List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

[shauner111]

It's one weird ****ing movie let's put it that way!

The rockets are definately something out of the West era. You expect Burgess Meredith to suddenly pop into the scene instead of Devito. I really want to know what kind of drugs the person was on, when he wrote that.

[Macphisto]

A lot of those drugs were going around. Waters just took it to the extreme.

[shauner111]

Where is that from exactly?

[Macphisto]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Where is that from exactly?

Batman # 38.

Gotham Alleys has a cool blog on comic book references in the Bat film franchise: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-part-ii.html

[Bathead]

I still have a problem with the idea of Penguin somehow getting the blueprints of the Batmobile. I just don't buy it. Batman has always been mindful of his security (read: extremely paranoid) and protecting his secret ID. Leaving blueprints of the Batmobile around for his enemies to so easily steal is just wholly unbelievable to me. About the onlly place there would be any bleuprints left that hadn't been destroyed already would be in the Bat-cave.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Ya I never cared for that either even as a kid, its a pretty big plothole.

[BatLobsterRises]

Yup, same here, I never understood that as a kid. I always thought I was missing something that would explain how he pulled that off.

[The Joker]

I never understood why Batman said Max Schreck was going to jail at the end either. Did Batman suddenly find some incriminating evidence against Schreck in the time between the Masquerade party and the finale?

[Ponyboy]

^He knew about Schreck being in cahoots with the Penguin.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

^He knew about Schreck being in cahoots with the Penguin.

He knew that from the get-go but never could prove it. How come he could all of a sudden now?

[Ponyboy]

Well he knew Shreck was a slimeball anyway, but with Shreck as the Penguin's campaign contributor, I think Batman's suspicions were solidified. They never just "came out and said it" though.

[The Joker]

Yeah, Batman's suspicions confirmed doesn't equal proof. Schreck would have been arrested after Penguin fired on the crowd at his speech if that was the case. Schreck can feign ignorance that he knew Oswald was really like that. Everyone else in Gotham fell for Oswald's act, Schreck can say the same.

[Bathead]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yup, same here, I never understood that as a kid. I always thought I was missing something that would explain how he pulled that off.

There was no explanantion, because they couldn't have come up with one that made any sense. I suspect Burton knew it was bogus and just hoped no-one would notice.

[The Guard]

I love the rocket-launching, mind-controlled penguins in BATMAN RETURNS. It's classic Cobblepot stuff.

Batman said "Shut up, you're going to jail" to Schreck for a couple of reasons. Schreck was working with The Penguin politically. In the course of this partnership, at Shreck's behest, The Penguin used the Red Triangle Circus gang in acts of terrorism to upset the political balance, which Batman, knowing Schreck's involvement, already suspected. The Penguin was then involved in the kidnapping plot after being initially provided access to the records he sought by Schreck. That, and Schreck tried to kill Selina, which was revealed when she confronted him, just before Batman saved him.

Also, Max stole a key from that monkey.

I think Schreck was, at the very least, an accessory to various crimes, and there were clearly illegal elements to his political actions and his business endeavors. It's not a stretch to assume he would have been arrested and investigated and spent some time in jail based on the events of the film, though Selina obviously disagreed.

We didn't see the evidence, but then it wasn't exactly a film about the judicial process.

[The Joker]

None of that could convict Schreck. What proof is there Schreck told Penguin to do any of that? It was verbal. Who's going to testify he did? A dead Penguin? The city gave Oswald access to the birth records. He was looking for his family roots, or so he claimed. You can't connect Schreck to that kidnap plot because no evidence exists that he knew about it because he actually didn't, especially since his own son was on the list.

What has Max stealing the key from the monkey got to do with anything?

Max was Gotham's Santa Claus. Their version of Harvey Dent in terms of saintly do gooder image for the people. This movie was very much about evidence to prove criminal behavior. The Penguin used incriminating evidence Max flushed in the sewers to blackmail him into helping him. The Penguin stole and used one of Batman's batarangs as evidence to frame him for the kidnap of the Ice Princess. Batman voice recorded the Penguin saying nasty things about Gotham's people and then played it in front of them to expose his true colors. Selina read secret files about Max's energy sucking power plant and that's why he tried to kill her.

So unless Batman magically unearthed some incriminating evidence in the time between Penguin crashing the party and the finale scene, I still say that line made no sense. Max is kidnapped and locked up by Penguin, and suddenly he's going to jail?

No, doesn't make sense.

