List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

[Infinity9999x]

I think BR got Catwoman's attitude very right. I wasn't fond of how she became Catwoman, but once she was in costume, it was damn near perfect.

The whole Penguin thing I wasn't fond of though. Especially the "raised in the sewer by Penguins" subplot. I mean, come on. Yes, Batman's a fantasy, but being raised by Penguins in a sewer is a bit much. I just didn't like that aspect of it.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

i think BR changed Catwoman for the better forever & ever & ever...

but penguin as seems to be the general consensus was done best in BTAS or modern 1990's comics

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

He was a strange guy in his castle

Again, you choose to ignore the evidence I provided. He was a strange guy in his castle..... who had a good time with women. You still claim all he did was be sad. I've proven you wrong on this.

SIMPLE FACTS!

No, stereotyping. What I'M giving YOU are "Simple facts" which you choose to ignore.

THERE is no DIFFERENCE! The real change came with ZERO HOUR.

Behavior-wise? Yes.

But the post-crisis Batman was the same guy the pre-crisis Batman was. Just some "window dressing" changed.

Change of continuity is more than window dressing. I said that the Crisis removed events that you depicted as necessary in your fight against Burton film appreciation. Now it doesn't matter? Pick an argument and stick to it. The Crisis angle isn't working for you, as I've already disproved you.

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!

Well no ****. I would have never guessed. I meant he never held lengthy conversations with citizens as BATMAN, nor spoke anything more than a few words, which is clearly what you meant.

Calm down and you may start making a winning argument. Don't lose your temper.... it makes you seem like a child.

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.

So wait, you're throwing evidence out the window? You get to play that game now? I mean, I know you've been doing it, but this is the worst of all. I got my evidence for Burton's reasons DIRECTLY from authorized, released material. Straight out of Burton's MOUTH, and you're going to sit here and tell me that it's incorrect?

You have no interest in being fair. This is the proof positive. You just want to hate Burton's films, and you will twist things any way you can to make yourself look correct. Why would he lie? People like you will always hate him anyway, so I know damn well he doesn't give a damn.

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.

Magic.... it would be insulting to fans to deny Batman SOME kind of realism. If you want magic, stick to the 50s comics.

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.

Except that, you know, he has easily a half-inch to an inch on both of them. Just watched both films last night. I know what I'm talking about.

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.

Seen it with my own eyes. He has a preportionately athletic build for his size. Once again, I bring evidence. You merely cover your eyes and yell "LIES!!" when presented with evidence. And then state your opinion, calling it fact.

I didn't want a bodybuilder, I want an alpha male type. You know, with charisma and - you know - a big chin.

Fine, if he can act. Bale can act. So go revel in the TDK forum and stay the Hell out of here if you dislike Burton so much.

Finally!

Yes. Just because you can't beat me in an argument doesn't make me unfair. If you make a valid point, I will give it to you. But you haven't made a single one toward the argument.

This is the Batman Movie forum. This is the place of the Burton fans.

THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You're being a troll. And again, you accuse us of being idiots. Keep posting like this and you'll eventually get banned.

Since you have no constructive discussion of the Burton films, all you're doing here is trolling. You've been totally crushed in the argument, why don't you leave and stop acting PATHETIC enough to keep complaining about a 15 year old film. Stop living up to the "geek who can't let anything go" stereotype. Guess what, there'll always be people who like what you don't. Thereby, going up to them and saying "what you like is stupid" is childish and silly.

I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.

Because you're not smart enough to 'get' it, apparently.

60s series groupie? I hate this goddamn series! It's the reason why comic books have such a "funny" reputation.

True colors = shown. Someone who claims to be such a fan of Batman should love the series. It was my first exposure to Batman. I wouldn't be a fan if it wasn't for the brilliance of the show. Camp be damned, it was still a fantastic action/adventure show.

You misunderstand. Growth and change in comic books is just something for comic book geeks.

So you want comics books to not get the same treatment as "serious material".... do you really even LIKE comics? Why would you want to read something pathetic and one-dimensional?

What about new readers? Why can't they enjoy Batman like I did when I was 8 years old?

