List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

[BATS N' HORNETS]

for me, the city was an issue... but i felt (WHILE I STILL LOVE THE MOVIE) that there were too many characters...

i also would've liked to see penguin as less of a freak & more of the sort of 19th century holier than thou kind of OLD MONEY persona... (think BTAS)

the red triangle gang was pretty cool...

Walken (while i really love him as an actor) did not fit! If he was going to be a corrupt business man, HE COULD'VE PLAYED IT BETTER

they should've given Keaton an opportunity to do a real Bruce Wayne too...

OTHER THAN ALL THAT THE MOVIE WAS FINE!

[Carlynn Carnage]

Originally Posted by COMICFILMEXPERT

I'm in no way, shape or form condoning that a thread like this be made for all the films, but I think one more for Burton's 1992 follow up would be reasonable.

For me I feel that what they absolutely got right was the atmosphere. A lot of people bash "Returns" for being a Burton film over a Batman film, but I disagree. It's Batman with Burton's visual styling laid over it, but it's still Batman to me.

They also got right something that Burton commented on in the SE DVD Documentary, which was the level of Batman's presence in Gotham. Not necessarily how much screentime he was given but the fact that whether he was on screen or not you could feel him lurking around Gotham, keeping ever vigilant on the city. The scene of him driving the Batmobile through the deserted streets helps this idea. That even if he's not fighting with the Penguin or Catwoman he's out and about doing something, whether it's down in the Batcave digging for information on Cobblepot or patroling the streets in silence.

As for what was wrong, I only have one technical issue.

And that's that out of all the theatrical films, "Batman Returns" Gotham City, while brilliantly designed by Bo Welch, is for me the least like a City. There isn't a feeling of depth to Gotham in this film. It gives off that feeling that it IS in fact an interior set. If you watch the scene after Batman crashes the Bat Ski-Boat through the Arctic World itself and topples upon the Penguin's Duck-Mobile...if you listen...while Batman is climbing out of the Ski Boat and he props his hands onto the canopy to stand up, you can clearly hear some reverberation, despite the fact that this is supposed to be taking place in an exterior setting.

A little nit picking, I know, but I wish the Gotham "BR" actually felt like a city. They tended to stay in one place the entirety of the film, which was Gotham Plaza...surrounded by the Shreck Office/Department Store and the main streets throughout the film.

-----------

CFE

I totally agree. Not to say its an excuse, but it IS Hollywood.

[TMC1982]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Which is 1) Not true, and 2) way off of the actual point I was making.

You obviously haven’t seen any of the King Kong’s movie, or you’d know a giant ape CAN act and become a loveable motion picture/actor in a suit/cgi character. That’s why people feel sorry for him when he dies.

Then again we have the incredibly vibrant and efficient presence of the shark in Jaws, even when we can’t actually see him, and even when he doesn’t have too many scenes. That proves you on the practice – not the theory – that a character doesn’t need more screentime than the rest in order to become a leading presence. Whicvh was my actual point.



Prove that that was the actual intention.

In the meantime I’ll take the freedom to state that Dee Williams was cast for the sake of his talent.



Nor it was on Batman 89.



Which is my whole point. Black or Sicilian, they did change his race from the original comic books character, the same as Batman 89 makers did. The funny thing is that for you changing his race to Sicilian in BTAS doesn’t bother you but changing his race to black in B89 - somehow - does.



Nice piece of trivia that relates to nothing of the discussed point.






You mean you’re “not going to keep wasting your time nitpicking every single aspect or detail of a comic book motion picture (concerning how accurate it is to the actual comics).”

As long as I remember you started a long nitpicking list of changes. Maybe you need a moment alone to reach an agreement with yourself?



Hey, I might go even further on the nitpicking rate and say that:

- Batman brutally and intentionally kills his enemies with zero remorse. Tim Burton seemed to think that Batman should be some quirky, neurotic psycho with a death wish, not a heroic adventure, who is more altruistic in his goals.

- Making the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill.

- Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. Since when was Harvey Dent ever a black man?

- Burton also envisioned Marlon Wayans as Robin.

- The Penguin as a bile spitting, mutant/sewer rat instead of the level headed, gentleman criminal as he was originally intended to be.

- Catwoman as a bipolar, ex-secretary, who mystically (and magically gains martial arts and gymnastic skills in the process) gets revived by alley cats after her boss pushes her out of the window.

- Not showing enough of what inspired Bruce Wayne to become Batman in the first place. All that we know is that his parents got killed in front of him, and now his a reclusive nerd, who wants revenge (he uses his guise as an outlet to beat people who look at him funny up) against the world.


