Batman reboot: Should it be based on realism, dark imagination, or silliness

[shauner111]

Yes the show was true to some comics at the time but the tone wasn't the true original depiction of Batman. So it's a weird thing. The silver-age is one thing but that kind of goofiness we got on the show was a far cry from the first few years of his inception. And a far cry to what became of the Bat when the 70's/80's rolled around. So it might be a lot more loyal to its era of comics while Batman Returns wasn't loyal to anything really...but at least 1992's version was a dark depiction which should be the first thing any Batman fan would ask for.

There's a lot of goofy stuff in the 50s and 60s and if Adam Wests take on Batman took from those stories...fine....but those goofy stories weren't the original intention of the character. Neither were the sci-fi stories and team-ups with various superheroes. It all happened and it's cool but Batman was meant to be a dark, tragic, serious character who battles dark criminals in Gotham City. That's why people ignore the fact that West might have been close to certain comics. They may see the source material as ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

It's quite funny how, when you just sit down and think, the Burton/Schumacher series didn't really become campy once Schumacher took over, lol.

True. Batman Returns was just as campy as Batman Forever but it was like a really dark comedy. I think the change in look is what threw people off when Forever came around, but the material was no different. People exaggerated too much.

[The Joker]

Unpopular opinion; but I think there was better Batman material in Batman Forever than there was in Returns. All that stuff with Bruce struggling with the nightmares of his parents death, the giant bat coming at him in the cave, how he connected with Dick and related their tragedies, the scenes with Chase and how he explains how conflicted he is etc.

I thought all of this was good stuff and more material than Keaton had to work with in Returns.

[Cain]

The key difference being that in BR Bruce's arc had some real payoff while in BF it really didn't. That may be no fault of Schumacher himself but the fault of the studio because they mandated that key scenes be removed yet the fact still remains the same.

Bruce Wayne's internal struggle in BF is pretty ineffective because it comes across as an afterthought in the movie due to how shoddily explored it all is in the final cut. In Burton's movie it at least feels more like there is a beginning, middle and end to his internal struggle because the exploration of it all is much more dominant in the film.

[DaveMoral]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Good post. A lot of people under estimate just how loyal to the comics the 1966 Batman show was.

I love that show. A cult classic.

I don't like that show. It performed a miracle though, it saved Batman from cancellation. And that cancellation was in the wings at least in part because of how ridiculous Batman had become in comics. The best thing to happen to Batman since his creation was O'Neil/Adams.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Unpopular opinion; but I think there was better Batman material in Batman Forever than there was in Returns. All that stuff with Bruce struggling with the nightmares of his parents death, the giant bat coming at him in the cave, how he connected with Dick and related their tragedies, the scenes with Chase and how he explains how conflicted he is etc.

I thought all of this was good stuff and more material than Keaton had to work with in Returns.

Every time I think of BF, though, I think of Batman smiling. Kinda ruins the idea of the film as a whole.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Cain

The key difference being that in BR Bruce's arc had some real payoff while in BF it really didn't. That may be no fault of Schumacher himself but the fault of the studio because they mandated that key scenes be removed yet the fact still remains the same.

Bruce Wayne's internal struggle in BF is pretty ineffective because it comes across as an afterthought in the movie due to how shoddily explored it all is in the final cut. In Burton's movie it at least feels more like there is a beginning, middle and end to his internal struggle because the exploration of it all is much more dominant in the film.

I'm not sure what you mean by there being no pay off? Bruce's resolution at the end of the movie is accept that he is not Batman now because he has to be, but because he chooses to be.

This is something that was very lightly touched on in Batman 1989, where Bruce simply tells Vicki he tried to avoid being Batman but he couldn't because nobody else could do it. He talked about it as though it was a penance.

What was the pay off for you in Batman Returns with Bruce?

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

I don't like that show. It performed a miracle though, it saved Batman from cancellation. And that cancellation was in the wings at least in part because of how ridiculous Batman had become in comics. The best thing to happen to Batman since his creation was O'Neil/Adams.