Because things change... deal with it. Evne if the comics were still being written and drawn the same as when you were 8, nobody would experience it the way you did because..... you're you. Other people are other people.

They cannot buy those comics because they wouldn't understand it (too much continuity, too less "status quo").

Again, you act as if the human brain as no ability to learn CONTEXT. Context is the magical thing that allows YOU to enjoy the Batman comics that existed before you were born.

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.

I actually agree with this only in the context of comic book geeks. Like, the bad, hardcore type. They think violent = mature and it annoys the Hell out of me (Like the lot that scream "The movie has to be rated R for the Joker to be right!!). But the writers.... they're just writing evolved material. I'm sorry, but things have to expand beyond the limited storytelling of your youth if they're to continue to thrive!

Like I said. You (and me) cannot judge the past of Batman before we started to read.

Go look up the definition of "Context."

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.

True.

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.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that same comparison of modern to vintage. Focus on what's RELEVENT.

The same goes for the Silver Age. This was not stupid or campy, it was just the way every comic was back then.

I'm sorry, but "Batman becomes Bat-Baby!" and "The Bat Ape!" were stupid AND campy back in that time as well. It just so happens that all of the other comics were, too.

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.

Have you even READ a Batman comic lately? Dark and serious, yes. Adult-only material? Are you a monk or something?

SERIOUS does not equal "adults only". Do you think kids aren't allowed to read anything serious?

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.

Exactly. That's why no depiction of Batman is insane. It's quite logical. That's the depth of the character.

again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.

You're still gonna try and argue this? The 1939 comics didn't hold the psychological depth to show him brooding or show what would ACTUALLY happen if you had that trauma. You wouldn't be happy-go lucky. I'm sorry that you want a fantasy Batman like George Clooney that got over it.

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 said PRIMARY inspiration, blindy.

okay I start with John Byrne:

That's not even remotely negative. It's not favorable, of course, but it's hardly a scathing insult. But hey, a dark and serious film exploring Batman's psychology is bad, to you. You want him to be a happy Adam West style character.

Oh, wait, you hated the 60s series.

So, what the hell DO you want?

Frank Miller said it in an interview for Batman begins that they "finally" got it right.

Still not a really 'scathing' insult. He could have easily still like a lot of things about the previous films. I'm looking for something concrete and definitive. Like "I hated Burton's films."

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

The whole Penguin thing I wasn't fond of though. Especially the "raised in the sewer by Penguins" subplot. I mean, come on. Yes, Batman's a fantasy, but being raised by Penguins in a sewer is a bit much. I just didn't like that aspect of it.

He wasn't raised in the sewer by penguins. He was found in the sewer by penguins. He was raised by the Red Triangle circus gang.

"The Red Triangle's freak show included a poodle lady, the world's fattest man, and an aquatic bird boy" - Bruce Wayne investigating the background of the Red Traingle gang after Penguin first appears in Gotham.

[The Guard]

He wasn't raised in the sewer by penguins. He was found in the sewer by penguins. He was raised by the Red Triangle circus gang.

Yeah, we covered that. He ignored it.

yes. the story isn't even a story. There are just a few subplots that don't lead anywhere. You know, there is Catwoman, then there they crack the batmobile and then there is the power plant which doesn't make any sense. And so on. Like they had a lot of ideas and just added them together without making a real plot.

Someone didn't follow the movie. While the movie isn't overly structured, there are several stories. Schreck and The Penguin, The Penguin and his desire for revenge, Batman falling out of favor with Gotham, The birth of Catwoman and the evolution of Selina's character.

The power plant is Max Schreck's inspiration to help the Penguin become Mayor. He needs the approval of a Mayor to begin construction on the power plant. Schreck uses The Penguin's appearance and manipulates the situation to his advantage.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Joker

He wasn't raised in the sewer by penguins. He was found in the sewer by penguins. He was raised by the Red Triangle circus gang.

"The Red Triangle's freak show included a poodle lady, the world's fattest man, and an aquatic bird boy" - Bruce Wayne investigating the background of the Red Traingle gang after Penguin first appears in Gotham.

