoned child angle, it still worked.

But Octopus didn’t wear green and yellow leotards either, did he?

Ock's had a lot of different costumes. The green and yellow leotards, business suits, and this absolutely horrible metallic like costume he wore for a while.

But here's a cool fact regarding both Penguin and Doc Ock in the movies, both of their unique looks were adapted into the comics at various points. Penguin's had the flipper hands, and pointed teeth in some stories. I think he's even had the long hair that DeVito had. Doc Ock has sported the trench coat look several times since Spider-Man 2's release, and his tentacles have had the red lights in the tentacle claws.

I think Pfeiffer's Catwoman is the first version of the character to sport an all black Catwoman costume complete with mask. To my knowledge, she's never had that prior to Returns.

[Fudgie]

My original point was that yes, it’s one of the characters who was changed the most but it was all for the better since the original character is quite bland.

Thats your opinion. The Penguin stood the test of time as been one of Batmans most prominent rogues for decades. If Burtons characterization was so great it would have been incorporated into the comics. But as it stands DeVito Penguin repulsed audiences, and was part of the reason for the backlash the movie got.

He was short and fat with a big nose and he was tortured by his classmates because of that, making him feel he was deformed and abnormal. Oswald grew a bitter man. The core was kept and some parts were exagerated or changed as in every adaptation.

Oswald in the comics grew up under normal circumstances with a mother and father, who was bullied cos he was short and fat and resembled a Penguin. DeVito Penguin was thrown in the river cos he was a freak and was saved by penguins and then grew up with a circus that liked to abduct and kills kids. They couldnt have been more different.

In Burton’s case he gave Oswald real reasons to feel abnormal, not just a big belly and pointy nose as in the comics. Burton also exagerated the pariah feeling, Oswald wasn’t just mocked by classmates, he was thrown away like garbage by his own parents.

Years of bullying and torment can be just as powerful as rejection by your parents. Teenagers have committed suicide cos of bullying in school. Burton had no reason to do what he did with Penguin. Comic Penguins was story was just as solid.

He tried to turn into a gentleman and in fact dressed himself classy. Of course that couldn’t hide his hideous nature.

He only did that cos Schreck wanted him to be mayor. Before Schreck suggested that he was hiding away writing his baby kill list.

But Octopus didn’t wear green and yellow leotards either, did he?

No self respecting director would even attempt to sell a character dressed like that to todays mainstream audience.

Opposite to the Penguin, Batman has little room for improvement he's such a great character. Oswald was changed a lot because the original had to be improved. When you say he didn’t feel like the original character I’d just say ‘good’ in this case.[

No Batmans costume change was a necessity cos you couldnt find a guy in grey spandex with blue underwear on the outside scary or badass. Youd laugh your ass off. Penguin lookin like a dapper little gentleman could have worked.

[El Payaso]

Thats your opinion. The Penguin stood the test of time as been one of Batmans most prominent rogues for decades. If Burtons characterization was so great it would have been incorporated into the comics. But as it stands DeVito Penguin repulsed audiences, and was part of the reason for the backlash the movie got.

Well, Robin has been there for long and I haven't seen any world-acclaimed movie rendition of him, so I rule out the 'been there for so long so it has to be good' theory.

And lol at the "audiences repulsing Penguin." BR was the second most BO grossing movies back in 1992. The only problem BR had was that people like soccer moms and of the mentality couldn't eat their Happy Meals in peace.

But you desperately need some enlightening since you seem to ignore how the Burton's version influienced the character:

Subsequent Batman animated series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_series) have featured the Penguin in depictions that alternate between deformed outcast and high-profile aristocrat. Despite his popularity, he has repeatedly been named among the worst of Batman's enemies,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29#cite_note-2) though the DeVito Penguin was named the fourth greatest Batman villain by Premiere.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29#cite_note-3) The deformed version of the character has also appeared in comics, most notably in the miniseries Batman: The Long Halloween (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Long_Halloween) and its sequel Dark Victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Dark_Victory).

So you see, Burton's version influenced comics AND the 1990's animated series.

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29

Oswald in the comics grew up under normal circumstances with a mother and father, who was bullied cos he was short and fat and resembled a Penguin. DeVito Penguin was thrown in the river cos he was a freak and was saved by penguins and then grew up with a circus that liked to abduct and kills kids. They couldnt have been more different.

Ok, more information is obviously needed here:

Born Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot, the Penguin was bullied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying) as a child for his short stature, obesity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity), and beak-like nose. In some media, his fingers are fused together, resulting in flipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipper_%28anatomy%29)-like hands. Several stories relate that he was forced as a child to always carry an umbrella by his over-protective mother, due to his father dying of pneumonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia) after being drenched in a downpour. He is an outcast in his rich, high society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite) family; their rejection drives him to become a criminal.