No no wait...


That was YOU.

Magically when I do the same kind of nitpicking on other bat-movies it seems to bother you.

In the meantime I’ll take the freedom to state that Dee Williams was cast for the sake of his talent.

Just because a man has talent still doesn't automatically mean he's right or appropriate for the part. George Clooney for instance wasn't a very good Batman even though he's an Academy Award winner.

Which is my whole point. Black or Sicilian, they did change his race from the original comic books character, the same as Batman 89 makers did. The funny thing is that for you changing his race to Sicilian in BTAS doesn’t bother you but changing his race to black in B89 - somehow - does.

Two-Face was still at the end of the day, a white man in "BTAS" regardless.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by TMC1982

Just because a man has talent still doesn't automatically mean he's right or appropriate for the part.

Or dioesn't autoimatically mean he was put there for the sake of having name recognition.

As my own posture on the subject, yours is pure speculation.

Originally Posted by TMC1982

Two-Face was still at the end of the day, a white man in "BTAS" regardless.

At the end of the day, comic book Harvey Dent is not Sicilian.

[Cagefighterkip]

"Batman Returns" is a brillant movie that I own. It's an awesome MOVIE, but a terrible Batman movie. Maybe the worst.

[TMC1982]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Or dioesn't autoimatically mean he was put there for the sake of having name recognition.

As my own posture on the subject, yours is pure speculation.



At the end of the day, comic book Harvey Dent is not Sicilian.

You completely don't understand my original point. First you said point blank, that Two-Face was black on "BTAS" just like in the 1989 movie. It's fairly obvious (unless you're blind) to many people that Billy Dee Williams is African American. When I point out that he looks that way because the animators (e.g. Bruce Timm) likely intended him to appear to be a certain way to fit their style, you turn it into a "We'll he's not Sicilian in the comics" argument (even though he's still white at the end of the day). Well what the hell is Harvey Dent in the comics then, Irish, Russian... I'm so sick and tired of arguing with you over this because you're just going to continue to twist and stretch this debate out.

[StylishHokie21]

Originally Posted by Cagefighterkip

"Batman Returns" is a brillant movie that I own. It's an awesome MOVIE, but a terrible Batman movie. Maybe the worst.

Worse than Batman and Robin? You can't be serious.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by TMC1982

You completely don't understand my original point. First you said point blank, that Two-Face was black on "BTAS" just like in the 1989 movie. It's fairly obvious (unless you're blind) to many people that Billy Dee Williams is African American. When I point out that he looks that way because the animators (e.g. Bruce Timm) likely intended him to appear to be a certain way to fit their style, you turn it into a "We'll he's not Sicilian in the comics" argument (even though he's still white at the end of the day). Well what the hell is Harvey Dent in the comics then, Irish, Russian... I'm so sick and tired of arguing with you over this because you're just going to continue to twist and stretch this debate out.

Then I’ll quote you:

*Lando Calrissian as Two-Face. Since when was Harvey Dent ever a black man?

So I ask, “Since when was Harvey Dent ever a Sicilian man?” and then I wait for your admission that race for some characters is not a Burton’s issue exclusively and your complaint about BTAS.

As I already pointed out Kingpin and Nick Fury in movies are other examples. Or that black Kojak TV series. Since Dee Williams never got to become Two-Face and his role was only of the Gotham DA, who cares? Now, watching a Sicilian Two-Face...

[NinjaTurtleFan]

WRONG:
1. The Penguin. He's a deformed freak, abandoned by his parents, and lives in solitude inside the sewers with a washed-up circus troupe. They might as well thrown Killer Croc in there. (Which would've been cool.) But Penguin should've been what Nolan was going to make him---an armsdealing gangster who by day owns the Iceberg Lounge, a respected nightclub, but at night he sells and blackmarkets off the latest and greatest in firearms to the mob, the Narrows, and anyone else.

2. Catwoman. No, I LOVED Pffier's Catwoman, but I hated that she was never used for future Batman sequels, so hence why she's a wrong here.

3. Little more interaction from Bruce other than looking pouty-lipped and brooding in his lair.

RIGHT:

1. Catwoman. I love Pffifer's Catwoman as I said before. She's a vixen, a femme fatale, a damsel in distress, and a dominatrix rolled into one.

2. Loved the interaction between Bruce and Selina/Batman and Catwoman. Though wish Catwoman would've seen Batman as a challenge, like a guy she'd love to get his rubber suit off of---like we in the current "The Batman" show where it seems Catwoman is almost flirtatious and infatuated with Batman, even though he is dubious and impervious to her charm.