Ahh, my mistake. It's been a while since I've watched the movie and I didn't read through the whole thread once people started posting huge posts in which they analyized each comment.

That makes it more realistic, though I think the thing I thought was weird was how they portrayed the penguins as being able to understand Penguin, and the weird little penguin "sending off" when Oswald died.

I don't mind the little weird aspects now as much as I did when I was younger, but I'm still not fond of the strange things like that. I don't mind them in one of Burton's stand alone movies, but when he added those into a Batman movie, especially when B89 was fairly low on the bizarre end (for a Burton movie) I just didn't like it that much.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Ahh, my mistake. It's been a while since I've watched the movie and I didn't read through the whole thread once people started posting huge posts in which they analyized each comment.

That makes it more realistic, though I think the thing I thought was weird was how they portrayed the penguins as being able to understand Penguin, and the weird little penguin "sending off" when Oswald died.

I don't mind the little weird aspects now as much as I did when I was younger, but I'm still not fond of the strange things like that. I don't mind them in one of Burton's stand alone movies, but when he added those into a Batman movie, especially when B89 was fairly low on the bizarre end (for a Burton movie) I just didn't like it that much.

Fair enough.

See, THIS is a "negative" comment about Burton's films that I'm fine with. This guy makes no bones about "I just didn't like it" instead of beligerently saying "it sucks."

[Mr. Socko]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.

No, you simply underestimate his work. Much of his substance is shown through style, he's a visual director so style and substance in Burton's films are hand in hand. You're just use to having style on the left side and substance on the right, making them easily distinguishable. Though it is apparent, it simply goes over your head.

again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.

This is far more superficial than what Doc presented, and even so, still false. Have you seen the first act of Batman'89? I'd say it takes a fairly easy-going guy to host a black and white ball at his manor and invite socialites such as the Mayor, The Gordons, and the District Attorney of Gotham.

If Bruce Wayne were such an unknown depressed hermit to Gotham, nor I do think Gotham's wealthiest industrialist would have sent him an invitation to his costumed gala.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

He was a strange guy in his castle

That’s part of what Batman is. So far so good.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

SIMPLE FACTS!

Those are the ones you insist to ignore.

I myself have been – and will – stick them against your face again in the hope of you quitting to choose to be blind to them.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

PRE CRISIS:

PRE CRISIS:




Are you going to ignore truth again?

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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!

We’re all waiting for those exquisit links that never come.

Let truth be your ally. Once at least ok?

That said, in BR we see Batman and Gordon having a small talking and then Gordon tries to protect Batman verbally and then from the cops shooting at him. They seem to be friends too.

And too good Burton kept Batman as dark as possible, not a kid-friendly Superman in a dark suit.

Some aspects being better than in some comic books is what Burton’s genius is about when we talk about Batman movies.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

No no no. The "ski mask" escuse was just made to JUSTIFY Keaton. He wanted Keaton because he worked with him before.

He worked with Alec Baldwin too.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

It was his ego. Not because he thought it made more sense.

Prove it beyond your bare words.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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!

Before the difficult is there, lousy writing to the rescue?

Sure, criminals takes the city... without guns.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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.

We might as well have Batmythe to create this “magic magic” unexistant bulletproof material instead of having a realistic efficient cool-looking suit.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

In the scene at the part he appears short. And especially with Basinger and Pfeiffer. Because they are girls you know.

MEE-OUCH!

Reality ignores you again, as you have been ignoring it yourself.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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.

POW! BAM!

Stop kicking your own ass man! Or is it reality that’s doing it?

It might be entertaining but too pitiful to watch.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I didn't want a bodybuilder, I want an alpha male type. You know, with charisma and - you know - a big chin.

You can get Superman-type guys for the right role.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

This is the Batman Movie forum. This is the place of the Burton fans.

Is this your admision that you haven nothing to do inb here but troll? Or is it your evasive way for not admitting you should be making sense, even in your trolling?

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.

I just think you underrate Burton's work. With him, many times, style is substance.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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.

And yet when directors have gone against the 1960’s series tone, you hate it.

And yet you love a kid-friendly Batman who should make us feel like we want to be him.