Batman had been campy in the comics long before the 1966 show came along. The show saved Batman from cancellation in the comics. It made Batman a cultural icon.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Every time I think of BF, though, I think of Batman smiling. Kinda ruins the idea of the film as a whole.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'm not a fan of BR either though, lol. Only Batfilm outside of Nolan's trilogy that I cherish is '89 Batman.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'm not sure what you mean by there being no pay off? Bruce's resolution at the end of the movie is accept that he is not Batman now because he has to be, but because he chooses to be.

Let me rephrase a bit. Yeah there is a technical payoff by the film's end but it comes across as very inorganic and rushed because the film was so shoddy when it came to exploring that subplot. Where as the resolution to Grayson's subplot and even Riddler's seemed more natural because the movie sold their subplots better than Bruce's.

What was the pay off for you in Batman Returns with Bruce?

Realizing what he had become by seeing a warped reflection of it in both Selina and Cobblepot. Then recognizing his issues and owning up to them after that fact (Ie: "You might be right", "Wrong on both counts").

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I'm not a fan of BR either though, lol. Only Batfilm outside of Nolan's trilogy that I cherish is '89 Batman.

Is it Batman smiling that spoils them for you?

If so steer clear of BTAS then;

Originally Posted by Cain

Let me rephrase a bit. Yeah there is a technical payoff by the film's end but it comes across as very inorganic and rushed because the film was so shoddy when it came to exploring that subplot. Where as the resolution to Grayson's subplot and even Riddler's seemed more natural because the movie sold their subplots better than Bruce's.

Ok you'll have to elaborate for me a bit on that. How did it come off as shoddy? Bruce got to the point where he shut down his Batcave and was stopping being Batman. He was intending on telling Chase everything, until the villains interrupted. I could understand if they addressed it but never really went anywhere with it. I hate when movies do that.

Realizing what he had become by seeing a warped reflection of it in both Selina and Cobblepot. Then recognizing his issues and owning up to them after that fact (Ie: "You might be right", "Wrong on both counts").

I didn't see that as a pay off since he was never conflicted over this during the movie. If he was and then he finally realized what he had become and owned up to it then I could see it as being a kind of resolution. But that conflict is not there in Returns. Not that I saw.

I mean minutes before both of those quotes he had just tried to squash the Penguin to death with his Batskiboat lol.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Unpopular opinion; but I think there was better Batman material in Batman Forever than there was in Returns. All that stuff with Bruce struggling with the nightmares of his parents death, the giant bat coming at him in the cave, how he connected with Dick and related their tragedies, the scenes with Chase and how he explains how conflicted he is etc.

I thought all of this was good stuff and more material than Keaton had to work with in Returns.

I agree. Forever is WAY more of a Batman movie than Returns. There was no payoff with Keatons Wayne in Batman Returns, i felt that Kilmers Wayne had the better payoff. He had more to chew on as an actor than Michael did. I wasn't satisfied with Bruce's arc in Returns, i felt there was nothing there at all, it was like he was a guest star in Catwomans world or Penguins world.

I think it was Michael Uslan who said that Forever was like the late 40's Batman & Robin adventures of the comics, and that Returns represented some of the 90's stories where Bats is just really cold and emotionless. I agree with the former but i'm not aware of which stories he's talking abou from the 90s. If you guys can help me out here..because the 90s comics/graphic novels im familiar with aren't like that at all. Maybe ive subconsciously avoided those because they remind me of Burtons Returns. Quite frankly i can never pinpoint what era Returns represents. I still think it's the furthest from anything "Batman" despite the darkness. It's just simply Tim Burton being Tim Burton.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by shauner111

I agree. Forever is WAY more of a Batman movie than Returns. There was no payoff with Keatons Wayne in Batman Returns, i felt that Kilmers Wayne had the better payoff. He had more to chew on as an actor than Michael did. I wasn't satisfied with Bruce's arc in Returns, i felt there was nothing there at all, it was like he was a guest star in Catwomans world or Penguins world.

