How would you describe Batman Returns?

[Ere]

And Alfred should be bald and have a moustache, yes.

Those points (along with Keaton's appearance and physique), I overlooked because they were mistakes made by B89.

But all in all tiny details like those don't prevent movies and characters to work anyways.

That's true. What prevented the movie from working for me was the plot.

Great. Because she wasn't that in Returns.

Um... yes, she was. She was killed, then revived by a bunch of cats with no explanation whatsoever. *

You don't have to be sorry abiout your opinions but have a good background.

Keep reading.

That's not much of thinking actually. No argument to be seen.

Let's see. One is a high class mobster who has a fixation with penguins, so the calls himself the Penguin.

The other one is a deformed freak who was abandoned and thrown into the Gotham sewers when he was a baby, then he was taken in by a group of penguins who lived there. WTF? *
Years later, after growing up, he decides to go back to the surface of Gotham and win the compassion of the Gothamites. Then he decides to run for Mayor. And almost wins, despite having a shady backstory * (as shown when Batman speculated the Penguin was responsible for the disappearance of children during his time in the circus freak show), and despite biting a guy's nose in front of the public. *
When Batman prevents him from becoming Mayor, he decides to kill all the kids in Gotham. And by this point, I still don't get where his murdering tendencies come from. I mean, ok, he was abandoned as a infant and later taken by a circus group. But did the movie ever specify that he was abused as a child by the circus members, or anything that would really explain why he became a mass murderer?

Out of the two stories, the comics version is the one that makes the most sense. Noticed all the *'s in my message? Those are the WTF moments that prevented me from taking serious the movie. I didn't put one in the last sentence just in case the movie gave an actual explanation for the Penguin's behavior and I missed it.

I haven't asked actually but Burton's monstruous Penguin is much more interesting than a regular chubby guy in a tuxedo. If you disagree please articulate some reasons.

I lost interest when his story stopped making any sense to me.

If you contradict statements for no reason and you don't even realize you're doing it, I don't think I'm ok with you agreeing with anything.

When did I contradict myself?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Ere...

Could list at least 5 of your favorite movies for me?

 

[Cain]

Um... yes, she was. She was killed, then revived by a bunch of cats with no explanation whatsoever. *

Uh as you stated there is no explanation whatsoever. He stated what he did because that sequence is left open to interpretation. It's very deliberately left that way as it's something Burton learned from German filmmaking. It's the same reason the "did Batman drop Napier into the acid?" debate continues on 19 years later.

The multiple awnings that helped break her fall were put there for a reason. Otherwise she would've fell directly and then that would explicitly mean that she was actually dead. It's the same reason we're not told that she's into self defense in dialogue. So some people are like "how did she learn to fight?" but we clearly see that she carries a taser gun in her purse so it's easy to conclude that she has indeed taken self defense classes. I think the subtlety in Burton's style are both a gift and a curse to his movies but that's what helps keep them interesting.

 

[Ere]

Ere...

Could list at least 5 of your favorite movies for me?

Huh? What do my tastes in movies have to do with anything?

Uh as you stated there is no explanation whatsoever. He stated what he did because that sequence is left open to interpretation. It's very deliberately left that way as it's something Burton learned from German filmmaking. It's the same reason the "did Batman drop Napier into the acid?" debate continues on 19 years later.

The multiple awnings that helped break her fall were put there for a reason. Otherwise she would've fell directly and then that would explicitly mean that she was actually dead.

I don't get it. If it was possible to survive a fall like that, then I don't understand why Shreck was so shocked when he saw Selina alive. Or why he didn't shoot her or something when he had the chance.

It's the same reason we're not told that she's into self defense in dialogue. So some people are like "how did she learn to fight?" but we clearly see that she carries a taser gun in her purse so it's easy to conclude that she has indeed taken self defense classes. I think the subtlety in Burton's style are both a gift and a curse to his movies but that's what helps keep them interesting.

If she was already good in self-defense, then how come that it was so easy for Shreck to throw her out of the window?

 

[El Payaso]

Those points (along with Keaton's appearance and physique), I overlooked because they were mistakes made by B89.

Not to mention that Michael Caine wasn't exactly thin bald and with a moustache. Or that Flass has never been a short fat long dark-haired guy.

That's true. What prevented the movie from working for me was the plot.

So it has nothing to do with Catwoman's hair color.

Um... yes, she was. She was killed, then revived by a bunch of cats with no explanation whatsoever. *

Any proof of that other than your personal comprehension of the scene?

She was never dead; those awnings stopped the velocity of her fall and saved them. And of course the cats never revived her.

With that power of comprehension I understand why the plot was a problem for you.

Keep reading.

This is what I think:

Comics Penguin > Burton's Penguin

Yes, that was your best background. But that doesn't mean it is any good.

Let's see. One is a high class mobster who has a fixation with penguins, so the calls himself the Penguin.

The other one is a deformed freak who was abandoned and thrown into the Gotham sewers when he was a baby, then he was taken in by a group of penguins who lived there. WTF? *

So far Burton's Penguin sounds much more interesting.

Years later, after growing up, he decides to go back to the surface of Gotham and win the compassion of the Gothamites. Then he decides to run for Mayor.

So the comics Penguin's social climber nature is still there.

And almost wins, despite having a shady backstory * (as shown when Batman speculated the Penguin was responsible for the disappearance of children during his time in the circus freak show), and despite biting a guy's nose in front of the public. *

Again your perception problems strike. He never bit that guy's nose in front of the public but only before people working on his campaign, namely only people working for Schreck. They're highly paid and won't say a word naturally.