How is contradiction and lack of consistence your privilege?

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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.

On the other hand you might be terribly wrong and biased.

Nothing stops anyone from reading old comics from when you were 8 years old.

Maybe if you control that paranoia, acceptance of reality will come in addition.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Like I said. You (and me) cannot judge the past of Batman before we started to read.

Yes you can.

Stop fearing the non-existent barriers.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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.

Batman’s not insane. Only in your own mind.

He’s just obssessive and carries the trauma of the death of his parents. Those are the basic elements that motivates him. Now please let’s have the eleents work in an adult way, not ignoring the dark non-heroic edges because they could be too non kid-friendly.

There’s little childish fantasy about having your parents killed before your own eyes and to have to live with that as an adult. There’s little childish fantasy about the basic elements of Batman.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.

Your “Yay, I wanna be him!” tone for Batman sounds way more superficial.

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

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?

Because Burton decided to keep the best elements as I’ve been telling you for ages and you choose to ignore as every fact that you can’t cope with?

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Frank Miller said it in an interview for Batman begins that they "finally" got it right.

The link baby, the link.

And again, I’m sure Miller and Byrne can choose his favourite Batman movie without mindless bashing and reality-ignoring as you do.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown

Fair enough.

See, THIS is a "negative" comment about Burton's films that I'm fine with. This guy makes no bones about "I just didn't like it" instead of beligerently saying "it sucks."

I always try to be objective when I criticize something, it annoys me when people just say "it sucks" without explanation as well.

Really, I don't mind BR. When I was a little kid I used to hate it because the Penguin scared the crap out of me, but now it's my second favorite movie of the old series. Like I said, I'm just not fond of the overuse of Burton style in a Batman movie. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, for me anyways.

Still though, I have to give Burton props for crafting the best Bat-film love interest relationship. Heck, I'd go as far as to say one of the best comic book movie love interest relationships. The way Batman and Catwoman interacted was down pat.



Parents-Gun-Bat, athletic does not mean you’re above average in size or strength. Athletic refers to all aspects of physicality. If you’re very fast then you’re more athletic in the area of speed then others, if you can jump really high you’re more athletic in your ability to jump then others, if you’re amazingly quick you’re more athletic in quickness then others.

Some of the most athletic people around are very small. Take Spudd Webb for example. The guy was 5’7 and he could throw down a dunk behind his head. That takes extreme athleticism to do. Size in many cases can actually limit one’s athleticism. To base one’s athletic ability on size is simply wrong.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by El Payaso;14494456
PRE CRISIS:
[IMG

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/alejansolo/goldencover01.jpg[/IMG]



Are you going to ignore truth again?

JESUS!

That's the Silver Age! Every comic was that way!

Fact is: when DC changed from pre-crisis to post-crisis Batman STAYED the SAME! Face it! The Batman from 1987 was the same he was in 86 or 85. They even completed the Catwoman/Batman arc, a story that started pre-crisis, AFTER "Year One". Not like Superman who became a completely different character.

You just seem like a guy who watches the Batman movie but has never read a comic, beside some tpb. Perhaps you even think Batman stopped killing because of Wertham and the comic book code and the direct result was the Silver Age.

[MrSmith1114]

Heh. I'd read that issue.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

JESUS!

That's the Silver Age! Every comic was that way!

Fact is: when DC changed from pre-crisis to post-crisis Batman STAYED the SAME! Face it! The Batman from 1987 was the same he was in 86 or 85. They even completed the Catwoman/Batman arc, a story that started pre-crisis, AFTER "Year One". Not like Superman who became a completely different character.

You just seem like a guy who watches the Batman movie but has never read a comic, beside some tpb. Perhaps you even think Batman stopped killing because of Wertham and the comic book code and the direct result was the Silver Age.

Are you trying to imply that Wertham didn't kickstart the silver age? Because if so, that's just wrong. The comics code was formed directly because of Wertham's crusade against comics at the time, and the code made comics much more kid-friendly. There is a direct connection with the Silver age and Wertham. Because of Wertham they created the comics code which in turn lead to the kind of storytelling in the silver age.