3. The drab, Burton Gothicism. Although, I found in this movie he went WAY overboard with making everything black. It got to the point where if Gotham City was a real place than if someone came to visit they'd be wondering where all the lights and color went. Not that I'm saying I like Schumacher's neon-pastel-colored-lit Gotham, but Nolan got Gotham City right with making it a real place. A place that could exists with New York, Chicago, and other known cities. What I liked about Burton's Gotham was it was a mix of the comics but also he wanted it to coexist with real life. And I think in a way Burton tried his best to make two Batman movies that felt or tried to seem real to the public. Now of course we've got Nolan's ultra-realistic take on Batman which sort of sucks out any kind of fantasy or disbelief.

4. Max Schrek- Who cannot like Christopher Walken's obvious parody of Donald Trump and other rich conglomerates who put money and power first above the people and uses the unsuspecting for his personal gains and wealth.

5. Penguin runs for mayor. Classic take on the old show but it quickly loses it's speed when he's suddenly eating raw fish, biting a guy's nose, and doing everything and anything unPenguin-like.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by NinjaTurtleFan

WRONG:
1. The Penguin. He's a deformed freak, abandoned by his parents, and lives in solitude inside the sewers with a washed-up circus troupe. They might as well thrown Killer Croc in there. (Which would've been cool.) But Penguin should've been what Nolan was going to make him---an armsdealing gangster who by day owns the Iceberg Lounge, a respected nightclub, but at night he sells and blackmarkets off the latest and greatest in firearms to the mob, the Narrows, and anyone else.

Yes but unlike Nolan Burton did not have the luxury of that interpretation even existing yet. Back in 1990 and 1991 he was still a lame villain with an umbrella gimmick. It amazes me how many bat fans underestimate the influence that TAS interpretations of sorry characters like Mr. Freeze, The Penguin and The Riddler had on subsequent comic books. Those interpretations helped comic writers do what they couldn't do for decades, finally make them credible.

[BATS N' HORNETS]

the animated series definately had credible origins as well as characteristics that weren't seen in the comics... that later the comics kind of adopted!

the show did a lot for batman's world... making things better that neither filmmakers or comicbook writers could accomplish...

it bridged the gap between all forms of media for batman, giving a more realistic, more rounded world for Batman and DC comics in general

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

^ I agree!

[The Guard]

1. The Penguin. He's a deformed freak, abandoned by his parents, and lives in solitude inside the sewers with a washed-up circus troupe. They might as well thrown Killer Croc in there. (Which would've been cool.) But Penguin should've been what Nolan was going to make him---an armsdealing gangster who by day owns the Iceberg Lounge, a respected nightclub, but at night he sells and blackmarkets off the latest and greatest in firearms to the mob, the Narrows, and anyone else.

THe Penguin IS, in many ways, a deformed freak. That was part of the character's hook in the comics. That he looked so odd and tried to be normal.

Maybe The Penguin could have been a mob boss, and maybe he should have been. But even in early Batman scripts like THE BATMAN, he was depicted as a mostly solitary, cold blooded criminal freak. So where would the inspiration for that version of the character have come from?

In 1990 (when script work started on the sequel), and even in 1992, the "current" version of The Penguin didn't exist. In fact, that version of The Penguin didn't really exist in comics on any appreciable level until BATMAN: THE NEW BATMAN ADVENTURES presented it several years later. The first BTAS Penguin was actually clearly based on the RETURNS version and the comic book version's penchant for bird and flight crimes.

2. Catwoman. No, I LOVED Pffier's Catwoman, but I hated that she was never used for future Batman sequels, so hence why she's a wrong here.

True. But then, if you've ever read the original CATWOMAN spinoff script (and the nine subsequent drafts), you would probably have never wanted to see her again.

3. Little more interaction from Bruce other than looking pouty-lipped and brooding in his lair.

Not seeing what you are. He went out in public. He went to parties. He had social interactions and he had a romance developing. He also engaged in behind the scenes detective work? What else did you want him to do?

2. Loved the interaction between Bruce and Selina/Batman and Catwoman. Though wish Catwoman would've seen Batman as a challenge, like a guy she'd love to get his rubber suit off of---like we in the current "The Batman" show where it seems Catwoman is almost flirtatious and infatuated with Batman, even though he is dubious and impervious to her charm.