Real candidates have done worse things in front of their own campaign team and they have been elected. Where's the problem?

Then again, why do Batman's speculations should have been a problem at all? They're only a one person's ideas which he never shared (except Alfred). Bruce Wayne had to do a lot of research to find Penguin's past; it is obvious than nobody else did. And since Penguin was considered a hero (he saved the mayor's child) he won the public's heart. Happens every day in politics.

Max Schreck himself has gained power violating law and rules, why with Penguin should be a problerm to do the exact same thing?

When Batman prevents him from becoming Mayor, he decides to kill all the kids in Gotham. And by this point, I still don't get where his murdering tendencies come from. I mean, ok, he was abandoned as a infant and later taken by a circus group. But did the movie ever specify that he was abused as a child by the circus members, or anything that would really explain why he became a mass murderer?

Being abandoned by his parents and thrown to a river depriving him from a normal life is reason enough.

Again, in the real world that kind of things have produced murderers, what's the problem in here?

Killing the children was Penguin's original plan for revenge to make all people in Gotham to live his own misery. It was Schreck's idea of making him the mayor what deviated Penguin from that in the first place.

Btw, has any movie explained why Joker likes to kill people to start with?

Out of the two stories, the comics version is the one that makes the most sense.

Nevertheless is the less interesting by a long shot, even in your own words: "A high class mobster who has a fixation with penguins, so the calls himself the Penguin."

Sense doesn't bring interest to anything necessarily.

Noticed all the *'s in my message? Those are the WTF moments that prevented me from taking serious the movie. I didn't put one in the last sentence just in case the movie gave an actual explanation for the Penguin's behavior and I missed it.

You did miss it and it was all over the movie. Having that in mind, it is no mistery how did you find so many WTF moments.

I lost interest when his story stopped making any sense to me.

A man that dresses as a bat to fight crime.

I guess you stopped being interested in Batman a long time ago.

That said... was that to articulate a reason?

When did I contradict myself?

I never said you did. You just contradicted my statement and forced a perspective for the mere reason of not having a better thing to say.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't get it.

Obviously.

If it was possible to survive a fall like that, then I don't understand why Shreck was so shocked when he saw Selina alive.

Because he didn't count with the awnings saving Selina's life. And in the end he never knew how did Selina survive.

Or why he didn't shoot her or something when he had the chance.

Because shooting a person could never be disguised as an accident.

If she was already good in self-defense, then how come that it was so easy for Shreck to throw her out of the window?

She was shy as hell. Plus, just before throwing her throuigh the wondow, Schreck acted as if it was all a joke. Selina bought that and didn't see Shreck's push coming.

 

[MysterioMenace]

No one should be taking Catwoman so literally. It’s never been confirmed that she was actually revived by cat-breath or something whatsoever. They didn’t give her some superhuman abilities or cat powers.
As mentioned, it’s really all up to interpretation. I think anyone that feels Catwoman’s somehow a zombie…is a little stupid. Once again, don’t take it so literally. Her fall was broken by the window awnings. She lands in a gritty back alley filled with stray alley cats whom curiously begin to eat her. She’s woken up by this and stumbles home dazed and confused. The traumatic experience reverts her into the personification of a cat. Granted she’s definitely gone psycho, but wouldn‘t this sort of thing do a number on your psyche too? Felines are something she takes comfort in though, they’re her friends, hence why she chose cats. It’s one way that she copes with the experiences that just occurred. It’s also the form she chooses for revenge. She doesn’t actually literally have nine-lives. She’s warped herself into believing she has them, she’s merely oftentimes saved by circumstance. So no...she's not a zombie...

 

[Ere]

Not to mention that Michael Caine wasn't exactly thin bald and with a moustache. Or that Flass has never been a short fat long dark-haired guy.

Alfred didn't look exactly like he did in the comics. But at least I thought his appearance fitted his personality.
I didn't like that Flass, but could overlook him because he was a minor and unimportant character in BB (and not that big a character in the comics).

So it has nothing to do with Catwoman's hair color.

Catwoman's hair is just one of the factors.

This is what I think:

Comics Penguin > Burton's Penguin

Yes, that was your best background. But that doesn't mean it is any good.

I meant keep reading this post, not keep reading the post you quoted.

Any proof of that other than your personal comprehension of the scene?

She was never dead; those awnings stopped the velocity of her fall and saved them. And of course the cats never revived her.

Keep reading this post.

So far Burton's Penguin sounds much more interesting.

I didn't say the comics version was interesting. I said it made more sense. Why are there penguins in the Gotham sewers? And how on earth can penguins take care of a human child and keep him alive?

So the comics Penguin's social climber nature is still there.

Like I stated, I don't care a lot about the comics Penguin. So it's not like Burton's Penguin sharing some characteristics with the comics version is gonna make him any more exciting to me.

Again your perception problems strike. He never bit that guy's nose in front of the public but only before people working on his campaign, namely only people working for Schreck. They're highly paid and won't say a word naturally.

Not even the guy who got his nose bit off?

Then again, why do Batman's speculations should have been a problem at all? They're only a one person's ideas which he never shared (except Alfred). Bruce Wayne had to do a lot of research to find Penguin's past; it is obvious than nobody else did. And since Penguin was considered a hero (he saved the mayor's child) he won the public's heart. Happens every day in politics.

That's the problem. For someone as bizarre as the Penguin to run as Mayor, I simply don't buy the "Nobody thought about investigating his backstory" argument.