[The Guard]

None of that could convict Schreck.

Nor does Batman say "Shut up, you're going to be convicted of (a specific crime with specific evidence)". It might well not get him convicted. But it would definitely get him investigated. It might well get him sent to jail during this process.

What proof is there Schreck told Penguin to do any of that? Who's going to testify he did? A dead Penguin? The city gave Oswald access to the birth records. He was looking for his family roots, or so he claimed. You can't connect Schreck to that kidnap plot because no evidence exists that he knew about it because he actually didn't, especially since his own son was on the list.

What has Max stealing the key from the monkey got to do with anything?

I don't know. I never said the film explored what evidence Batman had on Schreck's crimes. Only that the reason he says "Shut up you're going to jail" is fairly obvious. Personally, I find the lack of evidence against Schreck/the law's inability to deal with him because of his manipulative, shadowy tactics to be one of the key themes of the film.

The monkey key thing was a joke.

Max was Gotham's Santa Claus. Their version of Harvey Dent in terms of saintly do gooder image for the people.

Except that he actually wasn't. Bruce more or less knew it, Batman knew it, as did Selina.

This movie was very much about evidence to prove criminal behavior. The Penguin used incriminating evidence Max flushed in the sewers to blackmail him into helping him. The Penguin stole and used one of Batman's batarangs as evidence to frame him for the kidnap of the Ice Princess. Batman voice recorded the Penguin saying nasty things about Gotham's people and then played it in front of them to expose his true colors. Selina read secret files about Max's energy sucking power plant and that's why he tried to kill her.

There being evidence utilized in the movie doesn't mean that the movie itself was about using evidence to prove criminal behavior. You're missing the point. Its not a police/law procedural. Us not seeing the actual evidence Batman would need for Schreck to go to jail is largely irrelevant, because that is not the focus of the film. What is relevant is his comment in the context of the scene. Look at what the scene is about. Its about the difference between Batman and Catwoman in terms of their thoughts on the law and its application to those with power.

Batman can say anything he wants. Seeing as how he sounds angry and dismissive of Schreck, for all we know, he's angry about the situation and just wants Schreck to shut up and go to jail because he's tired of dealing with him.

So unless Batman magically unearthed some incriminating evidence in the time between Penguin crashing the party and the finale scene, I still say that line made no sense. Max is kidnapped and locked up by Penguin, and suddenly he's going to jail? No, doesn't make sense.

In context, the line makes perfect sense. Batman, who is fairly aware of Schreck's crimes, wants Schreck to go to jail. That's all the line inherently means. And keep in mind, Batman's statement is immediately QUESTIONED by Selina. It's not meant to be absolute, it's meant to be pored over. Catwoman doesn't think the law applies to people like them, or Bruce and Selina. Schreck's situation is indicative of this.

It would be one thing if Schreck actually WENT to jail, and the movie never showed any evidence, or indicated that there was evidence of his crimes. That might not make any sense, or would at least be a plot hole or incomplete version of events of sorts. That's not what happens, though. All we have is Batman saying "Shut up, you're going to jail", to a fellow who is a serious scumball. In context, the intent behind the line makes perfect sense, whether he has evidence, and whether the film has shown the evidence or not.

[Ponyboy]

There's also one perspective no one has brought up. It is possible that Batman may simply have said "Shut up. You're going to jail." just to keep Catwoman from killing Shreck; he was drawing a verbal line in the sand of sorts, trying to get thru to Selina during those moments. I think it's clearly possible because in that moment, Bruce is only concerned with Selina.

[The Guard]

Exactly. It's about showing he's on her side, but also about setting up the difference in ideologies. And that aspect is reinforced because he more or less immediately dismisses Schreck and tries to appeal to Selina via their connection.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Nor does Batman say "Shut up, you're going to be convicted of (a specific crime with specific evidence)". It might well not get him convicted. But it would definitely get him investigated. It might well get him sent to jail during this process.

Do you really think Batman meant all of that that when he said you're going to jail lol?

Come on, Guard.

I don't know. I never said the film explored what evidence Batman had on Schreck's crimes. Only that the reason he says "Shut up you're going to jail" is fairly obvious.

Not to me it's not. If someone tells someone they're going to jail, the only thing anyone will think is they're going to jail for a considerable amount of time. Not some brief investigative time period jail sentence.

The monkey key thing was a joke.

Oh sorry. That one flew over my head

Except that he actually wasn't. Bruce more or less knew it, Batman knew it, as did Selina.

