The Official Batman Returns Thread - Part 2

[CConn]

But Burton's Batman was meant to adapt the early comics Batman, and that was a time when he DID kill.

You can't expect every (or any, really) film adaptation to be faithful to every aspect from every time period of a characters history. Even Nolan's movies ignore and contradict large portions of Batman's comic history. And that's okay, because Nolan's intention was adapting Batman from 1970s-1990s. Just like Burton's intention was to adapt the Batman of the early '40s.

[Cain]

Even then it's not Shakespeare where you're adapting a specific play here & adhering to a strict script from hundreds of years ago. You're taking on adapting material that has had hundreds upon hundreds of reinterpretations in the first place across multiple media for over 70 years. All with the common thread of reworking the same characters, themes and tropes in their own flavor.

What's important to me is "does BR take important themes of the Batman mythos and present them in an effective way?" I say yes. The movie deals with obsession, loneliness, duality & tragedy in inventive and memorable ways. So much so that here we are 20 yrs later still discussing the merit of it all. So it is very much a Batman movie because it takes common themes specifically reused within the Batman mythos (especially common during the comics era this movie was produced in) and does them justice on film.

Is is the Batman movie you or I would make? perhaps not but it's still very much Batman in it's own way. It's certainly not Howard The Duck.

[Homer J. Fong]

The scenes in which Batman kills in Batman Returns aren't handled as scenes of him viciously killing - most or all of the circus gang members he "kills" don't actually necessarily die. Take the moment where he straps the bomb to the Tattooed Strongman: For a lot of people who hate that the Burton-Keaton Batman doesn't abide by that "one rule," this is the perfect exemplar of what's wrong with this version. And I kind of understand that, because if you just look at that moment on its face, and particularly look at the sick grin on Batman's face, it's a bit too cruel. But take a moment to see that the explosion that follows is pretty pathetic and cartoonish, and actually much of the violence in BR is - the attack by the Red Triangle gang is in the manic mode of a Warner Bros. cartoon, and Batman doesn't necessarily kill any of them. But he doesn't have that guiding principle that tells him not to, either, it's true. That's from the first year of the comics, but the argument that that's what Batman was like pre-Robin is a better one for the 1989 film. For Returns, I think the better argument for Batman not having his "one rule" is this: It's essential to this movie that Selina/Catwoman act as a dark example, a cautionary tale, of what Bruce/Batman could become if he follows - or continued to follow, perhaps - a path of vengeance. This Batman is rougher, with "Dark Knight" tilted much more toward "dark" than "knight," and you need to have a Batman who doesn't care about killing in the name of justice, at this point, for the point-counterpoint of Batman-Catwoman to work as well as it does. That point-counterpoint is really only brought out or made explicitly clear in the climax in Penguin's lair, but it's crucial.

[Kane52630]

There hasn't been a Batman film that wasn't a "good Batman film." All 8 Batman films that's been release theatrically are true to Batman's 73 year history.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by Kane52630

There hasn't been a Batman film that wasn't a "good Batman film." All 8 Batman films that's been release theatrically are true to Batman's 73 year history.

Yes.

[Marx]

...don't you dare try to say Batman & Robin is a good batman movie. Don't you dare, Kane!

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

[Cain]

It's at least a decent Bruce Wayne movie at times and that should count for something.

[Kane52630]

Originally Posted by Marx

...don't you dare try to say Batman & Robin is a good batman movie. Don't you dare, Kane!

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

lol, It's a great fun campy Batman that goes back to the days of Adam West. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Cain

It's at least a decent Bruce Wayne movie at times and that should count for something.

Yeah, I thought legitimately Clooney's Bruce Wayne as a public figure was the best one so far.

[mongoose-mania]

Originally Posted by Leenie

This movie, after 20 years, STILL puzzles me. I can't decide whether I like it or not.

I personally believe that stylistically, this is the best Batman movie to date. The imagery and atmosphere are absolutely gorgeous, there's no denying that. It's a beautiful film to look at. I mean, take a look at the screencaps that have already been posted in this thread ... Gorgeous!

I think the characters and the storyline are interesting, and the themes presented in the storyline are borderline genius. Catwoman and Penguin being warped representations of Batman himself? Interesting!

I think that Michelle Pfeiffer did an excellent job as Catwoman, and she was the beating heart of the film. I believe she did an iconic performance in the costume. Anne Hathaway is a better Selina Kyle, but Michelle Pfeiffer is a better Catwoman. "I am Catwoman, hear me roar!" Need I say more?

I also believe that Michael Keaton did a great job, as always. Keaton is one of the most criminally underrated actors ever, so it saddens me that people pretty much want to forget his performance as Batman after the Nolan movies. Danny DeVito also delivered a fine performance with what he was given.

Now, with all of the praises I'm giving this movie, I'll have to go to the negative right now: Is Batman Returns a good movie? I think it's a more than competent movie with stunning visuals. Is Batman Returns a good Batman movie? Umm ... I personally don't think it is, overall. There are a lot of things in this movie that just aren't a good representation of Batman and his world.

For instance, I think that Batman killing is a big no-no (yeah, whatever, I know he killed in the earlier comics, but that has since been dropped ... And dropped like a safe). Another problem is Penguin. I think the character for the MOVIE is interesting, but was he a good Penguin/Oswald Cobblepot? I don't think so. I also think that the whole supernatural thing with Catwoman's origin was bizarre and not fully explained. It's these problems that prevent me from loving the film.

