View Single Post
Old 04-07-2008, 09:35 AM   #223
Banned User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 180
Default Re: List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown View Post
The point is that you indicated that after saying goodbye at the gravesides, he didn't greive AT ALL. So you fail.

And did you miss all of the moments when Keaton smiled and had a good time with Vicki and Selina? Do you choose to be blind or something?
He was a strange guy in his castle
No, that's okay. Go on continuing to stereotype the film, because you think it helps you win.

It makes a Hell of a difference. Agreed that it isn't on the same scale a change as, say, Superman or Jason Todd, but a great majority of the pre-Crisis events were wiped away by (duh!) the Crisis! Therefore, Batman never made the final goodbye where he "had not shed a tear since."
THERE is no DIFFERENCE! The real change came with ZERO HOUR. But the post-crisis Batman was the same guy the pre-crisis Batman was. Just some "window dressing" changed.



And the '39 Batman didn't talk to citizens nor did he go out in the daylight. And the first interpretation must obviously be the most correct, right? So techincally, Burton had it more right then all of the comics that had him as a talkative, daylight-treading crusader!
Man! Read the old stuff! He had friends and he talked to civilans in 39. He even asked for the goddamn way once! In a very friendly and polite way!

But you'll be interested to know (as a Batfan, you SHOULD have known this) but an entire sequence for B89 that went unfilmed was a late afternoon-early dusk chasing of the Joker by Batman on horseback. So Burton and Hamm had no compulsion against putting Batman in the daylight. It only went unfilmed because Sean Young broke her collarbone while practicing horseback riding for said scene, so for technical reasons, it was cut.
And now?

If you bothered to research, you'd know that there was much more to it than that. This isn't tracable to "Burton being an idiot" like you insinuate. Burton seemed to be the only person with synergy on the film, the only director under whom it would get off the ground. So without him, there would have been no theatrical Batman revival in '89, or maybe even at all if he hadn't dared to take the risk. And Burton couldn't believe a big, strapping guy would need to dress up like a Bat; ("He'd just wear a ski mask"). In Keaton, he saw not only the kind of mentality in the eyes that would be traumatized enough to do this insane thing, but also, Keaton needed ther suit to be intimidating, so it tied into the fact that Batman and Wayne were totally different people. Burton auditioned the physical type. He gave it a shot, but he couldn't see it really working. So his decision was arrived at for artistic reasons. And it's a change that is hardly worthy of complaint.
No no no. The "ski mask" escuse was just made to JUSTIFY Keaton. He wanted Keaton because he worked with him before. It was his ego. Not because he thought it made more sense. How? Even the most intimidating guy would get problems against a few people, especially with firearms.

The suit was to make Keaton more imposing, yes, but the armor was just going to be there, period, to add a realistic element. It's for the same reason as Batman Begins. Burton didn't just slap us in the face with it's use. Batman is shot in B89, and he lives because of that body armor.
And now? A fictional character is at the mercy of the writer, if he doesn't have body armor simply don't write a scene were he is hit by a bullet! BTW: In this fictional realm he could have used a more accurate Batman suit who just happen to be bulletproof because of some (magic, magic) fictional armor material that doesn't exist in our world. YOu know, like the original Batman. I guess you know that when the Joker shoots Batman in one of the early stories.
Keaton does not appear short in the film. He doesn't appear tall either, but he doesn't appear short at all. And please, if you're trying to tell me that you assume Keaton has a physique without muscle, slap yourself.
Of course he has muscles, how could he move without? In the scene at the part he appears short. And especially with Basinger and Pfeiffer. Because they are girls you know.

In films prior to Batman, Keaton's average physique can be seen. He doesn't have the musculature that the suit implies, but nor is he a lightweight. He has the body of an average, athletic man.
ATHLETIC? Keaton may be thin and cut but ATHLETIC? Doesn't athletic mean to be taller-than-average and a better-than-average built? Guys like Sean Connery or Bruce Willis are athletic guys - but Keaton?? Stop kiddin.

I'm sorry if you wanted a bodybuilder, but it's obvious that Burton's artistic decision is lost on you.
I didn't want a bodybuilder, I want an alpha male type. You know, with charisma and - you know - a big chin.

Not really. At least my arguments are based on logic and not just emotion. It just so happens I like what I'm defending. But hey, if you don't like the thing, why try to be logical about it, right?
??? Yeah.

Fair enough.

Are you trying to imply that you're right and we don't "get it" because we like it? You're implying that we're foolish. They're on my side because I make sense. At least, according to everyone else.
This is the Batman Movie forum. This is the place of the Burton fans.

