Batman and Batman Returns: how faithful to the comic?

[Kevin Roegele]

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=40

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=58


Some superb articles here examining just how similar Batman and Returns are to the source material. You'll be surprised.

For example:

 

[Brother Jack]

The only thing that really seems to be taken verbatim is the passed-out Selina Kyle with cat image.

 

[El Payaso]

Burton took a freeking lot right out from the first Batman comics and it shows.

 

[Drz]

Burton had only read the Killing Joke pretty much. I wouldn't call the Burton movies that much comic loyal and i found it incredibly stupid to have Batman blow up the Ace factory (which you know, could have been used as a JOB area for the unemployed) and especially Gotham city rooting for a murdering vigilante. >_< Not blaming Burton or anything. I'm very aware the script got changed left and right.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Copying some visuals from the comics is just faithful on a superficial level. Fact is that the Batman / Bruce Wayne of the comics has never shown the mannerism of the movie character. (oh yes, he KILLED BACK IN THE DAY; KANE FINGER!!! COLD BLOODED KILLER111!!!! PUNISHER LIKE A WUSS COMAPRED!!!11!, I know )

 

[El Payaso]

Burton had only read the Killing Joke pretty much. I wouldn't call the Burton movies that much comic loyal

Burton said that The Killing Joke was the one he "truily loved," not the only one he read.

and i found it incredibly stupid to have Batman blow up the Ace factory (which you know, could have been used as a JOB area for the unemployed)

Well, considering that it could have been used for further criminal activity, not to mention it was being used to poison innocent people, it was far from stupid.

and especially Gotham city rooting for a murdering vigilante. >_< Not blaming Burton or anything. I'm very aware the script got changed left and right.

Well, they were trapped between corrupt authorities and a mass murder. Someone who kills the bad guys once in a while and save dozens of innocent people sounds more than great.

Copying some visuals from the comics is just faithful on a superficial level. Fact is that the Batman / Bruce Wayne of the comics has never shown the mannerism of the movie character. (oh yes, he KILLED BACK IN THE DAY; KANE FINGER!!! COLD BLOODED KILLER111!!!! PUNISHER LIKE A WUSS COMAPRED!!!11!, I know )

Oh, at least you know you're wrong.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Copying some visuals from the comics is just faithful on a superficial level. Fact is that the Batman / Bruce Wayne of the comics has never shown the mannerism of the movie character. (oh yes, he KILLED BACK IN THE DAY; KANE FINGER!!! COLD BLOODED KILLER111!!!! PUNISHER LIKE A WUSS COMAPRED!!!11!, I know )

Okay. In the Case of the Chemical Syndicate, Batman throws a burglar from the top of a house, then punches a criminal into a vat of acid. "A fitting end for his kind," he says.

Does that not count for you? The first ever Batman story is somehow invalid as you don't like Batman killing people?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Okay. In the Case of the Chemical Syndicate, Batman throws a burglar from the top of a house, then punches a criminal into a vat of acid. "A fitting end for his kind," he says.

Does that not count for you? The first ever Batman story is somehow invalid as you don't like Batman killing people?

Wow. Go tell me.

For the record: This Batman didn't even have a psychological background because his origin wasn't invented yet. The early Batman is also not some disturbed being sitting in his castle, he was a swashbuckler, complete with one-liners. The killing isn't even my problem, it's about characters. But Superman and Hawkman killed, too. So in the next Superman movie he should throw people into their own bullets?

But you won't learn. I get it. You like the Burton movie. Fine. Doesn't mean that they are close to the source material. If it were a bad movie you would bash it for the unfaithfulness but so it gets away with it. It's just the way it is.

 

[Drz]

Well, considering that it could have been used for further criminal activity, not to mention it was being used to poison innocent people, it was far from stupid.

If you find a capable factory has criminal activity do you:
A) Take down the criminals and thru your Wayne corporation buy the factory and make unemployed receive a job
B) Blow the **** out of it.

Well, they were trapped between corrupt authorities and a mass murder. Someone who kills the bad guys once in a while and save dozens of innocent people sounds more than great.

Ofcourse it sounds great at first, but it is Batman's POV whos a good guy and whos bad. What happens when he starts killing more and more? Regular burglars who steal out of hunger for example. Should they receive death too?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Wow. Go tell me.

For the record: This Batman didn't even have a psychological background because his origin wasn't invented yet.

What difference does that make?

Anyway. his background was first published in Detective #33, November 1939. Not long after the first story.

The early Batman is also not some disturbed being sitting in his castle, he was a swashbuckler, complete with one-liners.

He does have one-liners, but a lot of the early stories is him creeping around in the shadows looking menacing.

But you won't learn. I get it. You like the Burton movie. Fine. Doesn't mean that they are close to the source material. If it were a bad movie you would bash it for the unfaithfulness but so it gets away with it. It's just the way it is.

You know, whether it is close to the source material does not effect whether I think it's a good movie or not, or a valid interpretation of Batman or not. I don't like the movie and then have to convince myself it's 'the proper Batman' and that I am 'a proper Batman fan'.