I feel the same way, and that's coming from someone who is a fan of Returns, but it's because of the enchanting performances by Michelle and Danny. I feel it's their movie and Batman is just a reactionary character without a story of his own.

Michael did fine with what he had, but it wasn't much. Not his fault. You can only work with the material you're given.

I think it was Michael Uslan who said that Forever was like the late 40's Batman & Robin adventures of the comics, and that Returns represented some of the 90's stories where Bats is just really cold and emotionless. I'm not aware of which stories he's talking about, if you guys can help me out here..because the 90s comics/graphic novels im familiar with aren't like that at all. Maybe ive avoided those ones because they remind me of Burtons Returns. Quite frankly i can never pinpoint what era Returns represents. I still think it's the furthest from anything "Batman" despite the darkness.

I think they probably mean the early comics in the first couple of years (1939/1940) where Batman is a killer. They put a stop to that after there was some controversy in Batman #1 of seeing Batman shooting down someone with a gun from his batplane.

[BlueLightning]

I actually see Burton's Batman closer to the first Detective Comics with Batman. You know all of that "Death... to Doctor Death", and the Schumacher flicks more closely to the following more upbeat years. Forever had a lot of potential, though I disagree a little with Batman's character resolution. I didn't like Kilmer performance at all, so I have a hard time trying to watch it again.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I feel the same way, and that's coming from someone who is a fan of Returns, but it's because of the enchanting performances by Michelle and Danny. I feel it's their movie and Batman is just a reactionary character without a story of his own.

I like returns too, but it has more to do with Michelle and the cast as a whole, plus the score and designs were cool (not in a Batman kinda way tho) but everything else i really can't stand. Ya he really is just a reactionary character.

Originally Posted by The Joker

Michael did fine with what he had, but it wasn't much. Not his fault. You can only work with the material you're given.

Yeah Keatons always great no matter what he's given, but it's just such a waste for a guy like him.

Originally Posted by The Joker

I think they probably mean the early comics in the first couple of years (1939/1940) where Batman is a killer. They put a stop to that after there was some controversy in Batman #1 of seeing Batman shooting down someone with a gun from his batplane.

Yeah i see what u mean but Uslan says Batman 89 is the 39' version with some Burton tweaks (which he's right), Returns was the 90's cold and emotionless Bats, Forever was the late 40s, B & R was a nod to the 60s show. I agree with all of what he's saying, but the whole 90s thing is a headscratcher for me. I thought it was just my lack of knowledge of those 90's stories he's talking about.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Is it Batman smiling that spoils them for you?

Ok you'll have to elaborate for me a bit on that. How did it come off as shoddy? Bruce got to the point where he shut down his Batcave and was stopping being Batman. He was intending on telling Chase everything, until the villains interrupted. I could understand if they addressed it but never really went anywhere with it. I hate when movies do that.

It feels really random. It doesn't even answer the questions of why he would give it all up in the first place. I excuse that if the stylistic approach to your film is say an expressionistic one & you're using many other elements to get that point across outside of the protagonist but that wasn't the case; BF was very literal with presenting it's concepts.

"Batman is no more"

"why Bruce?"

"because I killed my parents"

"ummm....ok. So why would that guilt kill Batman now? why has it never occurred to you before almost an hour or so into this movie? and isn't the point of being Batman your self inflicted punishment for killing your parents anyway so why absolve yourself of said punishment if you still feel guilt?"

Then we get a cheeky resolution out of nowhere that rings false because nothing was ever really truly explored. BF works for me only when it comes to Grayson really. That excellent scene between Bruce and Dick in the cave rings true because we've seen why this Batman may have that outlook thanks to BF's predecessors for example.

Bruce's subplot on the other hand has no real precedent when you deconstruct it and seems like it was just put in there to give him something to mope about and not because it was a well structured base point for the rest of the film to build up from.

I didn't see that as a pay off since he was never conflicted over this during the movie. If he was and then he finally realized what he had become and owned up to it then I could see it as being a kind of resolution. But that conflict is not there in Returns. Not that I saw.

I mean minutes before both of those quotes he had just tried to squash the Penguin to death with his Batskiboat lol.