Max Schreck himself has gained power violating law and rules, why with Penguin should be a problerm to do the exact same thing?

I didn't say anything about that.

Being abandoned by his parents and thrown to a river depriving him from a normal life is reason enough.

Again, in the real world that kind of things have produced murderers, what's the problem in here?

Can you give a example of someone who became a mass murderer because he was abandoned when he was a baby?

Killing the children was Penguin's original plan for revenge to make all people in Gotham to live his own misery. It was Schreck's idea of making him the mayor what deviated Penguin from that in the first place.

For me to reply this, I need you to answer to my previous question (the question in this post, not the one you quoted).

Btw, has any movie explained why Joker likes to kill people to start with?

Apples and oranges. The Joker is supposed to be a mysterious character. We are not supposed to know why he enjoys killing people, other that because is mad. And we aren't supposed to know how he became the Joker. Hence Moore left his origin open in The Killing Joke, stating the Joker falling in a pool of chemicals might be a false origin created by the Joker's mind. And that was why Nolan didn't give the Joker a origin.

Nevertheless is the less interesting by a long shot, even in your own words: "A high class mobster who has a fixation with penguins, so the calls himself the Penguin."

Sense doesn't bring interest to anything necessarily.

No. But when a story is so ridiculous it doesn't make sense, it's hard to keep interest, too.

You did miss it and it was all over the movie. Having that in mind, it is no mistery how did you find so many WTF moments.

What did I miss? Was it explained why there are penguins in the sewers? Or how the Penguin was able to live as a baby being taken care by the penguins? Or why NOBODY except Batman thought about investigating Oswald's backstory?

A man that dresses as a bat to fight crime.

I guess you stopped being interested in Batman a long time ago.

The thing is, Burton's Penguin didn't make sense even by Batman standards.

I never said you did. You just contradicted my statement and forced a perspective for the mere reason of not having a better thing to say.

I never meant to force a perspective. I gave my opinion, then elaborated when you asked for a explanation.

Because he didn't count with the awnings saving Selina's life. And in the end he never knew how did Selina survive.

He saw her falling, didn't he?

Because shooting a person could never be disguised as an accident.

I know. But leaving a person you tried to kill, with a chance to remain alive, is even more dangerous than shooting him and getting rid of the body.

She was shy as hell. Plus, just before throwing her throuigh the wondow, Schreck acted as if it was all a joke. Selina bought that and didn't see Shreck's push coming.

Yes, but before going all like "Just kidding!", Shreck walked and talked to her in a menacing way that made it look like he wasn't joking. Why didn't she do anything at that point?

I think anyone that feels Catwoman’s somehow a zombie…is a little stupid.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think Burton thinks so.

Once again, don’t take it so literally. Her fall was broken by the window awnings. She lands in a gritty back alley filled with stray alley cats whom curiously begin to eat her. She’s woken up by this and stumbles home dazed and confused. The traumatic experience reverts her into the personification of a cat. Granted she’s definitely gone psycho, but wouldn‘t this sort of thing do a number on your psyche too? Felines are something she takes comfort in though, they’re her friends, hence why she chose cats. It’s one way that she copes with the experiences that just occurred. It’s also the form she chooses for revenge. She doesn’t actually literally have nine-lives. She’s warped herself into believing she has them, she’s merely oftentimes saved by circumstance. So no...she's not a zombie...

The problem is that, every review and synopsis I read about BR seems to think she was revived by cats. So if that wasn't what really happened, then shame on Burton for making it look so.

 

[The Joker]

The thing is, Burton's Penguin didn't make sense even by Batman standards.

A deformed man made bitter and twisted because of rejection from society and his family makes no sense?

 

[El Payaso]

I didn't like that Flass, but could overlook it because he was a minor and unimportant character in BB. Compared to the version of the character I'm most familiar with, the BTAS Scarecrow, Caine didn't look too off for me.

In a few words, you're biased.

You make a fuss for the hair color of one character but if the whole appearance of another character is different you're ok with it.

That's inconsistent.

Catwoman's hair is just one of the factors.

Nevertheless bigger differences between the comic character and the film version are fine.

Catwoman's hair is not a factor. Your bias is.

I didn't say the comics version was interesting. I said it made more sense. Why are there penguins in the Gotham sewers? And how on earth can penguins take care of a human child and keep him alive?

How is it possible for a man to live on below zero temperature and create a freezing ray? How can a man get a gamma radiation overdose and not get cancer? How can a man on fire fall from a building over a car and survive?

It certainly looks like the reason you "hate" Returns is that you don't get the fantasy in a genre that's based on fanatsy. Which makes this internet site quite an odd choice for you to be in.

That said, from your words ("I didn't say the comics version was interesting." / "Comics Penguin > Burton's Penguin") I can tell you simply don't like the character of the Penguin at all. Bias.

Like I stated, I don't care a lot about the comics Penguin. So it's not like Burton's Penguin sharing some characteristics with the comics version is gonna make him any more exciting to me.

Thus every movie featuring the character will be automatically a "must-hate" for you. Burton or the plot have little to do with it. Bias.

Not even the guy who got his nose bit off?

Of course not. He's being paid probably a lot to bear Schreck or any of his pals' behaviour. Schreck had killed his former associate Fred Atkins; people around him know he's dangerous, not someone you denounce because his pal bit your nose.

That's the problem. For someone as bizarre as the Penguin to run as Mayor, I simply don't buy the "Nobody thought about investigating his backstory" argument.

