View Single Post
Old 04-06-2008, 02:16 PM   #214
Banned User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 180
Default Re: List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown View Post
That's pre-Crisis. You thought you'd win with that one, didn't you?

Burton's material comes directly from 1939, the 1970s and the 1980s. In ALL of those era, he was moping about his parents, however little (Well, 1939 aside). With stories like "There is No Hope in Crime Alley" and "To Kill a Legend" from the pre-Crisis 70s in particular.
Those are TWO(!) stories. These are moments of melancholy. Thinking about the old times and how everything COULD have been. Not what they made Batman later: "Sitting depressed, lonely and brooding with weltschmerz in his batcave, out in Gotham he stands on the rooftops like a demon to bring pain to the evildoers to get his vengeance that could never be fulfilled" I mean the 70s guy who could actually smile and have fun and didn't think it's life is so bad.
Burton's Batman takes place after the Crisis, so it isn't necessarily able to be hold into question with the pre-Crisis "Untold Legend" story. At least, not in the way you argue.
Terms like "post-crisis" and "pre-crisis" DON'T work for Batman, because his portrayal was the same before Year One and after Year One. In 89 he was still the same guy who sometimes talked to civilians and walked around in BROAD DAYLIGHT!

Keaton's 5'11". How do you know what his physique look like? We never see in the films. So how do you know that Keaton's Wayne (NOT Keaton, mind you) is weakly formed? And a gravelly voice would scare criminals, don'tcha know?
His physique was the reason for that awful rubber suits. They should've got Tom Selleck, he could have worn a more faithful costume. Yeah, they didn't want to make a movie about a guy with a big chin and a broad chest, wasn't that what Burton said? So why did he do the movie? THat is what Batman is.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You're doing more stretching than Mr. Fantastic!
My arguments are as "weak" as yours. You are defending what you like and I am attacking what I dislike. The guys who like the movie are on your side. That's the way every discuission goes. And in the end we all have still the same opinion.

There is nothing insane about Keaton's Batman. Not in the atypical sense like you wish it was to help your argument. He's just compelled to fight crime and he does it in a Bat suit. The ONLY thing Hamm ever meant by saying "he's basically insane" is that he doesn't realize what he's doing seems crazy. That's ALL.
He was a strange human being. It's right - we can't really say if he is insane - because we - hardly - do know things about him. But that's because it's DEEP, I know!

In your attempts to emulate Mr. Fantastic, you're trying to spin things your way.

Don't lose your cool because he proved you wrong! Think like Mr. Freeze.


The obsession angle has been questioned in the comics ever since the 1970s.

You know, when they started to explore the character.
It's when that psychobabble started, yes. But the answer for Batman's motivation is simple: He IS a good guy. I am not saying that these "exploring" things were bad. But just went to far. Batman became insane, Superman became dumb (HEY! Why doesn't that dumb guy end war on earth!), Green Arrow became a Punisher-like guy.


Wow. So we're not supposed to explore the depth of a character? We're not supposed to make them interesting by doing things never done before? We're not allowed to flesh out the material and make it intelligent, or go beyond the obvious?
Serial superhero fiction is not real the best ground for such experiments. That is the field for works like "Watchmen". Serial superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.
You have a severe inability to detect depth.
What depth is for some wannabe intellectuals is often just pretentious crap to other people.

Parents-Gun-Bat is offline   Reply With Quote