Never conflicted? again it boils down to the stylistic approach of the film. This is expressionistic cinema. You can't expect Bruce to literally dictate "hey man I have a conflict and it's XYZ" because it's not the approach BR had unlike BF. It is something that is projected through the environment in the film, the other characters in the film coupled with the body language and performance of the principle actor himself. It's the ultimate cinematic equivalent to the famous "show don't tell" rule of another popular visual medium; comic books.

You know how I know Bruce Wayne is conflicted in that movie?

It starts out with the man self loathing in his cave. Obsessed with nothing but his mission as the Batman. Consumed by his beast. Waiting for the signal to come like a junkie waiting for his fix. It's the only time he even feels alive anymore.

To the point that when another sideshow act comes out of nowhere into Gotham he feels threatened about not being the only freakshow in town anymore. He feels that could potentially hinder Batman's stance in the eyes of the public. Rendering his only reason for living at this point to be moot in his eyes.

As you can see by his reaction to Cobblepot's first appearance and his obsession with proving that he's the only freak in town worthy of Gotham's love by putting The Penguin under a giant magnifying glass. Alfred even literally brings that up through dialogue later on ("must you be the only lonely man-beast in town")

You also see him struggle with wanting a sense of normalcy in his life again. He's still very much a child emotionally. Scarred and obsessed with his toys including his favorite action figure (the Batman persona) but like every child part of him also longs to be "normal" and not just a "freak". Something he tries to work on as Bruce Wayne by reaching out to Selina and trying to have a normal dating life while still being conflicted with his dual nature.

Since he's so obsessed with the Batman though it proves difficult for him to break through to Selina and "force" normalcy into his life because his own emotional imbalance (his obsessive duality) is something she recognizes within herself later on. It is then when he sees how far gone they both have become through seeing her actions in coping with her trauma that he recognizes his problem. It's why he tells her they're basically one and the same.

He sees how his obsession has made him blind to the reality of his world (recognizing that he's not above the law and that he's become nothing but an obsessed shell of a man) by seeing this woman who sees herself above the law and became a shell of what she could've been right in fron of his face. BF even plays around with that which is why to me BF works much better when I watch all 3 movies back to back and not BF stand alone. You see how that realization has affected the nature of this Batman in how he carries himself in BF more clearly when you view it within that context.

You may not have seen any of this but I wasn't the only one who did. Many movie reviewers (especially cinephiles who aren't into comic books) saw that because it's very clearly projected in the language that the film speaks if you understand that language (expressionistic cinema). It's one of the things the movie is usually praised for. Hell many people on this very forum over the years especially in the misc bat boards have also recognized this. Something I'm sure you're familiar with considering that you've been a regular poster over there for years now.

[Rodrigo90]

Cain, you've just said everything I've been trying to say for donkeys lol

To shorten Keaton's Batman...He suffers from schizoid personality disorder, more or less, with psychopathic tendancies.

[PB210]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Yes the show was true to some comics at the time but the tone wasn't the true original depiction of Batman. So it's a weird thing. The silver-age is one thing but that kind of goofiness we got on the show was a far cry from the first few years of his inception.

By the time Adam West came around, that series had featured a boy sidekick in pixie shoes and shaved legs for decades.

[PB210]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Yes the show was true to some comics at the time but the tone wasn't the true original depiction of Batman. So it's a weird thing. The silver-age is one thing but that kind of goofiness we got on the show was a far cry from the first few years of his inception. And a far cry to what became of the Bat when the 70's/80's rolled around. So it might be a lot more loyal to its era of comics while Batman Returns wasn't loyal to anything really...but at least 1992's version was a dark depiction which should be the first thing any Batman fan would ask for.

There's a lot of goofy stuff in the 50s and 60s and if Adam Wests take on Batman took from those stories...fine....but those goofy stories weren't the original intention of the character. Neither were the sci-fi stories and team-ups with various superheroes. It all happened and it's cool but Batman was meant to be a dark, tragic, serious character who battles dark criminals in Gotham City. That's why people ignore the fact that West might have been close to certain comics. They may see the source material as ridiculous.