I said "nobody else."

Bruce Wayne did think Penguin was too bizarre. He investigated him. He exposed Penguin as a fraud.

You don't evenb have to buy the "Nobody thought about investigating his backstory" argument, because it's not true. Someone did. You just were too busy hating the movie to see it.

I didn't say anything about that.

Exactly. You missed the exact thing that proves you uninformed about your argument. If you had considered that point you wouldn't be scratching your head on how a corrupt monster as Penguin can run to be mayor and would have got the point.

Can you give a example of someone who became a mass murderer because he was abandoned when he was a baby?

Can you give a example of someone who became a crimefighter dressed as a bat because his parents were murdered when he was a kid?

Consistency and logic prove you biased against everything in the Batman universe.

For me to reply this, I need you to answer to my previous question (the question in this post, not the one you quoted).

For you to post in this thread you shouldn't hate the core things the superhero genre consists of.

Apples and oranges.

Yes; a Batman villiain and a Batman villiain. Apples and oranges.

The Joker is supposed to be a mysterious character. We are not supposed to know why he enjoys killing people, other that because is mad.

Ta-daaaaah...

People get mad, they became murderers. Or they are consumed by rage and revenge so they start thinking of killing people to satisfy what's eating them.

With a little help of El Payaso you will be able to answer your own questions.

And we aren't supposed to know how he became the Joker. Hence Moore left his origin open in The Killing Joke, stating the Joker falling in a pool of chemicals might be a false origin created by the Joker's mind. And that was why Nolan didn't give the Joker a origin.

Moore took the job to give us the origin of Joker. Which had been used years and years before The Killing Joke. Then he added the 'multiple origins' things to keep the mistery (but if he really wanted it to be 'multiple' he would have given multiple origins) Nolan did a brilliant job hiding the true origin in TDK.

That said, Joker's origin had nothing to do with anything in this thread. We were talking about the villiains' motivations, not their origins.

No. But when a story is so ridiculous it doesn't make sense, it's hard to keep interest, too.

I know. A man thinks that a bat suit is the way to finish crime. Booooo-ring.

What did I miss?

The explanation for Penguin's behaviour. All over the movie and you show off your inability to get it.

Was it explained why there are penguins in the sewers?

The sewers went to a glacial zone in the Gotham Zoo.

It was in the movie. You, once again, failed to get it.

Or how the Penguin was able to live as a baby being taken care by the penguins?

He was adopted as a freak by the circus.

Explained in the movie. You failed to get it.

That be your strike three.

Or why NOBODY except Batman thought about investigating Oswald's backstory?

Because the city was too busy loving its new idol. And Batman has always been more intelligent and distrustful than the rest.

Guess what? It was in the movie. You failed to get it.

The thing is, Burton's Penguin didn't make sense even by Batman standards.

Nope.

In a world where ugly childs become fear-gas creators in a scarecrow suit, where scientist become men that live in below zero temperatures, where there are children with the skin of a crocodile and men that can change their appaerance because they have a clay-face, the deformed Penguin makes perfect sense. You just don't get it.

I never meant to force a perspective. I gave my opinion, then elaborated when you asked for a explanation.

You said "If you mean memorably bad" when I said "DeVito's Penguin was a truly memorable character and monster" that is presicely to force a perspective and twist a statement. You clearly didn't have a more solid argument and so far you have been unable to produce one.

He saw her falling, didn't he?

So you mean that in a dark alley he could see wheter she was still alive or not? He just assumed the fall was enough but didn't consider the effect of the awnings.

I know. But leaving a person you tried to kill, with a chance to remain alive, is even more dangerous than shooting him and getting rid of the body.

It is not if you can disguise it as an accident. You shoot the person and police will be instantly investigating a murder.

According to circumstances and Scherck's POV, there was no chance Selina could have survived.

Yes, but before going all like "Just kidding!", Shreck walked and talked to her in a menacing way that made it look like he wasn't joking. Why didn't she do anything at that point?

Because in the first 20 minutes of the movie it's vastly explained she's too shy, unable to make a decision and quite clunky.

I guessed you didn't get that either.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think Burton thinks so.

Apparently he did since he provided the possibility that Selina was alive but knocked out. You didn't get that in spite of the evidence.

The problem is that, every review and synopsis I read about BR seems to think she was revived by cats.

So you read only reviewers that didn't get it.

That said, how is it that you have to get what happens in a movie by reading the reviews?

So if that wasn't what really happened, then shame on Burton for making it look so.

Sure, let's blame Burton for your inabilities.

 

[Bat Attack]

Let's stop feeding the troll in the thread.

 

[Infinity9999x]

A deformed man made bitter and twisted because of rejection from society and his family makes no sense?

I didn't mind that aspect, but the problem I had with him was his ability to swim underwater, and survive in freezing water in the middle of winter when it would have killed any normal man to be in there for an extended amount of time. He was supposed to be a mutant, not superhuman.

 

[Ere]

In a few words, you're biased.

You make a fuss for the hair color of one character but if the whole appearance of another character is different you're ok with it.

That's inconsistent.

Biased? Because I said that Flass was a minor character compared to Burton's Penguin and Catwoman (which is a fact)? Or because I said that I thought the look of Nolan's Alfred fitted his personality (which means that I get what Nolan was getting at)?

Nevertheless bigger differences between the comic character and the film version are fine.

If they work and have a point to them. I frankly don't see the point of making Selina blonde, or making Bruce Wayne a short and balding man.