So, again, his family was far from normal and they rejected him. Just like in Burton's movie. See?

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29

Years of bullying and torment can be just as powerful as rejection by your parents. Teenagers have committed suicide cos of bullying in school. Burton had no reason to do what he did with Penguin. Comic Penguins was story was just as solid.

As solid as close to what Burton did. Once you actually know that story. ;)

He only did that cos Schreck wanted him to be mayor. Before Schreck suggested that he was hiding away writing his baby kill list.

Wrong again.

Penguin: "Thing is... I've been lingering down here too long. It's high time for me to ascend. To re-emerge... with your help, your know-how, your savvy. I wasn't born in the sewer, you know. I come from... [He indicates a hole up to the surface] ...like you."

Penguin wanted to get back what was his heritage.

No self respecting director would even attempt to sell a character dressed like that to todays mainstream audience.

Like no good director would keep a bland character the exact same when he can improve it. :up:

No Batmans costume change was a necessity cos you couldnt find a guy in grey spandex with blue underwear on the outside scary or badass. Youd laugh your ass off. Penguin lookin like a dapper little gentleman could have worked.

Absolutely.

And Penguin as a monster-man also worked.

[Fudgie]

Well, Robin has been there for long and I haven't seen any world-acclaimed movie rendition of him, so I rule out the 'been there for so long so it has to be good' theory.

Dr Doom is like the flagship Marvel villain and theres been no good movie rendition of him either. The Phoenix character in X-Men is like one of the landmark X-Men storylines and that was butchered in X-Men 3.

I dont let the failings of the movie studios dictate whats a good character.

And lol at the "audiences repulsing Penguin." BR was the second most BO grossing movies back in 1992. The only problem BR had was that people like soccer moms and of the mentality couldn't eat their Happy Meals in peace.That must one hell of a legion of soccer moms then if they had enough influence to not only make WB drop Burtons vision but to also have a worldwide business like McDonalds kill its promotion of the movie too. Had to be some mighty big numbers to influence business decisions like that. Numbers talk.

So you see, Burton's version influenced comics AND the 1990's animated series.

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29Wikkipedia the website that can be edited by any tom dick or harry. WB forced Bruce Timm to model Penguin after DeVito. Thats a fact cos the show was released shortly after the movie. Same with makin Selina Kyle a blonde like Pfeiffer. As soon as the new Batman Adventures series came along Timm returned both characters to their visual roots. Penguin looked more like Burgess Merediths design, and Catwoman was a brunette again.

Adapting the image into Long Halloween and Dark Victory? You mean the series where Penguin appeared in like 5 panels between the two stories?

Ok, more information is obviously needed here:

So, again, his family was far from normal and they rejected him. Just like in Burton's movie. See?

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_%28comics%29That is all false info too. The Penguin never had flippered hands. Ever. Neither as a child or an adult. Read this

http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/2/29/Secret_Origins_Special_Vol_2_1.jpg

Thats the official origin for the Penguin. His family also never rejected him either. His dad was dead and his mom forced him to carry an umbrella but he was never rejected from his family.

As solid as close to what Burton did. Once you actually know that story. And I do. His family never rejected him. Burton got it wrong. Read that comic I posted. Prove you wrong.

Wrong again.

Penguin: "Thing is... I've been lingering down here too long. It's high time for me to ascend. To re-emerge... with your help, your know-how, your savvy. I wasn't born in the sewer, you know. I come from... [He indicates a hole up to the surface] ...like you."

Penguin wanted to get back what was his heritage.No youre wrong. He was talkin about going back to live up on the streets rather the sewers. Thats what he means by ascending and remerging from under Gotham where he was currently living. He was never talkin about rising into high society or whatever cos he had no idea where he came from. Thats why he had to research his name. But we know he didnt even really care about that. He just wanted access to the birth records so he could get the names of all the first born sons to kill for revenge. It was Schreck who put him up to the whole mayor thing.

Like no good director would keep a bland character the exact same when he can improve it.Yeah you said that already. But DeVito got a razzie nomination, Returns got a backlash, and the comics never gave him the kind of characterization Burton did. I dont consider that an improvement

Absolutely.

And Penguin as a monster-man also worked.Not for me it didnt. Im glad hes never been portrayed like that since.

[Bat-Mite]

That must one hell of a legion of soccer moms then if they had enough influence to not only make WB drop Burtons vision but to also have a worldwide business like McDonalds kill its promotion of the movie too. Had to be some mighty big numbers to influence business decisions like that. Numbers talk.The times were different then, as is evident from the fact that we didn't see this kind of backlash for the equally adult themes of TDK. Returns really was quite a scandalous movie at the time. I was seven years old back then, and I begged my parents to let me see it, but they wouldn't take me to it even though they let me see the first Batman movie. They told me that it wasn't right for a child of my age and that Batman killed cops in it. Apparently, there were a lot of negative rumors about it.