Alternatively, I don't sit and watch a movie and think, "This is not how I think he character should behave, therefore it's wrong." Especially a character who has been the subject of thousands of stories by hundred of people over nearly a century.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If you find a capable factory has criminal activity do you:
A) Take down the criminals and thru your Wayne corporation buy the factory and make unemployed receive a job
B) Blow the **** out of it.

I think you have to consider that...

A. Batman is not out to stabilize the economy and provide jobs. He's a vengeance-driven near psychotic driven to hunting down the crimnals of Gotham.

B. This is a Hollywood action movie.

 

[El Payaso]

Wow. Go tell me.

For the record: This Batman didn't even have a psychological background because his origin wasn't invented yet. The early Batman is also not some disturbed being sitting in his castle, he was a swashbuckler, complete with one-liners.

So that Batman didn't even had a background for his behaviour like Burton's did. More power to him.

The killing isn't even my problem, it's about characters. But Superman and Hawkman killed, too. So in the next Superman movie he should throw people into their own bullets?

Well Superman has never been as dark as Batman. Nevertheless I personally don't ahve half a problem with him being more extreme.

But you won't learn. I get it. You like the Burton movie. Fine. Doesn't mean that they are close to the source material.

I get it. You hate the Burton movie. Fine. Doesn't mean that they are unfaithful to the source material.

If it were a bad movie you would bash it for the unfaithfulness but so it gets away with it. It's just the way it is.

I agree with the bottomline; Batman 89 is a good movie.

If you find a capable factory has criminal activity do you:
A) Take down the criminals and thru your Wayne corporation buy the factory and make unemployed receive a job
B) Blow the **** out of it.

I find a factopry that's filled with poisonous products I'd blow it away asap. As Wayne I can re-build it again later but as Gotham's saviour I'd make myself sure that under no circumstances anyone could use those products. Plus, you're ruining Joker's headquarters.

Ofcourse it sounds great at first, but it is Batman's POV whos a good guy and whos bad.

Happily for Gotham, Batman considers bad guys criminals who kills and damage innocent people.

What happens when he starts killing more and more?

There's going to be less and less criminals. More and more innocent people would be safe from them as a consequence.

Regular burglars who steal out of hunger for example. Should they receive death too?

Those two punks at the beginning of the movie most likely stole to survive. I didn't see Batman killing them.

 

[Gilpesh]

And people complain about the Nolan fans.

 

[El Payaso]

And people complain about the Nolan fans.

Who does? They're lovely.

 

[Drz]

I think you have to consider that...

A. Batman is not out to stabilize the economy and provide jobs. He's a vengeance-driven near psychotic driven to hunting down the crimnals of Gotham.

Looks like someone's forgetting that fightning crime isn't simply about punching people. Batman: War on Crime by Paul Dini and Alex Ross is a good example of this.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

What difference does that make?

Anyway. his background was first published in Detective #33, November 1939. Not long after the first story.

The difference is that all these claims that Batman started out as a "psychotic aveger" are just bogus.

He does have one-liners, but a lot of the early stories is him creeping around in the shadows looking menacing.

Has NOTHING do with his personality. It's just his style. I am talking about CHARACTERS. And in that regard Burton's take is usually (with a few exceptions, like Alfred or the Joker) as far away from the source as the Andromeda galaxy from the Milky Way.

You know, whether it is close to the source material does not effect whether I think it's a good movie or not, or a valid interpretation of Batman or not. I don't like the movie and then have to convince myself it's 'the proper Batman' and that I am 'a proper Batman fan'.

Alternatively, I don't sit and watch a movie and think, "This is not how I think he character should behave, therefore it's wrong." Especially a character who has been the subject of thousands of stories by hundred of people over nearly a century.

That's fine, but then please accept that there are people who feel otherwise. Please forgive me that I was a Batman fan long before Burton's movie and that I have a problem that he gets re-introduced to the world in a totally wrong way. I do not approve this "Well, a movie is a movie so let's just **** the source material, take the names, pervert the material" Hollywood concept. Why not invent your own character? Wait! Then there would be no public buzz and his design is not as cool as Batman's!

And don't try to hammer false facts into the brain of people who do know nothing about Batman. If you don't have a problem with the movie not being close to the source (it has bigger flaws than that, BTW t: ) then why do you try to make it appear otherwise?

 

[El Payaso]

The difference is that all these claims that Batman started out as a "psychotic aveger" are just bogus.

It started killing some criminals. You add some other ingredients from Batman history and you've got yourself the same original character with a better background. How hard is to comprehend?

Has NOTHING do with his personality. It's just his style.

One comes from the other.

I am talking about CHARACTERS. And in that regard Burton's take is usually (with a few exceptions, like Alfred or the Joker) as far away from the source as the Andromeda galaxy from the Milky Way.

Or as far as many other directors. Nobodsy's saying that Burtoin's take is exactly like the comics. But no superhero movie is.

That's fine, but then please accept that there are people who feel otherwise.

That's fine, but then please accept that there are people who feel otherwise.