I know what you mean, but there's a definite "You're a challenge" element there. The scene where she's on top of him under the mistletoe? Oh yeah.

the animated series definately had credible origins as well as characteristics that weren't seen in the comics... that later the comics kind of adopted!

the show did a lot for batman's world... making things better that neither filmmakers or comicbook writers could accomplish...

it bridged the gap between all forms of media for batman, giving a more realistic, more rounded world for Batman and DC comics in general

What's interesting about BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is that it had that impact on the comics, and really, if you take a long look at it, wasn't all that faithful, visually or otherwise. It drew from an obvious era (the late 70's and early 80's), and from the Batman mythos overall, but the creators absolutely reinvented most of the characters.

They softened up Harvey Bullock considerably. Before this, Bullock had been mostly known for being a sometimes crooked cop who was trying to go straight. They made Bullock into the straight man, and it seeped into the comics.

They borrowed the "bat grapple" idea from the movie and made it a staple of the Batman mythology. They pioneered the "folding batarang" concept.

They introduced Harley Quinn and Rene Montoya.

They gave Mr. Freeze a credible, somewhat tragic origin story and motivation. Then they went crazy and made him into a real freak.

They did a similar thing for Killer Croc and The Ventriloquist.

They toned down The Riddler quite a bit, which obviously influenced Jeph Loeb, and then later became an element of the comics.

They turned The Penguin into a more refined mob boss. The comics later adapted this, and had him abandon his "umbrells and bird crimes" schtick.

They made Tim Drake a younger appearing version of Robin, and this, if you pay attention, also made it's way into the comics, as Tim began to be depicted as younger and younger visually for a long time.

As far as DC Comics itself goes, the animated series influenced the portrayals of Mr. Freeze, the acquisition of Harley Quinn and Rene Montoya.

And the 2000 Batman mythology redesign basically just made all the characters, gadgetry, locations, etc, directly resemble their animated counterparts. Ditto the later ONE YEAR LATER redesign of Robin's outfit.

Batman Returns treated Batman like he should be: a complete badass creature of the night who uses martial arts to win over his adversaries.

Batman Begins got Batman wrong. The Batman in Begins just jumps around and we rarely see any punches or kicks or anything.

[The Guard]

I'm gonna stay away from that one...

Originally Posted by The Guard

I'm gonna stay away from that one...

I don't think you understood my post.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Harmonica

Batman Returns treated Batman like he should be: a complete badass creature of the night who uses martial arts to win over his adversaries.

Batman Begins got Batman wrong. The Batman in Begins just jumps around and we rarely see any punches or kicks or anything.

The only thing wrong here is you. The Batman of BB is no less correct (overall) than Burton's version. People want to act like there's a great divide. There's actually more in common with both Burton and Nolans' films than there are differences.

Unless that was an April Fool's post. In which case, good on ya!

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Originally Posted by Harmonica

Batman Returns treated Batman like he should be: a complete badass creature of the night who uses martial arts to win over his adversaries.

Batman Begins got Batman wrong. The Batman in Begins just jumps around and we rarely see any punches or kicks or anything.

I wouldnt even go there if I were you!

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by NinjaTurtleFan

2. Catwoman. No, I LOVED Pffier's Catwoman, but I hated that she was never used for future Batman sequels, so hence why she's a wrong here.

I think that's exactly why she coould be wrong anywhere but in BR.

[Riven]

Originally Posted by NinjaTurtleFan

Penguin should've been what Nolan was going to make him---an armsdealing gangster who by day owns the Iceberg Lounge, a respected nightclub, but at night he sells and blackmarkets off the latest and greatest in firearms to the mob, the Narrows, and anyone else.

As far as we know, Nolan NEVER planned to feature the Penguin that way, or any other way. The only thing Nolan ever said about the Penguin is that he doubted he would fit in the universe he was creating.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it's just too often these totally unfounded rumours get picked up, spread around and eventually are used as solid facts and arguments in a discussion. The "gangster/arms dealer/nightclub owner Penguin" supposedly conceived by Nolan is just fanboy wishing, inspired by BTAS and the comics...

[BATS N' HORNETS]

To compare Burton & Nolan is actually very appropriate.... there are things that both got right & wrong....

With BR, I think the biggest problem was that it was strictly a Burton movie as opposed to B'89.... there were several unneccessary Burton elements in BR that have little to do w/ Batman...


With Begins, well let's just say, it had plot flaws etc. but overall this was probably closest to source material, say, next to B' 89....

i think BB relied more on Batman: Year One & The Man Who Falls... Burton's masterpeice B'89 was more in tune w/ Killing Joke/ Arkham Asylum...