[Two-Face]

I love Returns but Batman 89 I love it more and I thought Keaton did great job in the first one not that he wasn't bad in BR.

[GothamAlleys]

The times were different then, as is evident from the fact that we didn't see this kind of backlash for the equally adult themes of TDK.

Actually there was some fuss with TDK as well (http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/dark-knight-controversy.html), although nothing to the extent of what happened with Returns (http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/09/nightmare-that-tastes-like-candy-was.html), mainly due to the fact that back in 92 there were no superhero movies that werent suitable fo kids (if you dont count 89's Punisher)

[Ponyboy]

I forgot about the line where Penguin says "Just the pussy I been lookin for..." I'm sure that didn't sit well with parents... LOL

[baerrtt]

I forgot about the line where Penguin says "Just the pussy I been lookin for..." I'm sure that didn't sit well with parents... LOL

Yeah. God bless my parents....my mom and dad actually burst out laughing when Devito says that at the screening we went to (I was 14 in '92 and knew what the innuendo meant).

[Ponyboy]

here's a cool pic i'd never seen before of the premiere of Batman Returns


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/75506468.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F57901DF566FF58005 1A7E5942E3281F8DB50C54FEEB94EB3F

[The Joker]

Nice, but none of them look like they're dressed for a movie premiere lol.

[Ponyboy]

Summer in Los Angeles is pretty hot for tuxedos I guess eh

[RustyCage]

here's a cool pic i'd never seen before of the premiere of Batman Returns


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/75506468.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F57901DF566FF58005 1A7E5942E3281F8DB50C54FEEB94EB3F

Was the pic removed? I can't see anything.

[Ponyboy]

I can see it in your quote... :huh:

[RustyCage]

I can see it in your quote... :huh:

Hmm, maybe provide the url?

[Ponyboy]

Joker could see it... how can I see the pics and you guys can't? Makes a' no sensah...

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/75506468.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F57901DF566FF58005 1A7E5942E3281F8DB50C54FEEB94EB3F

[The Joker]

I can see it fine.

[Grayson]

I prefer Batman '89.
Jack Nicholson was a genius as Joker.

[BH/HHH]

I voted Returns, I think alot of '89 looks dated you can tell when its a model etc.

[Elevator Man]

I voted Returns, I think alot of '89 looks dated you can tell when its a model etc.

So BR is better than B89 b/c you can tell B89 used models and it's older than BR.





Okay.








If that was the case the same could be said about Terminator , Robocop, Star Wars, etc. and their sequels.

[Ponyboy]

Hey BH made a point... sometimes it's all about the visuals for some people. When that suspension of disbelief is shattered... The viewer loses their place in that world. They start focusing on that fact and end up missing (bits of) the film.

[Mister Meddle]

Hmm, maybe provide the url?

At first I couldn't see it until I viewed it in a different browser. You might want to try that.

[Elevator Man]

Hey BH made a point... sometimes it's all about the visuals for some people. When that suspension of disbelief is shattered... The viewer loses their place in that world. They start focusing on that fact and end up missing (bits of) the film.

I understand if he was talking about Superman IV:TQFP (since the effects were cheap and cheesy then and it gets worse with age), but B89. Yeah for it's time it looked amazing. I remember critics compared the sets, models, the whole production design to Blade Runner. Which is saying something.

Once again everything ages. This was before CGI was everywhere. If he thinks a movie is weak b/c of the technology they used at the time is dated now. Therefore it's sequel, which will have the newest technology and a bigger budget, is better b/c of it. Please.

So King Kong (1933) is weaker than Peter Jackson's KK b/c it's stop motion effects are dated compared to the CGI heavy 2005 film. When it was actually groundbreaking for 1933. The same could be said about the makeup for POTA (1968). Does he think Burton's (POTA) movie is better b/c the make up in the original looks dated to Burton's in comparison. When in fact the original won an oscar for best make up.

Now I understand if he saw the movie at the time it was out and complained then. But today yeah the movie came out almost 22 years ago. Big deal. Yeah they used models and miniatures, but not CGI since this movie pre-dates it to begin with.

Special effects and visuals is not a way to judge a movie from being better than another. Or if a earlier movie's special effects looks dated to it's sequel (that'll have improved and updated special effects)
making it the weaker movie. King Kong (1933), Planet of the Apes (1968) aren't hailed classics b/c of their special effects and visuals it's b/c of their stories.

So sorry that was a pretty lame excuse to like one movie over another. When most movies with sequels the visuals tend to get better each movie. It all comes down to which story was better.