I know he wasn't, I'm saying that's how he looked to Gotham City. Two people. Bruce and Selina, knowing how bad he is but having nothing to prove it, isn't going to help put him away.

There being evidence utilized in the movie doesn't mean that the movie itself was about using evidence to prove criminal behavior. You're missing the point. Its not a police/law procedural. Us not seeing the actual evidence Batman would need for Schreck to go to jail is largely irrelevant, because that is not the focus of the film.

No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying it's a judicial process movie. I'm saying the movie relies several of it's major plot points on using ACTUAL evidence to convict or condemn or frame someone.

This is a world where evidence is obviously vital to get the goods on someone or make them look like criminals and be arrested. So when Batman tells Schreck he's going to jail, it's only natural and logical you'd wonder how and why when not a darn thing was shown or mentioned to make such a thing happen out of the blue.

Sure Batman can say anything he wants. I don't know about you, but I prefer it when Batman says things that make sense.

In context, the line makes perfect sense. Batman, who is fairly aware of Schreck's crimes, wants Schreck to go to jail. That's all the line inherently means.

Really. Makes you wonder why he didn't tell Penguin he was going to jail then when he confronted him earlier in the movie after learning he runs the Red Triangle gang but couldn't prove it

And keep in mind, Batman's statement is immediately QUESTIONED by Selina. It's not meant to be absolute, it's meant to be pored over. Catwoman doesn't think the law applies to people like them, or Bruce and Selina. Schreck's situation is indicative of this.

It's not questioned. Selina makes some BS statement about the law not applying to people like Schreck or her and Batman, to which Batman says she's wrong on both counts.

Another funny statement from Batman, considering Batman gets away scot free with killing criminals lol.

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

There's also one perspective no one has brought up. It is possible that Batman may simply have said "Shut up. You're going to jail." just to keep Catwoman from killing Shreck; he was drawing a verbal line in the sand of sorts, trying to get thru to Selina during those moments. I think it's clearly possible because in that moment, Bruce is only concerned with Selina.

Now that I can buy.

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Now that I can buy.

[The Guard]

Do you really think Batman meant all of that that when he said you're going to jail lol?

Come on, Guard.

No, but neither did I say he meant all that.

If we’re speculating, and you’re going to bring up points about the liklihood of him being convicted for his involvement, etc, I’m going to respond to them.

Not to me it's not. If someone tells someone they're going to jail, the only thing anyone will think is they're going to jail for a considerable amount of time. Not some brief investigative time period jail sentence.

Then I guess you have a really broad definition of “jail”. Even in 1992, “jail” didn’t mean “years in prison”. If someone tells me they're going to jail, I take it to mean "They are going to spend some time in jail", but I don't make assumptions about how long they'll be there.

I know he wasn't, I'm saying that's how he looked to Gotham City. Two people. Bruce and Selina, knowing how bad he is but having nothing to prove it, isn't going to help put him away.

I don’t think its quite that simple. Selina flat out knew there was proof of his guilt, because she'd seen it. She also has the whole "He tried to murder me to cover it up" angle to work. She obviously preferred to take revenge herself, believing the law would not work with someone like Schreck.

And Bruce, as the film shows toward the middle of it, commissioned a report about the power surplus that led him to question it, so he obviously has some idea that Schreck's power plant proposal is bogus as well.

No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying it's a judicial process movie. I'm saying the movie relies several of it's major plot points on using ACTUAL evidence to convict or condemn or frame someone.

Right. But this isn’t a movie that revolves about Batman gathering evidence to use against The Penguin. It’s a movie about Batman stopping the Penguin and dealing with Schreck, period. The Penguin’s use of the dirt he has to blackmail Schreck is more or less used as a gag, but I'd hardly call it a major plot point. I wouldn’t call any of the instances of the use of evidence “major”, other than possibly Batman's use of Cobblepot's statements to set Gotham against him. Minor plot points, perhaps, part of larger plot elements certainly, but not major in themselves. They're certainly not anything close to the core of the film.

This is a world where evidence is obviously vital to get the goods on someone or make them look like criminals and be arrested. So when Batman tells Schreck he's going to jail, it's only natural and logical you'd wonder how and why when not a darn thing was shown or mentioned to make such a thing happen out of the blue.