Actually, if you could read between the lines, you'd know a lot about the Batman of Burton's movies. Just because he doesn't deliver a monologue about himself doesn't mean the character went undeveloped. Nearly every scene he's in serves to develop him, no matter how small or quirky. It's all in the fine art of acting. You really should take an acting class, it will expand your mind to the finer parts of a performance.
I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.


Again, you're stereotyping. Exploration of depth of character is generic psychobabble and it makes Batman all dark and not right? Are you a secret 60s series groupie? Because they're the only ones I've seen that stick to the idea that dark and serious Batman = not right. Not that I don't love the 60s series. And Batman has never been depicted as insane, with the exception of maybe "All-Star Batman and Robin." Not even in the 90s. Sorry to disappoint you.
60s series groupie? I hate this goddamn series! It's the reason why comic books have such a "funny" reputation. And yes, a lot of writer and fans have jumped on the "Batman is insane" bandwagon.

So mythology isn't allowed to be deep? Then why did you bother reading any comics past the 1940s?
You misunderstand. Growth and change in comic books is just something for comic book geeks. What about new readers? Why can't they enjoy Batman like I did when I was 8 years old? They cannot buy those comics because they wouldn't understand it (too much continuity, too less "status quo"). They are too violent and depressing. Actually a lot of modern comic book writers try too hard to be "mature" when in fact it's just stupid what they right. Violence doesn't equal maturity, but a lot of fans and writers never learned that lesson.


Only stupid children who know only one version of Batman think that. And the fact that you tried to stereotype me as that when I have a far more intimate knowledge of the character (which wasn't rocket science, given my arguments) is insulting.
Like I said. You (and me) cannot judge the past of Batman before we started to read. Like so many people say that Batman's early adventures are SOOOO dark and gritty when in fact they were quite harmless for the time. Batman killing was not a big thing. Superman killed. Hawkman killed. Disney characters killed. Not to speak of guys like the Shadow or the hardcore-version of him, THe Spider. Much more violence. And not to mention the EC COmics with real graphic torture. So we read our Batman now (who doesn't kill) and then read the original stories and think "What a raw guy compared to our modern version". But back then he was not really a "wild" character. The same goes for the Silver Age. This was not stupid or campy, it was just the way every comic was back then. And suddenly in the 80s and 90s they wanted to make Batman some adults-only material. That was so stupid. Batman is a very "childish" fantasy. You know, lose your parents and then become a crimefighter. THat's not the idea of an insane guy, it springs more from a kid's mind. If this happened to me and my parents I would become a crimefighter.


Kane's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.

Keaton's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.
again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.
Yeah.... something else entirely. Even though numerous sources confirm that Burton and Hamm went directly to the Kane material for their primary inspiration. So the similarities are accidental, I'm sure.
Okay, then why isn't the Joker NOTHING like the old version? why is there an Alfred? why doesn't Batman operate in NEW YORK? why isn't Bruce Wayne a charming and funny guy? Why doesn't Batman say one-liners? Why does he wear a big rubber suit?

I haven't heard anything even remotely negative about the Burton films from anyone in the industry. Provide some links if you dare. And aside from Nolan fanboys who accept nothing else, the films are not hated in the least. So your insinuation is flawed. No doubt there are plenty that wouldn't consider them the prefurred adaptations, but the movies are not unloved by the comic scene. Or did you miss Kevin Smith, Bruce Timm, Michael Uslan, Alex Ross and others making positive comments about the films? If nothing else, the films are loved for how they helped make comics accepted in the mainstream again.
okay I start with John Byrne:
The four non-Adam West BATMAN films were not about Batman, tho the first was pretty good in its own right. Consider Keaton's Batman: the armored suit was, of course, not his choice, but right away we are presented with a character we have never seen in the comics (unless, perhaps, we invoke the "inflato-Batman" suit occasionally worn by Robin). Machine guns mounted on the Batmobile were not Keaton's doing, either, but they belong to no Batman we have seen since the earliest days of his publishing history -- a there a Batman who vanished completely within the first two years.

What about Bruce Wayne, then? Minor detail -- when has Bruce ever worn glasses? Major detail -- when has Bruce ever been the assemblage of ticks and mannerisms Keaton brought to the roll?

It is an actor's prerogative to bring his own insights to a performance, but he must begin with the established character. Playing Hamlet in a clown nose and fright wig might get people paying attention, but it would add nothing to the character.

The Adam West Batman movie WAS about Batman, but. . . . well, you know.
Frank Miller said it in an interview for Batman begins that they "finally" got it right.

Last edited by Parents-Gun-Bat; 04-07-2008 at 09:39 AM.
Parents-Gun-Bat is offline   Reply With Quote