Wertham-->Code-->Silver Age.

Now, Wertham didn't directly contribute to all styles of writing in the Silver Age. The writers didn't start doing more Sci-Fi stories or start focusing more on character development because of him. But If Wertham had not campaigned against comics as he had, the Silver Age would have been much different.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

Fact is: when DC changed from pre-crisis to post-crisis Batman STAYED the SAME! Face it! The Batman from 1987 was the same he was in 86 or 85. They even completed the Catwoman/Batman arc, a story that started pre-crisis, AFTER "Year One". Not like Superman who became a completely different character.

His CONTINUITY was changed! How many times must I say this?!? So you're telling me that the Batman in 1987 is the same Batman who turned into Bat Baby in the 50s?!?

You just seem like a guy who watches the Batman movie but has never read a comic, beside some tpb. Perhaps you even think Batman stopped killing because of Wertham and the comic book code and the direct result was the Silver Age.

No, he's not. YOU seem like the guy who twists facts any way you can to make your unfounded hate of Tim Burton's movies seem logical. Get a life.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

Are you trying to imply that Wertham didn't kickstart the silver age? Because if so, that's just wrong. The comics code was formed directly because of Wertham's crusade against comics at the time, and the code made comics much more kid-friendly. There is a direct connection with the Silver age and Wertham. Because of Wertham they created the comics code which in turn lead to the kind of storytelling in the silver age.

Wertham-->Code-->Silver Age.

Now, Wertham didn't directly contribute to all styles of writing in the Silver Age. The writers didn't start doing more Sci-Fi stories or start focusing more on character development because of him. But If Wertham had not campaigned against comics as he had, the Silver Age would have been much different.

It isn't that easy. Actually the code doesn't expain why the Silver Age started to be so goofy & childish. Yes, things like werewolf were forbidden. The good guys were supposed to win in the end. Government officals had to be good guys. But why did they made all adventures so bizarre and crazy? Those restrictions weren't that hard for superhero comics, there would've been ENOUGH space for more serious stuff. But they went that route because they SOLD so many issues. Just when the sales declined they made Batman again more serious in his stories. The companies that were really destroyed by the code were the back-then successful horror and crime comics publishers. But you know, somehow I think they earned it. THanks to Wertham it was revealed to the public that those companies advertised their gruesome comics directly towards kids and advertised weapons like knives and air rifles. And they blackmailed stores and newsstand who refused to sell these comics to kids so that they would not get other comics to sell from them.

(You know, the rumour has it that actually certain publishers (yes, also the guys with the "D") actively pushed the code so it would destroy the big rival EC.)

In the end Wertham made the same mistake so many people do when the judge comics. They were made for kids, so all this "Bruce Wayne sleeps in a bed together with Dick Grayson" he got wrong. Very wrong. And he is the reason why comics are today are so closely associated with superheroes and other genres are so shamelessly underdeveloped.

[The Guard]

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!

He clearly had friends in the 1989 movie, at least as much as he ever did in the comics. You know, from that giant party? Just because the movie didn't spend time ON his friends doesn't mean he didn't have them. As for the rest, welcome to 1939. Just because Burton drew inspiration from that era doesn't mean anyone in their right mind wants to see Batman asking directions. What's next, a Bat-Gyro?

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by DocLathropBrown

His CONTINUITY was changed! How many times must I say this?!? So you're telling me that the Batman in 1987 is the same Batman who turned into Bat Baby in the 50s?!?

That isn't clear! Do you think the guy from the 70s is the guy that turned into Bat Baby? Technically he was, yes. This is were Morrioson's recent work comes in. When Batman fought crime together with Dick Grayson as the DYNAMIC DUO, most of the stories WERE those bizarre stories. The Dynamic Duo years are a great blur in modern continuity. This is why I like Morrison "everything happened" approach. But on the other half, I HATE HATE HATE those comic history archelogists who come up with a twist on a 50 year old story and some obscure characters. Continuity is overrated.

BTW, continuity changed all the time. Does Batman become a different character every time?