Catwoman's hair is not a factor. Your bias is.

Hardly. I wanted to like Burton's movies. Which was why I bothered in getting movies that older than 15 years.

How is it possible for a man to live on below zero temperature and create a freezing ray?

It was stated that Freeze had a (fictional) disease which forces him to to use his suit. And the freezing ray was created by him after he investigated cryo-technology.
It might not be realistic, but it is better than not giving a explanation whatsoever. Which was what Burton did with the Penguin.

How can a man get a gamma radiation overdose and not get cancer? How can a man on fire fall from a building over a car and survive?

Read above (in this post).

It certainly looks like the reason you "hate" Returns is that you don't get the fantasy in a genre that's based on fanatsy. Which makes this internet site quite an odd choice for you to be in.

No. The thing is, I want a explanation for everything out of ordinary. Even if it is unrealistic.

That said, from your words ("I didn't say the comics version was interesting." / "Comics Penguin > Burton's Penguin") I can tell you simply don't like the character of the Penguin at all. Bias.

You just realized that? Congratulations!

Nervertheless, I didn't like Doc Ock, and still enjoyed him in Spider-Man 2. That was because his story made sense, unlike Burton's Penguin's.

Thus every movie featuring the character will be automatically a "must-hate" for you. Burton or the plot have little to do with it. Bias.

Read above (in this post... I can stop specifying which post is the one you're supposed to read, right?).

Of course not. He's being paid probably a lot to bear Schreck or any of his pals' behaviour. Schreck had killed his former associate Fred Atkins; people around him know he's dangerous, not someone you denounce because his pal bit your nose.

Fair enough. But I still think the Penguin was pushing his look. What guarantee did he have that the guy wouldn't have denounced him?

I said "nobody else."

And that doesn't make sense, if you ask me.

Bruce Wayne did think Penguin was too bizarre. He investigated him. He exposed Penguin as a fraud.

You would be crazy to run as president if you have a shady past, because it's like asking the public to investigate you. So I don't buy Batman being the only one who investigated him.

You don't evenb have to buy the "Nobody thought about investigating his backstory" argument, because it's not true. Someone did. You just were too busy hating the movie to see it.

Let me respell that sentence:
I don't buy nobody else investigating his backstory.

There. Happy now?

Can you give a example of someone who became a crimefighter dressed as a bat because his parents were murdered when he was a kid?

Consistency and logic prove you biased against everything in the Batman universe.

Nah. Even when reading a comic, I get annoyed when the villains' motivation don't make sense to me.

For you to post in this thread you shouldn't hate the core things the superhero genre consists of.

Until you tell me how Oswald was able to survive living in the sewers among penguins when he was a baby, I will say that an average comics villain's origin makes more sense than Burton's Penguin's.

Yes; a Batman villiain and a Batman villiain. Apples and oranges.

The Joker was portrayed as a mysterious character with no true backstory since the start. The Penguin wasn't. Neither was Burton's Penguin. So they're different kinds of characters, whether you accept it or not.

Ta-daaaaah...

People get mad, they became murderers. Or they are consumed by rage and revenge so they start thinking of killing people to satisfy what's eating them.

I'm still waiting for a example describing a mass murderer who became like that for the same reasons Burton's Penguin did.

The explanation for Penguin's behaviour. All over the movie and you show off your inability to get it.

Read above.

Moore took the job to give us the origin of Joker. Which had been used years and years before The Killing Joke.

Before TKJ, all we knew about him was that prior to becoming the Joker, he operated as a villain known as the Red Hood. Everything else was thoguth by Moore.

Then he added the 'multiple origins' things to keep the mistery (but if he really wanted it to be 'multiple' he would have given multiple origins) Nolan did a brilliant job hiding the true origin in TDK.

So can we agree about both Moore and Nolan wanting to keep the character a mystery?

That said, Joker's origin had nothing to do with anything in this thread. We were talking about the villiains' motivations, not their origins.

Actually, yes, it has to do with the thread. You bought the point of the Joker's motivation for murdering people being unexplained. For us to know that, we would have to know his origin.

I know. A man thinks that a bat suit is the way to finish crime. Booooo-ring.

At least we got a explanation for that. Unlike Burton's Penguin, who was able to survive living among penguins as a baby for no reason given.

The sewers went to a glacial zone in the Gotham Zoo.

It was in the movie. You, once again, failed to get it.

Alright, alright. My bad. But I wish Burton wouldn't wait until the third act to explain these kinds of bizarre happenings that took place at the beginning of the movie.

He was adopted as a freak by the circus.
Explained in the movie. You failed to get it.

Actually, I did get it. I even mentioned it:

he was abandoned as a infant and later taken by a circus group

Maybe you should read entire posts you're quoting before replying to them?

And no, it doesn't explain get how the penguins were able of taking care of him when he was a baby.

Because the city was too busy loving its new idol. And Batman has always been more intelligent and distrustful than the rest.

So, everyone who isn't Batman has the same mind in Gotham? Riiiiight.

Nope.

In a world where ugly childs become fear-gas creators in a scarecrow suit, where scientist become men that live in below zero temperatures, where there are children with the skin of a crocodile and men that can change their appaerance because they have a clay-face, the deformed Penguin makes perfect sense. You just don't get it.

I didn't mention the Penguin's deformity. I was talking about his backstory.

You said "If you mean memorably bad" when I said "DeVito's Penguin was a truly memorable character and monster" that is presicely to force a perspective and twist a statement.