And if someone had an ounce of sense, if they wondered that, they'd probably assume that Batman has some sort of proof that Schreck is guilty of a crime, even if its just knowledge that he was proposing a bogus power plant based on the study Bruce did.

Sure Batman can say anything he wants. I don't know about you, but I prefer it when Batman says things that make sense.

That's just it. It does make sense. Far as I can tell, you just don’t like that they didn’t show Batman gathering evidence against Schreck, and didn't explain which specific evidence was going to be used to charge him at the moment he was told he was going to jail. Which has nothing to do with whether Batman saying “Shut up, you’re going to jail” makes sense as a statement in itself.

Really. Makes you wonder why he didn't tell Penguin he was going to jail then when he confronted him earlier in the movie after learning he runs the Red Triangle gang but couldn't prove it

I dunno, because that's not the dialogue the writers chose to use. Perhaps Batman doesn’t randomly go around telling people they’re going to jail unless the moment calls for it. Given the events of the film…he never really gets the chance to do so anyway. He asks Penguin what he’s after, Penguin is kind of cryptic about his aims, implies Batman won’t win, and then Catwoman shows up and Penguin escapes via umbrella.

It's not questioned. Selina makes some BS statement about the law not applying to people like Schreck or her and Batman, to which Batman says she's wrong on both counts.

And that "BS statement" is her questioning the idea of Batman taking Schreck to jail/the police working. The movie makes this pretty clear.

Another funny statement from Batman, considering Batman gets away scot free with killing criminals lol.

It’s not funny. The writers want you think about the concept of them as vigilantes, to consider whether the law should apply to them as well, or whether they have the right to take matters into their own hands.

Now that I can buy.

And this is inherent in the scene.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

No, but neither did I say he meant all that.

If we’re speculating, and you’re going to bring up points about the liklihood of him being convicted for his involvement, etc, I’m going to respond to them.

That's the difference, you're speculating, I'm not. You're the one trying to explain a sentence that has no explanation, visually or verbally, in the movie. You're making up what if situations for it and have nothing to back them up.

Then I guess you have a really broad definition of “jail”. Even in 1992, “jail” didn’t mean “years in prison”. If someone tells me they're going to jail, I take it to mean "They are going to spend some time in jail", but I don't make assumptions about how long they'll be there.

I didn't say years. You said that. I said a considerable amount of time. As in longer than a little time in jail during an investigation.

I don’t think its quite that simple. Selina flat out knew there was proof of his guilt, because she'd seen it.

So? Without proof it's hearsay. Her word against Schreck's.

She also has the whole "He tried to murder me to cover it up" angle to work.

More hearsay. Where's her proof of an attempted murder, or illegal files?

And Bruce, as the film shows toward the middle of it, commissioned a report about the power surplus that led him to question it, so he obviously has some idea that Schreck's power plant proposal is bogus as well.

The Mayor said the same thing at the meeting about the city having enough power to get into the middle of the next century.

So what?

Without any evidence he is planning to build an energy sucking power plant, they have nothing.

Right. But this isn’t a movie that revolves about Batman gathering evidence to use against The Penguin. It’s a movie about Batman stopping the Penguin and dealing with Schreck, period. The Penguin’s use of the dirt he has to blackmail Schreck is more or less used as a gag, but I'd hardly call it a major plot point.

Yeah sure, Guard, the method of convincing Schreck to do as he says is not a major plot point. It's not as though Schreck is helping Cobblepot tout of the kindness of his heart is he. He has to play ball because Penguin has the goods on him. See that's how it works, Guard. Penguin could go and accuse Schreck of killing his partner and owning half the city's fire traps, but without proof he's talking total proof less hearsay.

I wouldn’t call any of the instances of the use of evidence “major”, other than possibly Batman's use of Cobblepot's statements to set Gotham against him. Minor plot points, perhaps, part of larger plot elements certainly, but not major in themselves. They're certainly not anything close to the core of the film.

Ok, if you don't consider using the batarang to frame Batman for kidnapping, Selina being pushed out the window because she uncovered incriminating evidence minor, then you and I have a very different definition of what's important in a story. Without any of these evidence elements, there's no basis for these plot points.

And if someone had an ounce of sense, if they wondered that, they'd probably assume that Batman has some sort of proof that Schreck is guilty of a crime, even if its just knowledge that he was proposing a bogus power plant based on the study Bruce did.

No, they wouldn't assume that. Why should they? It's nothing but hearsay, unless he's got his hands on the secret files.