Interesting that you brought up Catwoman's "supernatural" origins, because I've been thinking about that recently. Maybe it's just me, but when I first saw BR, I didn't think Selina died when she was pushed out of the window. On her way down, she hits a couple awnings which, I imagine, would've slowed her down just a tad and softened the impact perhaps. I always felt that she was just unconscious before the cats show up, and when they all start chewing her up and climbing all over her, it's almost like they're restoring her senses in a way. At least that's how I saw it. It's fun to speculate.

[Homer J. Fong]

Originally Posted by mongoose-mania

Interesting that you brought up Catwoman's "supernatural" origins, because I've been thinking about that recently. Maybe it's just me, but when I first saw BR, I didn't think Selina died when she was pushed out of the window. On her way down, she hits a couple awnings which, I imagine, would've slowed her down just a tad and softened the impact perhaps. I always felt that she was just unconscious before the cats show up, and when they all start chewing her up and climbing all over her, it's almost like they're restoring her senses in a way. At least that's how I saw it. It's fun to speculate.

I think that's exactly what it is. I don't see it as a "she died, then was brought back to life" thing literally, but there's ambiguity there, of course. But I see it the same way you describe.

[Elevator Man]

I agree. I've believed that for many years. Selina was unconcious and the stray cats awakened her. She mainly suffered psychological damage.

Selina only died mentally and then Catwoman was born.

[Hellion]

I agree with regards to Selina...I think it was a "symbolic" death...of Selina and like Elevator said, Catwoman was born.

[Cain]

Yeah Burton says as much on the commentary track himself. It's left ambiguous but it's also just showing the trauma that triggers the emergence of Catwoman like how Bruce Wayne's trauma triggers the emergence of Batman and Oswald's trauma triggers the emergence of The Penguin.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by Kane52630

There hasn't been a Batman film that wasn't a "good Batman film." All 8 Batman films that's been release theatrically are true to Batman's 73 year history.

Except Batman Returns

(no need to fight)

[kewlmatto]

Originally Posted by Hellion

I agree with regards to Selina...I think it was a "symbolic" death...of Selina and like Elevator said, Catwoman was born.

As a kid watching this film I totally thought it was supernatural resurrection from creepy voodoo cats. I loved it that way.

As an adult watching the film I totally think it was a broken fall which doesn't quite kill her. And I love it this way.

That's what's great about having a few things open to interpretation.

[Marx]

I agree as well. I always thought Selina's plunge out the window knocked her unconscious and the cats woke her up. I never thought that she died.

It gets a little muddy though when you remember Shreck shooting her multiple times at the end of the movie and she keeps going.

[CConn]

Eh, that's kinda possible.

What's muddy is when you see her head at the end of the movie.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by Marx

I agree as well. I always thought Selina's plunge out the window knocked her unconscious and the cats woke her up. I never thought that she died.

It gets a little muddy though when you remember Shreck shooting her multiple times at the end of the movie and she keeps going.

He never fatally wounded her tho - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/201...ernatural.html

[The Joker]

I never count the comic book adaptions. They change a lot of stuff.

[GothamAlleys]

In this case tho, they repeat whats in the movie and the script. The comic adaptations are based on the script alone, thats why theyre slightly different than the finished film, so if one accepts scripts as canon and credible explanations, then its rather natural the comic book adaptation, which is basically an illustrated script, should be considered legit and official part of the story too. There are always exceptions of course

They also include alternative scenes from earlier scripts. Lets take B89's example. Originally Battman was held at gunpoint at Axis C and raised his hands as if to surrender, and then threw the capsules. The scene was shot but not used and reshot. But the adaptation did show the alternative take




Its not their fault theyre different, like novelization, they simply use ideas that were meant to be in the film originally but changed or taken out for one reason or another

[kewlmatto]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

In this case tho, they repeat whats in the movie and the script. The comic adaptations are based on the script alone, thats why theyre slightly different than the finished film, so if one accepts scripts as canon and credible explanations, then its rather natural the comic book adaptation, which is basically an illustrated script, should be considered legit and official part of the story too. There are always exceptions of course
...
Its not their fault theyre different, like novelization, they simply use ideas that were meant to be in the film originally but changed or taken out for one reason or another

Yep, they have to use rough cuts of the film and the screenplay to get it out on time. But they're quite close. Usually closer than the novelisations.

Speaking of which - I loved the comic adaptations for '89 and Returns as a kid. They were very, very well done and captured the visual style of the films with some good art.

I must track my copies down - I think they're in storage somewhere.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by GothamAlleys

In this case tho, they repeat whats in the movie and the script. The comic adaptations are based on the script alone, thats why theyre slightly different than the finished film, so if one accepts scripts as canon and credible explanations, then its rather natural the comic book adaptation, which is basically an illustrated script, should be considered legit and official part of the story too. There are always exceptions of course.

That's the point. The movie and the script show two different things. The Batman Returns script, especially in this final scene between Batman, Schreck, and Catwoman is littered with differences.

You can only judge a movie by what is shown in it, and not what was omitted. Selina was shown running about the rooftops shortly after being shot four times. Whether you took those gun shots to arms, legs, chest....where ever, you're not going to be in any condition to be climbing rooftops. Either she's supernatural or she's got Wolverine's healing ability

[Elevator Man]

Keep in mind the original ending didn't have catwoman on the rooftops staring at the signal. The last shot was only going to be Gotham and the bat signal. Just like in the comic book adaptation I might add. It was a last minute decision to put her on the rooftops to show she survived. That's why the proportion of catwoman and the rooftops doesn't make much sense in that shot.

[Kane52630]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Except Batman Returns

(no need to fight)

[TheWatcher]

Watching it right now(it comes on Encore almost everyday).

The fight scenes are much improved from the first movie and Batman moves better because of the improved aesthetics of the suit.