No. I said "If you mean memorably bad, then I agree with you". I didn't say "If you mean memorably bad, then you're right".

You clearly didn't have a more solid argument and so far you have been unable to produce one.

Then why did you keep refusing to counter my argument about the Penguin being able to live among penguins as a baby?

So you mean that in a dark alley he could see wheter she was still alive or not? He just assumed the fall was enough but didn't consider the effect of the awnings.

If so, he is a idiot for not making sure that she was dead.

It is not if you can disguise it as an accident. You shoot the person and police will be instantly investigating a murder.

The point stands. A live victim is far worse than the body of someone who was shot.

Because in the first 20 minutes of the movie it's vastly explained she's too shy, unable to make a decision and quite clunky.

Then what was the point of learning self-defense, if she wasn't willing to use it with someone who was about to kill her?

Apparently he did since he provided the possibility that Selina was alive but knocked out.

I thought you people said that scene was open to interpretation?

So you read only reviewers that didn't get it.

That said, how is it that you have to get what happens in a movie by reading the reviews?

Burton's movies can be confusing. That's why.
And I read the reviews so I could get an alternate explanation to Catwoman, other than her being resurrected by cats. I gave up after I realized that most people interpreted it like that.

Sure, let's blame Burton for your inabilities.

Sure, blame me when more than half of the reviewers interpreted it like that.

Let's stop feeding the troll in the thread.

Typical "I'm getting annoyed by this guy's posts because his opinion differs from mine, but it's easier to call him a troll than to post counterarguments" reaction.

 

[The Joker]

I didn't mind that aspect, but the problem I had with him was his ability to swim underwater, and survive in freezing water in the middle of winter when it would have killed any normal man to be in there for an extended amount of time. He was supposed to be a mutant, not superhuman.

Superhuman? You mean like a man surviving a fall into a vat of chemicals, or a man surviving having half his face being eaten away by acid?

Come on. Penguin diving into the river once was a drop in the ocean.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Superhuman? You mean like a man surviving a fall into a vat of chemicals, or a man surviving having half his face being eaten away by acid?

Come on. Penguin diving into the river once was a drop in the ocean.

That's a good point. I guess it seemed weirder to me just because I never associated Penguin with being able to swim through the water like an actual penguin.

 

[Bat Attack]

Biased? Because I said that Flass was a minor character compared to Burton's Penguin and Catwoman (which is a fact)? Or because I said that I thought the look of Nolan's Alfred fitted his personality (which means that I get what Nolan was getting at)?


If they work and have a point to them. I frankly don't see the point of making Selina blonde, or making Bruce Wayne a short and balding man.


Hardly. I wanted to like Burton's movies. Which was why I bothered in getting movies that older than 15 years.


It was stated that Freeze had a (fictional) disease which forces him to to use his suit. And the freezing ray was created by him after he investigated cryo-technology.
It might not be realistic, but it is better than not giving a explanation whatsoever. Which was what Burton did with the Penguin.


Read above (in this post).


No. The thing is, I want a explanation for everything out of ordinary. Even if it is unrealistic.


You just realized that? Congratulations!

Nervertheless, I didn't like Doc Ock, and still enjoyed him in Spider-Man 2. That was because his story made sense, unlike Burton's Penguin's.


Read above (in this post... I can stop specifying which post is the one you're supposed to read, right?).


Fair enough. But I still think the Penguin was pushing his look. What guarantee did he have that the guy wouldn't have denounced him?


And that doesn't make sense, if you ask me.


You would be crazy to run as president if you have a shady past, because it's like asking the public to investigate you. So I don't buy Batman being the only one who investigated him.


Let me respell that sentence:
I don't buy nobody else investigating his backstory.

There. Happy now?


Nah. Even when reading a comic, I get annoyed when the villains' motivation don't make sense to me.


Until you tell me how Oswald was able to survive living in the sewers among penguins when he was a baby, I will say that an average comics villain's origin makes more sense than Burton's Penguin's.


The Joker was portrayed as a mysterious character with no true backstory since the start. The Penguin wasn't. Neither was Burton's Penguin. So they're different kinds of characters, whether you accept it or not.


I'm still waiting for a example describing a mass murderer who became like that for the same reasons Burton's Penguin did.


Read above.


Before TKJ, all we knew about him was that prior to becoming the Joker, he operated as a villain known as the Red Hood. Everything else was thoguth by Moore.


So can we agree about both Moore and Nolan wanting to keep the character a mystery?


Actually, yes, it has to do with the thread. You bought the point of the Joker's motivation for murdering people being unexplained. For us to know that, we would have to know his origin.


At least we got a explanation for that. Unlike Burton's Penguin, who was able to survive living among penguins as a baby for no reason given.


Alright, alright. My bad. But I wish Burton wouldn't wait until the third act to explain these kinds of bizarre happenings that took place at the beginning of the movie.


Actually, I did get it. I even mentioned it:

Maybe you should read entire posts you're quoting before replying to them?

And no, it doesn't explain get how the penguins were able of taking care of him when he was a baby.


So, everyone who isn't Batman has the same mind in Gotham? Riiiiight.



I didn't mention the Penguin's deformity. I was talking about his backstory.


No. I said "If you mean memorably bad, then I agree with you". I didn't say "If you mean memorably bad, then you're right".


Then why did you keep refusing to counter my argument about the Penguin being able to live among penguins as a baby?


If so, he is a idiot for not making sure that she was dead.


The point stands. A live victim is far worse than the body of someone who was shot.