That's just it. It does make sense. Far as I can tell, you just don’t like that they didn’t show Batman gathering evidence against Schreck, and didn't explain which specific evidence was going to be used to charge him at the moment he was told he was going to jail. Which has nothing to do with whether Batman saying “Shut up, you’re going to jail” makes sense as a statement in itself.

No, I don't like there's no reference to why Max is going to jail, verbal or visual. I didn't have to see it. Just hear it. One sentence. Something.

You're just making up your own wild theories. You've got nothing. I at least have the fact that the movie doesn't support Batman's line in any way, shape or form. This is basically what some of the TDKR defenders were doing with some of the plot holes in that. Something I recall you also criticizing, Guard. Here you are doing it here.

The only plausible explanation given was by PonyBoy.

I dunno, because that's not the dialogue the writers chose to use. Perhaps Batman doesn’t randomly go around telling people they’re going to jail unless the moment calls for it. Given the events of the film…he never really gets the chance to do so anyway. He asks Penguin what he’s after, Penguin is kind of cryptic about his aims, implies Batman won’t win, and then Catwoman shows up and Penguin escapes via umbrella.

I know what happens in the scene lol. The point is it's the same situation you're saying. Batman knows Penguin is rotten, he even found newspaper articles that said the Red Triangle Gang had an aquatic bird boy around the time kids were disappearing. More evidence than he has against Schreck.

So why doesn't he tell Pengy his number is up and he's going to jail? It's because like with Schreck, he had nothing on Pengy but just knowing he's a bad guy.

And that "BS statement" is her questioning the idea of Batman taking Schreck to jail/the police working. The movie makes this pretty clear.

Ummm no because Catwoman could easily be put in jail for blowing up Schreck's store. It was all over the newspapers. Two security guards as witnesses that she was trashing Schreck's store, too. So why is she saying the law doesn't apply to her as well as Batman and Schreck?

It’s not funny. The writers want you think about the concept of them as vigilantes, to consider whether the law should apply to them as well, or whether they have the right to take matters into their own hands.

Really. When is the morality of Batman's actions ever question or even raised in these movies? Gordon or even moralistic Alfred never ever say anything about Batman's murdering antics.

[The Guard]

That's the difference, you're speculating, I'm not. You're the one trying to explain a sentence that has no explanation, visually or verbally, in the movie. You're making up what if situations for it and have nothing to back them up.

Actually, you were. Specifically with regard to the meaning of Batman’s statement.

Batman says “You’re going to jail”, and your interpretation was apparently this:

“If someone tells someone they're going to jail, the only thing anyone will think is they're going to jail for a considerable amount of time. Not some brief investigative time period jail sentence.”

That’s very much speculating, since there’s no evidence that this is what Batman actually means.

By the way, I didn’t just say “We were speculating”.

I said “If we’re speculating, and you’re going to bring up points about the liklihood of him being convicted for his involvement, etc, I’m going to respond to them.”

I didn't say years. You said that. I said a considerable amount of time. As in longer than a little time in jail during an investigation.

And I never said that you said "years". Again, there’s nothing inherent in the word “jail” to indicate it must mean “a considerable amount of time”.

So? Without proof it's hearsay. Her word against Schreck's.

Except, per the film, she knew where the proof was, and what the issue was.

More hearsay. Where's her proof of an attempted murder, or illegal files?

Dunno, as the film doesn’t revolve around those kinds of details, since Catwoman goesn't go through the courts to deal with Schreck trying to kill her, but I would imagine she could file charges and get an investigation done if she wanted to.

The Mayor said the same thing at the meeting about the city having enough power to get into the middle of the next century. So what?

Without any evidence he is planning to build an energy sucking power plant, they have nothing.

It’s pretty much implied that Bruce knows the power plant is not what it seems. He has commissioned a report on the plant itself. Selina certainly knows the truth.

So they don't have "nothing". They have something.

Yeah sure, Guard, the method of convincing Schreck to do as he says is not a major plot point. It's not as though Schreck is helping Cobblepot tout of the kindness of his heart is he. He has to play ball because Penguin has the goods on him. See that's how it works, Guard. Penguin could go and accuse Schreck of killing his partner and owning half the city's fire traps, but without proof he's talking total proof less hearsay.