[Ponyboy]

Once again everything ages. This was before CGI was everywhere. If he thinks a movie is weak b/c of the technology they used at the time is dated now. Therefore it's sequel, which will have the newest technology and a bigger budget, is better b/c of it. Please.



Oh I agree, you're preaching to converted. I was just saying he had a point... however small. ;)

[GothamAlleys]

I personally never cared about special effects the slightest. When CGi came along I barely noticed it because I was so immersed in the story (T2, Jurassic Park). To this day I wouldnt care at all if the mvoies would be done in stop motion, its the story and the characters I care about only. Some may say that you can tell if somehtings a model or a stop motion puppet, but the exact same goes for CGI. Dont tell me you cant tell whats CGI, it sticks out like Roger Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me and looks like an inserted cartoon. I can always tell when something animated, and I even prefer stop motion over CGI because stop motion was a real physical models and the texture and looks was more real, even if the movement wasnt. About the only exceptions in which CGI cant be told apart from physical models is Jurassic Park and Avatar. In Avatar I couldnt tell if the grass or which one of the plants were physical props and which were animated, same goes for choppers. In Jurassic Park, I couldnt tell where the animatronics blended in with CGI and where a full CGI was used. Theres a reason why Nolan was and is against using CGI and tries to do as much as possible the old fashioned way with models

[The Joker]

I don't care about CGI either, as long as it doesn't obviously look like CGI. Even on blu-ray I think B'89 Gotham holds up well in general.

[ALP]

Overall B'89 holds up quite well. The only thing that looks flat out bad is the shot of the batwing crashing. Not only does it look bad(obviously a model) but the sound effects also sound very wonky when the batwing crashes near the cathedral.

In fact, those effects did not look very good when the film was made either. In his 1989 review of the film, Ebert specifically points out how just how dodgy that batwing crash scene looks. It's always looked bad. But in the end it's pretty minor, everything else looks solid.

[Ponyboy]

I agree... you can really tell the Batwing is a model. I didn't notice it when I was younger but now it looks fairly poor for such a big budget film. Not the worst I've seen though.

here's another '92 Batman Returns premiere pic I found...

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/75316380.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F5351B0EFEFCC254DF 569CDD65F7D488C495B2C93CC424C533

[Marx]

This is a tough one... :csad:

[AnneFan]

B89 is the more iconic, but BR is just better in my eyes.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I love them both alot but id have to say 89.

[OutRiddled]

'89. That's the Batman movie I have watched the most and have loved ever since seeing it as a kid in 1989.

I personally never cared about special effects the slightest. When CGi came along I barely noticed it because I was so immersed in the story (T2, Jurassic Park). To this day I wouldnt care at all if the mvoies would be done in stop motion, its the story and the characters I care about only. Some may say that you can tell if somehtings a model or a stop motion puppet, but the exact same goes for CGI. Dont tell me you cant tell whats CGI, it sticks out like Roger Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me and looks like an inserted cartoon. I can always tell when something animated, and I even prefer stop motion over CGI because stop motion was a real physical models and the texture and looks was more real, even if the movement wasnt. About the only exceptions in which CGI cant be told apart from physical models is Jurassic Park and Avatar. In Avatar I couldnt tell if the grass or which one of the plants were physical props and which were animated, same goes for choppers. In Jurassic Park, I couldnt tell where the animatronics blended in with CGI and where a full CGI was used. Theres a reason why Nolan was and is against using CGI and tries to do as much as possible the old fashioned way with models

Almost everything in Avatar looked animated to me.. even the actors. But besides the point. A special effect is just there to tell a story. If it draws too much attention to itself, it becomes just a special effect and nothing more. I always felt this way about the Star Wars prequels and a bunch of other CGI-heavy movies. I've seen so much that nothing really impresses me anymore. This became a big problem in the late 90s when CGI was in every big effects movie and it has killed the major Hollywood blockbuster experience for me. The only good thing I can say is that at least it advances technology.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I was wondering your guys' opinions on the fight scenes in 89 and BR, didnt know if it needed its own thread or not.

Which film do you think has better (or more enjoyable) fight scenes? Personally for me I like 89's better.

[The Joker]

The Batman Returns ones for me. Between the Red Triangle battles, and the throw downs between Batman and Catwoman, it was much better.

[Travesty]

I still think the fight in the cathedral with Joker's thug was one of the best Batman fights we've seen in any movie.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Ya personally I just much more enjoy the way the fights are shot in 89, something feels a little too staged and not as gritty and natural in BR. The alleyway scene sums it up for me.

[Ponyboy]

I still think the fight in the cathedral with Joker's thugs was one of the best Batman fights we've seen in any movie.

haha yes ... From the moment Batman lifts opens the door to the bell-tower all the gloves come off eh?