Then what was the point of learning self-defense, if she wasn't willing to use it with someone who was about to kill her?


I thought you people said that scene was open to interpretation?


Burton's movies can be confusing. That's why.
And I read the reviews so I could get an alternate explanation to Catwoman, other than her being resurrected by cats. I gave up after I realized that most people interpreted it like that.


Sure, blame me when more than half of the reviewers interpreted it like that.


Typical "I'm getting annoyed by this guy's posts because his opinion differs from mine, but it's easier to call him a troll than to post counterarguments" reaction.

LMFAO, you are hilarious. Typical TROLL. Haha, I've been here long enough to see so many like you banned. If you've had to post counteragruments in countless threads that have bashed Tim Burton's batman films over the past three years (and there have been more than I can count) like I have, you would get sick of it too.

 

[the_scream]

LMFAO, you are hilarious. Typical TROLL. Haha, I've been here long enough to see so many like you banned. If you've had to post counteragruments in countless threads that have bashed Tim Burton's batman films over the past three years (and there have been more than I can count) like I have, you would get sick of it too.

Huh? A troll because he is multi-quote replying to someone who is doing exactly the same thing??

In regards to Catwoman, this whole "open to interpretation" argument is weak. The fact is, she was revived by cats and spends the rest of the film acting like a cat right down to being able to survive being killed (9 lives!) and become agile enough to jump, climb and cartwheel around.

It is plainly obvious that Burton was taking a supernatural approach to Catwoman, having her revived by cats and inheriting their characteristics. The alternative explanation:

Selina was a supreme gymnastics expert and advanced in martial arts who just happens to spend her days as a humble secretary. When she miraculously survives a fall, cats surround her for no other reason than to wake her up from unconsciousness (cats do this ). She then finally decides to put her gymnastics and martial arts training to good use (not to mention her great skill with a whip!) to get back at the man who almost killed her. And of course ignore it when he literally tells Shreck how many times she has been "killed".

Alternatively, you can interpret it the only way it was presented. That is, a humble secretary is reborn as a half woman-half cat in some kind of supernatural event that is never explained.

Sorry but the idea that Burton left her situation up for interpretation gives the film far too much credit. As it is, it works in Burton's film which is really a twisted fairytale with a Batman story integrated throughout.

 

[Cain]

Huh? A troll because he is multi-quote replying to someone who is doing exactly the same thing??

In regards to Catwoman, this whole "open to interpretation" argument is weak. The fact is, she was revived by cats and spends the rest of the film acting like a cat right down to being able to survive being killed (9 lives!) and become agile enough to jump, climb and cartwheel around.

It is plainly obvious that Burton was taking a supernatural approach to Catwoman, having her revived by cats and inheriting their characteristics. The alternative explanation:

Selina was a supreme gymnastics expert and advanced in martial arts who just happens to spend her days as a humble secretary. When she miraculously survives a fall, cats surround her for no other reason than to wake her up from unconsciousness (cats do this ). She then finally decides to put her gymnastics and martial arts training to good use (not to mention her great skill with a whip!) to get back at the man who almost killed her. And of course ignore it when he literally tells Shreck how many times she has been "killed".

Alternatively, you can interpret it the only way it was presented. That is, a humble secretary is reborn as a half woman-half cat in some kind of supernatural event that is never explained.

Sorry but the idea that Burton left her situation up for interpretation gives the film far too much credit. As it is, it works in Burton's film which is really a twisted fairytale with a Batman story integrated throughout.

I must say your agitation is quite hysterical. It's not anybody trying to give this film too much credit. It's people who are familiar enough with Burton's films and his influences pointing out the obvious as the majority of his films not just his Batman movies all contain vague sequences.

It is purposeful because two of his most major influences were german expressionism and noir films. Both of those genres are known to contain certain sequences that were are never verbally elaborated on and are left purposely vague to allow the audience to interact with the sequences themselves and draw their own conclusions.

It's not a matter of trying to give credit it's a matter of "hey this is a trademark of his and this is where it was used in Batman Returns". There are points in his films that could never be explained because they are purposely left with many different angles of interpretation to engage those who like that even further. Anybody who has actually sat down with the man's filmography or the type of films he favors most knows this. It's not our fault there are those out there who don't.

You could believe Catwoman is a zombie all you like nothing wrong with that. When you try to present it as fact however it's understandable some of us take issue cause the only FACT is that this is never ever confirmed in this movie. There is nothing in this film that concludes that for her to survive her many "deaths" it must've been cause she was a walking revived corpse, nothing. All of her survivals could be alternatively explained wih the sole exception of the final "death" as we never see how she survived that.

 

[Bat Attack]

Huh? A troll because he is multi-quote replying to someone who is doing exactly the same thing??

Sorry, you make no sense.

 

[the_scream]

I must say your agitation is quite hysterical.

Agitation? Why is it that a person can't post here without another person making personal comments. Does it enhance your argument to be condescending? Is that what you need to do because you can't just fall back on the merrits of your argument?

It's not anybody trying to give this film too much credit. It's people who are familiar enough with Burton's films and his influences pointing out the obvious as the majority of his films not just his Batman movies all contain vague sequences.

Oh, the ol' "you don't understand what the directors is doing" argument. Gotcha.

It is purposeful because two of his most major influences were german expressionism and noir films. Both of those genres are known to contain certain sequences that were are never verbally elaborated on and are left purposely vague to allow the audience to interact with the sequences themselves and draw their own conclusions.