I don’t consider it major. Not every plot point in a film is “major”. The actual blackmail element itself is essentially played as a joke, and Schreck more or less calculates how he could best use The Penguin if he has to comply. Schreck helps Cobblepot come up to the surface because of the blackmail, yes, but the reveal of the blackmail evidence itself is not, in itself, a "major plot point". Keep in mind, Schreck doesn’t work with The Penguin because of the blackmail. He works with The Penguin because he sees a chance to use Cobblepot to control the business aspects of the power plant, and he convinces Penguin he can make a new man of him.

Ok, if you don't consider using the batarang to frame Batman for kidnapping, Selina being pushed out the window because she uncovered incriminating evidence minor, then you and I have a very different definition of what's important in a story. Without any of these evidence elements, there's no basis for these plot points.

Wait, minor?

I think we have a different definition of "major plot point", yes.

No, they wouldn't assume that. Why should they? It's nothing but hearsay, unless he's got his hands on the secret files.

Because Batman’s not portrayed as a blithering idiot. One would assume that if he says “You’re going to jail”, he has some knowledge on the subject.

You're just making up your own wild theories. You've got nothing. I at least have the fact that the movie doesn't support Batman's line in any way, shape or form. This is basically what some of the TDKR defenders were doing with some of the plot holes in that. Something I recall you also criticizing, Guard. Here you are doing it here.

No, I’m not “making up wild theories”. I’m speculating, and there’s
nothing “wild” about my speculation thus far.

I have also made it quite clear that there is a difference between my own “theories” in the midst of all this speculation, and what I feel the film actually contains. I (and many others) have criticized TDKR defenders for suggesting that the film contains elements that it in fact, does not. Not for suggesting something COULD be. This is not the same scenario. I don't criticize people for imagining things. I criticize them for making actual statements that a film contains something that it doesn't.

I know what happens in the scene lol. The point is it's the same situation you're saying. Batman knows Penguin is rotten, he even found newspaper articles that said the Red Triangle Gang had an aquatic bird boy around the time kids were disappearing. More evidence than he has against Schreck.

Not sure why you’re lol’ing.

You asked me why he doesn’t tell The Penguin he’s going to jail in that scene. I made a suggestion as to why writers might have chosen not to have him say the exact same thing that he later says in a similar situation. Though, it’s not the same situation. Penguin’s mocking the “upstanding citizen” façade that later in the film Schreck is actually putting on for Batman.

So why doesn't he tell Pengy his number is up and he's going to jail? It's because like with Schreck, he had nothing on Pengy but just knowing he's a bad guy.

Except he does have something on Penguin at that point. You yourself said he had more evidence against Penguin than Schreck.

Batman knows Penguin is rotten, he even found newspaper articles that said the Red Triangle Gang had an aquatic bird boy around the time kids were disappearing. More evidence than he has against Schreck

Ummm no because Catwoman could easily be put in jail for blowing up Schreck's store. It was all over the newspapers. Two security guards as witnesses that she was trashing Schreck's store, too. So why is she saying the law doesn't apply to her as well as Batman and Schreck?

"Ummm no", what, exactly?

She’s saying the law doesn’t apply to her as well as Batman and Schreck because that’s her point of view.

Really. When is the morality of Batman's actions ever question or even raised in these movies? Gordon or even moralistic Alfred never ever say anything about Batman's murdering antics.

So, because the issue is not raised elsewhere prior to this moment, a character cannot raise it at this moment in BATMAN RETURNS?

[BatLobsterRises]

I never really thought too much about the logic behind "shut up, you're going to jail" line until now, mostly because I love that line. It's such a Batman-y line, and was kind of refreshing to hear that in a movie where he murders with a smirk. It seemed indicative of some kind of growth, so I buy the idea that he was trying to make an appeal to Selina.

Also, in Batman's defense, he didn't specify when Schreck would be going to jail, haha. Maybe he was planning to beat/intimidate a confession out of him. He is Batman, after all.

Us Bat-folk sure do know how to split hairs over this type of stuff though, eh?

[RustyCage]

I may be mixing Returns up with another movie, but didn't Batman have like a recording of Shreck saying something incriminating?

Also, I like Lobster's idea. Works for me just fine. lol

I think some things are easy for the viewer to imagine a solution for and don't need to be directly explained. This to me is one of those things.

The Burton movies didn't have a very strong crime drama focus like Nolan's, so I don't carry the same expectation of explanation. They're different kinds of Batman.

Edit - Ohhh, I think I'm mixing it up with earlier in the film when he records Penguin saying a bunch of nasty stuff and plays it for the public to hear.

Does he record Shreck too later? Or no?