No, he's not. YOU seem like the guy who twists facts any way you can to make your unfounded hate of Tim Burton's movies seem logical. Get a life.

well, since I'm married for 6 years now I need to get a life

[The Guard]

I agree that continuity is a bit overrated, but I'm confused. Are you trying to say that the Bruce Wayne/Dick Grayson Batman and Robin era didn't happen Post-Crisis?

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I agree that continuity is a bit overrated, but I'm confused. Are you trying to say that the Bruce Wayne/Dick Grayson Batman and Robin era didn't happen Post-Crisis?

They happened but we don't know exactly WHAT happened. Post-Crisis started with Jason Todd as Robin, the Dynamic Duo years were just covered with a few flashback and one-shot stories now and then. So it could be - even if it sounds strange - that in this era Batman & Robin in fact went to Outer Space and met strange aliens and were transferred into rainbows. Batman post-crisis was - and is - such a hush hush thing. You know, there was some kind of agreement that the pre-New Look adventures were out of continuity, but the New Look (even the few campy, TV show influenced comics) time was still in - somehow, with some tweaking. And then they filled the early Batman years mainly with the "Legends of the Dark Knight" stories. But the Dynamic Duo era? It's not something deeply explored. You know, later in post-crisis they have always hinted that Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne had and have a kind of troubled relationship but in the old adventures nothing of this was to be seen. In fact they were super chums.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

BTW, continuity changed all the time. Does Batman become a different character every time?

Stop bringing this up. I'm not saying his characterization changed. I never have. you're the one who keeps trying to claim I said it when I never did.

well, since I'm married for 6 years now I need to get a life

Again, you're looking for insults that aren't there. I didn't imply that you need a girlfriend or lover (which would be obvious if you had reading comprehension skills). I implied that you need to stop hating on a 15 year old film for no other reason than to hate it. The film is over and done with, past. If you want your complaints about Batman films to be worth a damn and not just the ramblings of someone who can't move on, complain about the new film series. *****ing about Batman Returns isn't going to change the way it was made, the fact that it was made, nor will it dissuade people from liking or enjoying it. All the *****ing does is make you look like you can't get over it.

[The Guard]

They happened but we don't know exactly WHAT happened.

-Dick was in the circus
-Dick's parents were murdered
-Bruce adopted Dick as his ward
-Dick became Robin
-Dick and Batman avenged Dick's parents, Dick wanted to keep fighting crime
-Batman and Robin fought criminals together, including supercriminals. Dick almost died a couple of times. Dick began to fall for/date Barbara Gordon.
-Dick went to college, continued to be Robin every so often.
-Dick joined the Titans.
-Batman and Robin's relationship became strained as Dick began to resent Batman's paranoia and treatment of him as well as being under his shadow, Dick left to become Nightwing.

Each of these elements has been explored in detail at some point. Whether we know the exact details of every single night they fought crime seems kind of irrelevant.

Post-Crisis started with Jason Todd as Robin, the Dynamic Duo years were just covered with a few flashback and one-shot stories now and then.

Here's the thing...those few flashbacks and one shots every now and then provided very detailed looks at their relationship and what happened while Dick was Robin. So do TEEN TITANS and THE TITANS and THE NEW TITANS flashback stories and one shots. So do various NIGHTWING stories.

Now, as for how this ties into Pre-Crisis, it should be obvious that not all Pre-Crisis elements of their relationship were done away with, because many Post-Crisis stories referenced those elements.

So it could be - even if it sounds strange - that in this era Batman & Robin in fact went to Outer Space and met strange aliens and were transferred into rainbows.

Could be. God knows stranger things have happened to them Post-Crisis.

Batman post-crisis was - and is - such a hush hush thing.

Interesting take. How so?

You know, there was some kind of agreement that the pre-New Look adventures were out of continuity, but the New Look (even the few campy, TV show influenced comics) time was still in - somehow, with some tweaking.

It's been my understanding that all The Crisis did was revamp the Batman mythology, but that certain "current" elements carried over, a la Bruce and Dick. The Crisis was done (ironically) to streamline the universe for new readers, not delete everything that ever happened to Batman and Robin.