True. Batman Returns was just as campy as Batman Forever but it was like a really dark comedy. I think the change in look is what threw people off when Forever came around, but the material was no different. People exaggerated too much.

By the time Adam West came around, that series had featured a boy sidekick in pixie shoes and shaved legs for decades.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...-a-prostitute/

Other than two poignant panels of a young
Bruce crying over his dead parents, the early Batman is devoid of angst.
The angst that we now associate with the character is not present in
1939-40; it is, in fact, a product of the 1970s, extrapolated by writers who felt
a need to give Bruce Wayne an inner darkness to match his original dark
surroundings. (Even then, the 1970s were not fully given over to angst –
Bob Haney and Jim Aparo’s Batman of so many adventurous The Brave and
the Bold tales is actually quite a good match for Adam West’s interpretation.)
The 1939-40 Batman is a straightforward hero surrounded by darkness but
not dark inside, much as the TV Batman is a straightforward hero in
exaggerated surroundings.


PB210
December 24, 2011 at 8:05 am

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/11/got...fifteenth-mile

Listen: Bat-angst is a thing of the 1970s. It didn’t exist previously. Fans today are made to believe that the brooding Batman, the shadowy figure warring against crime while anguishing over the murder of his parents is all there is, all there ever was—but it just ain’t so. That completely ignores more than three decades of the character’s stories and development, and that’s a crime worthy of our hero’s attention.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by PB210

Listen: Bat-angst is a thing of the 1970s. It didn’t exist previously. Fans today are made to believe that the brooding Batman, the shadowy figure warring against crime while anguishing over the murder of his parents is all there is, all there ever was—but it just ain’t so. That completely ignores more than three decades of the character’s stories and development, and that’s a crime worthy of our hero’s attention.

Yeah Batman was quipping and swashbuckling even back when he was breaking necks and hanging monster men off his batplane. He had mental stability and real relationships with people since 1939. So when people try to say that the "brooding loner" is the way things should be since it's closer to his roots it pretty much exposes to me that they've never actually read any golden age Batman comics.

[Rodrigo90]

Bale's Batman was the perfect blend of Golden Age and modern comics.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Is it Batman smiling that spoils them for you?

If so steer clear of BTAS then;

No offense Joker, but it seems like you always try to start an argument, lol.

It's a smiling Batman in what's supposed to be a character to be taken serious that gets me frustrated. A smiling Batman in a cartoon, I can look past. A campy Adam West Batman, I can get past. Even though the storylines themselves in Batman Returns and Batman Forever seemed "off the wall", I did not enjoy seeing Bats smiling.

[shauner111]

Actually, i didnt enjoy him smiling in Returns or Forever either. I hated that, it looks ridiculous and it's just not how i see Batman. It was a little more reasonable in Forever (like it would be for Adam West or George Clooney) because the look is much lighter and a lot of that has to do with Robins inclusion. But in Returns, you have this dark Batman, dark city, dark villains, yet the screenplay is completely camp and Batman is smiling. It's just "off" to me.

Now about the Golden Age comics...yes im not really a reader of that era. I respect it a great deal but im more of a modern era Batman fan. The bulk of the silver-age is not really my cup of tea. I've always been more attracted to the 70's, 80's, 90's (more specific to a few writers)...and i'm not too crazy about the last decade of Batman comics other than what we have now in Scott Snyder. Who is pretty amazing. That probably has to do with the live-action Batman movies and video games hogging it up for me. So i dont mind learning more about the history of it from you guys.

So Batman 89' is close to the 1939 version but where does Returns stand? if it's not just an excuse for a Burton-Fest.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I'm not a fan of BR either though, lol. Only Batfilm outside of Nolan's trilogy that I cherish is '89 Batman.

Returns did have some awful dialogue

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by BH/HHH

Returns did have some awful dialogue

Awful goddamn screenplay lol.

[Rodrigo90]

Misletoe can be deadly if you eat it?

Though I liked a kiss can be deadlier if you mean it lol