Please forgive me that I was a Batman fan long before Burton's movie and that I have a problem that he gets re-introduced to the world in a totally wrong way. I do not approve this "Well, a movie is a movie so let's just **** the source material, take the names, pervert the material" Hollywood concept. Why not invent your own character? Wait! Then there would be no public buzz and his design is not as cool as Batman's!

Forgive so many directors for having to pout 50+ years of comics in one movie, merging characters and facts, changing some others. It's just the way it is.

And don't try to hammer false facts into the brain of people who do know nothing about Batman. If you don't have a problem with the movie not being close to the source (it has bigger flaws than that, BTW t: ) then why do you try to make it appear otherwise?

Because movie-comics similarities in any suyperhero movie deserves a thread. Accept it. If you can't, nobody's forcing you to come here and post.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

It started killing some criminals. You add some other ingredients from Batman history and you've got yourself the same original character with a better background. How hard is to comprehend?



One comes from the other.



Or as far as many other directors. Nobodsy's saying that Burtoin's take is exactly like the comics. But no superhero movie is.



That's fine, but then please accept that there are people who feel otherwise.



Forgive so many directors for having to pout 50+ years of comics in one movie, merging characters and facts, changing some others. It's just the way it is.



Because movie-comics similarities in any suyperhero movie deserves a thread. Accept it. If you can't, nobody's forcing you to come here and post.

My name is venomvsspidey, and I approve of this post

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The difference is that all these claims that Batman started out as a "psychotic aveger" are just bogus.

And don't try to hammer false facts into the brain of people who do know nothing about Batman. If you don't have a problem with the movie not being close to the source (it has bigger flaws than that, BTW t: ) then why do you try to make it appear otherwise?

I don't wish to argue about this. I am genuinely intrested in the discussion of how close (or not) these movies are to the source material.

I'm not trying to hammer any facts into anyone's heads, nor am I involved in any 'bogus claims' about anything. The pictures presented are taken from the comic. I think the two Burton movies are closer to the source material that some think - including myself when I came across those articles.

I haven't even made any claim as to whether I even like the two Burton movies. I am simply here to discuss their faithfulness to the source.

The 'psychotic avenger' thing I have never even mentioned, simply that he does kill in those early stories.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, in some occasions people feel the hammering even when there's no hammer.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think you have to consider that...

A. Batman is not out to stabilize the economy and provide jobs. He's a vengeance-driven near psychotic driven to hunting down the crimnals of Gotham.

The 'psychotic avenger' thing I have never even mentioned, simply that he does kill in those early stories.

Well.

Just to remind you, the Batman of the comics does exactly that: trying to stabilize the economy.

Just to all: John Wayne's characters also killed people. So they are psychotic?

 

[Travesty]

For the record: This Batman didn't even have a psychological background because his origin wasn't invented yet. The early Batman is also not some disturbed being sitting in his castle, he was a swashbuckler, complete with one-liners. The killing isn't even my problem, it's about characters. But Superman and Hawkman killed, too. So in the next Superman movie he should throw people into their own bullets?

And at that time, neither did The Joker, and it seems Nolan took Jokers first appearance as an influence in TDK. It's a Joker that doesn't really crack jokes, is bland, dark, and brooding. I don't like it, and I've admitted it, but it is "faithful" to the comics, in a way. Why is Nolan's interpretation "good", while Burton's is "bad"?

But you won't learn. I get it. You like the Burton movie. Fine. Doesn't mean that they are close to the source material. If it were a bad movie you would bash it for the unfaithfulness but so it gets away with it. It's just the way it is.

You're just denying what is actually the truth, in order to establish, what you feel, is a solid opinion. It's not a solid opinion, when it seems your logic is flawed. Again, I can say the same thing about TDK, which I do, but I'm not going to deny that it is "faithful" to its source material.

Now, I will say stuff like, "I don't think The Joker should do this or that", and that is just my opinion of what I like most out of the character, but you've got to admit to it. You're just denying the source materiel, and shrugging it off as, "just because it's a good movie", when in reality, it is truthful to the source material, just not the source material that you happen to like. If you don't like the Burton movies, just say so, but don't come up with crazy logic, or loop-holes that don't even make sense.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Server ate my response so I'll make it short

- I prefer Nicholson over Ledger
- Getting Batman's character is more important than getting the villains right, Batman can exist without the Joker, taking some visual inspiration is a nice touch but has nothing to do with characters.
- I like the early Batman and even the first Burton movie to some degree. But the early Batman is not Burton's Batman. Not at all.
- Early Batman is like Zorro.

 

[returntovoid]

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=40

http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?display=58

Some superb articles here examining just how similar Batman and Returns are to the source material. You'll be surprised.

I have read those articles and started to appreciate the Tim Burton Batman films more.

Why was there a supernatural version of the character with a different hair color??? Or was Kevlar armor used to survive being shot??? What's with this "9 Lives" thing, some kind of superstition???

 

[Travesty]

^ I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but cats are supposed to have nine lives. It's just a saying, cause they always seem to survive high falls.