And then they filled the early Batman years mainly with the "Legends of the Dark Knight" stories. But the Dynamic Duo era? It's not something deeply explored.

That depends on what you mean by "deeply explored". If you mean "Explored constantly", no you're right. But there are plenty of stories about it out there, and they have explored the relevance of this era and the psychology behind the characters.

A similar argument is made about the portrayal of Bruce's training and world travels. Because only a couple dozen of the thousands of comics made deal with it, people like to pretend there's a "gray area" there. But that simply isn't the case.

You know, later in post-crisis they have always hinted that Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne had and have a kind of troubled relationship but in the old adventures nothing of this was to be seen. In fact they were super chums.

That was found in Pre-Crisis as well. Everything was "super" in the old days. But then comics grew up, and started looking at their superheroes as people, not just iconic characters.

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by The Guard

-Dick was in the circus
-Dick's parents were murdered
-Bruce adopted Dick as his ward
-Dick became Robin
-Dick and Batman avenged Dick's parents, Dick wanted to keep fighting crime
-Batman and Robin fought criminals together, including supercriminals. Dick almost died a couple of times. Dick began to fall for/date Barbara Gordon.
-Dick went to college, continued to be Robin every so often.
-Dick joined the Titans.
-Batman and Robin's relationship became strained as Dick began to resent Batman's paranoia and treatment of him as well as being under his shadow, Dick left to become Nightwing.

Are you constantly trying to misunderstand me?

Those are the known fact, yes, but we don't know what kind of ADVENTURES they shared (no pun). When the Dynamic Duo was most of the stories were those silly ones. When Batman became serious again Dick Grayson left to college.

Pre-Crisis they encountered most of the Batman villains together when those bad guys had their debut. But then they retconned all those things and made Batman a loner at the time he first fought guys like the Joker, Two-Face, Poison Ivy...

[The Guard]

Are you constantly trying to misunderstand me? Those are the known fact, yes, but we don't know what kind of ADVENTURES they shared (no pun). When the Dynamic Duo was most of the stories were those silly ones. When Batman became serious again Dick Grayson left to college.

No, I'm not trying to misunderstand you. But you are making it sound like details about the time they spent together aren't known. That we don't know what Post-Crisis Batman and the original Robin were like, or what they faced. That simply isn't the case.

Let's think about this for a second.

In a mythology that changed to be more serious overall, where Batman still fought with Robin at some point in the mythology, and Batman and Jason Todd and Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown all experienced more serious adventures, do you think Bruce and Dick shared serious adventures...or completely silly ones?

Pre-Crisis they encountered most of the Batman villains together when those bad guys had their debut. But then they retconned all those things and made Batman a loner at the time he first fought guys like the Joker, Two-Face, Poison Ivy...

Ok, so they retconned when Batman met those villains. Before Robin. And he fights them in a serious manner. So...knowing that, is there anything to make one think that in their Post-Crisis incarnations, those villains would start off serious, suddenly become silly, and then be serious again years later?

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

Originally Posted by The Guard

No, I'm not trying to misunderstand you. But you are making it sound like details about the time they spent together aren't known. That we don't know what Post-Crisis Batman and the original Robin were like, or what they faced. That simply isn't the case.

We don't know which old DYNAMIC DUO stories are in continuity. All? None? A few like "Robin Dies At Dawn"?

Let's think about this for a second.

In a mythology that changed to be more serious overall, where Batman still fought with Robin at some point in the mythology, and Batman and Jason Todd and Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown all experienced more serious adventures, do you think Bruce and Dick shared serious adventures...or completely silly ones?

That's the question no one has ever really answered!

Ok, so they retconned when Batman met those villains. Before Robin. And he fights them in a serious manner. So...knowing that, is there anything to make one think that in their Post-Crisis incarnations, those villains would start off serious, suddenly become silly, and then be serious again years later?

I think it's an interesting take. It doesn't make much sense when we consider a realistic take. But why can't Batman have point in his career when Gotham City was a nice place and he had the time of his life?

Sometimes I really wish they had done a hard reboot in 1987 like for Superman. Than we wouldn't have this mess. But when I see what they did with Superman I'm glad it DIDN'T happen!