[BATS N' HORNETS]

What's interesting about BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is that it had that impact on the comics, and really, if you take a long look at it, wasn't all that faithful, visually or otherwise. It drew from an obvious era (the late 70's and early 80's), and from the Batman mythos overall, but the creators absolutely reinvented most of the characters.

They softened up Harvey Bullock considerably. Before this, Bullock had been mostly known for being a sometimes crooked cop who was trying to go straight. They made Bullock into the straight man, and it seeped into the comics.

They borrowed the "bat grapple" idea from the movie and made it a staple of the Batman mythology. They pioneered the "folding batarang" concept.

They introduced Harley Quinn and Rene Montoya.

They gave Mr. Freeze a credible, somewhat tragic origin story and motivation. Then they went crazy and made him into a real freak.

They did a similar thing for Killer Croc and The Ventriloquist.

They toned down The Riddler quite a bit, which obviously influenced Jeph Loeb, and then later became an element of the comics.

They turned The Penguin into a more refined mob boss. The comics later adapted this, and had him abandon his "umbrells and bird crimes" schtick.

They made Tim Drake a younger appearing version of Robin, and this, if you pay attention, also made it's way into the comics, as Tim began to be depicted as younger and younger visually for a long time.

As far as DC Comics itself goes, the animated series influenced the portrayals of Mr. Freeze, the acquisition of Harley Quinn and Rene Montoya.

And the 2000 Batman mythology redesign basically just made all the characters, gadgetry, locations, etc, directly resemble their animated counterparts. Ditto the later ONE YEAR LATER redesign of Robin's outfit.

That's exactly what I meant when I said that BTAS bridged gaps

[Parents-Gun-Bat]

"Batman Returns" is not a "Batman" movie at all. And even considering this, this movie is so bad and corny.

"You do have dark side, Selina, yeah, yeah" Duality. And some people claim that Nolan spelled things out to much???

[Mr. Socko]

Originally Posted by Cagefighterkip

"Batman Returns" is a brillant movie that I own. It's an awesome MOVIE, but a terrible Batman movie. Maybe the worst.

I disagree, because a handful of characters were portrayed differently than in the comics does not make it a terrible Batman movie. And to simply think that through itself, "Batman.Movie." What was it missing? We had the hero, excellent(though different than the comics) supervillains, a terrific love interest, and a perfect human villain in the form of Max Shreck. It's the story of Batman vs Penguin vs Catwoman, it was pulled off wonderfully. How does that qualify for a terrible Batman movie? This is one of the numerous ways that Batman can be portrayed.

It's also one of the very few comic book films that correctly captured the superhero romanticism. There are two things I dislike about this movie, the first was "eat floor high fiber," I loathe this line. The other was the poor use of Commissioner Gordon.

[DocLathropBrown]

Originally Posted by Parents-Gun-Bat

"Batman Returns" is not a "Batman" movie at all. And even considering this, this movie is so bad and corny.

"You do have dark side, Selina, yeah, yeah" Duality. And some people claim that Nolan spelled things out to much???

Those arguments are formulaic and weak. At least flesh them out so you don't look like a worthless hater/buffoon.

And if you know ANYTHING about Batman at all, you wouldn't be saying something as baseless as "it's not a Batman movie at all." How is this true? Got any words to back up that hollow and self-important critique? Try learning about Batman outside of Batman Begins before you go around believing the crap that everyone else says about the other adaptations, and you'll find the stereotypes about the Burton films in particular are just that--stereotypes.

Not that you care about being accurate. Judging by your posts, you just seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon and thought you sounded slick. You don't seem to fully grasp the concept of meaningful argument, nor the finer points of comic book adaptation.

If you want to get technical, Nolan made just as many changes to some of the source material as Burton did. Oh, wait! So, does that mean that Batman Begins is also "not a Batman movie at all"?

And for as corny as some of the lines may be ("Eat floor, high fiber."), at least they're delivered in a mocking, condescending way as to take them out of the camp that they were on the page and turn them into byproducts of wild human idiosyncrasies. Nolan couldn't even do that with Goyer's higher number of corny lines. The inefficient way that they're delivered make them clunky as opposed to natural, and that draws more attention to them ("This... is your mask....", talk about smacking you in the face).

I don't have many complaints about Batman Begins, but your insults against Batman Returns are baseless and easily deflated. Tossing poorly thought insults does not make a good argument. If you think Batman Returns sucks, actually detail why with solid arguments. Not pieces of opinion.

But anyone who argues that Batman Returns (or BATMAN, for that matter) is a poor adaptation are probably not well-versed enough in Batman lore to really know anything about anything.