So if anything is slightly ambiguous in a film or vague, the director is simply showing his influence from other genres. My point is that it isn't vague. It is plainly obvious Burton wanted to show Selina being brought back to life by a supernatural event. The alternative view requires far too much explanation.

It's not a matter of trying to give credit it's a matter of "hey this is a trademark of his and this is where it was used in Batman Returns". There are points in his films that could never be explained because they are purposely left with many different angles of interpretation to engage those who like that even further. Anybody who has actually sat down with the man's filmography or the type of films he favors most knows this. It's not our fault there are those out there who don't.

Perhaps you could give me some more examples of how Burton does this anymore than any other director. Secondly, my point remains. Burton wasn't trying to be vague here. Selina was brought back to life by cats. How else can you explain her sudden agility, need to dress like a cat, nine lives and literal reference to her "being killed". There is nothing open to interpretation here unless you force it.

You could believe Catwoman is a zombie all you like nothing wrong with that. When you try to present it as fact however it's understandable some of us take issue cause the only FACT is that this is never ever confirmed in this movie. There is nothing in this film that concludes that for her to survive her many "deaths" it must've been cause she was a walking revived corpse, nothing. All of her survivals could be alternatively explained wih the sole exception of the final "death" as we never see how she survived that.

I didn't say she was a zombie. I said she was brought back to life by a supernatural event. Zombies are the "living dead". The film doesn't have to overtly spell out that's what is happening because it is obvious.

 

[ross2287]

I think it does because first of all look at the title why do they call it Batman Returns? Where did he go? If he just stayed in Gotham City they should not have called it Batman Returns because he didn't go anywhere.

Second how does Selina Kyle survive all the physical abuse they put her through? Is she a female James Bond in black vinyl? Because that's the only excuse I can think of. Also why is Christopher Walken in this movie? What is Walken's purpose in this movie? Shreck doesn't do anything diabolical besides pushing Selina out of a seven story window.

Why did they have to choose The Penguin as the next villian? Why couldn't they choose Two-Face instead? By the way what happened to Vicki Vale and Alexander Knox? They just magically disappeared and that's stupid.

One of Jett's disciples has wandered into the Hype...

I always make a point to watch it at least twice around the Christmas season.

Me too! It's one of my top 3 favourite Christmas movies...does that make me weird that I like it more than the Rudolph stop-motion ones? Hahaha.

Anyway, on the subject of the suckage of Batman Returns...I like Batman Returns. It is a fantastic Burton movie and a pretty good Batman movie. I think that's the best way to look at it.

 

[Cain]

Agitation? Why is it that a person can't post here without another person making personal comments. Does it enhance your argument to be condescending? Is that what you need to do because you can't just fall back on the merrits of your argument?

Not trying to be condescending I genuinely just found it funny how insistant you are about your interpretation being a fact is all.

So if anything is slightly ambiguous in a film or vague, the director is simply showing his influence from other genres. My point is that it isn't vague.

That's nice of you to try to spell it out as if I was dense enough to not get your point the first time but it doesn't mean you're correct. One of Burton's biggest influences on this film amongst many was The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari one of the most ambigiuous films ever made. Knowing this fact is enough to let me know why there are vague elements present in Batman Returns as they were a big part of Caligari's charm. It's no different from when a Scorsese film showcases his Kurosawa or Peckinpah influences in his work which he states do exist in many of his films and are obvious to anybody familiar with those director's styles.

It is plainly obvious Burton wanted to show Selina being brought back to life by a supernatural event.

Not it isn't and if it is then explain how it is obvious. What I see are operatic visuals used to convey the intensity and shock of the character's present emotional moment. One of the reasons Burton started out as an animator was because his strong point was in using visuals to express the scene. This is no different had there been no awnings though perhaps we'd be in agreement but since there was something present that gravity could've used to break her fall I just don't see it.

The alternative view requires far too much explanation.

How so? people have survived much crazier life threatening accidents in real life than any of her "deaths" which were majorly falls broken by some different objects whether a mountain of kitty litter on the back of a flatbed truck or a green house.

Perhaps you could give me some more examples of how Burton does this anymore than any other director.

Lots of artists wear their influences on their sleeves not just movie directors. We're talking about Tim Burton here so let me cite some examples regarding him. Here are some things purposely left ambiguous in his films as have been confirmed in commentary's and interviews the final image in Corpse Bride, the infamous Planet of the Apes ending.

In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory we're never told were Wonka's factory is located. Some people could assume it's in europe others the US we're given hints that point to either but never explicitly told. In Sweeney Todd we have no idea why Toby's final actions happen but there are many hints throughout the film that could explain different reasonings. So you see where I'm getting at here? vagueness is something Burton has always had an affinity for as it was something present in many of his influences so it will naturally reflect in some of his art.

Secondly, my point remains. Burton wasn't trying to be vague here. Selina was brought back to life by cats. How else can you explain her sudden agility, need to dress like a cat, nine lives and literal reference to her "being killed". There is nothing open to interpretation here unless you force it.

I didn't say she was a zombie. I said she was brought back to life by a supernatural event. Zombies are the "living dead". The film doesn't have to overtly spell out that's what is happening because it is obvious.

This is a mentally fractured woman who's comfort zone was the company of cats. Her need to dress like a cat and perception of having "nine lives" obviously stems from that love she has for cats. The woman clearly has a scarred psyche so to take her so literally when there is nothing in the film that confirms any of that actually being literal it seems funny to me and far from obvious.

 

[the_scream]

Not trying to be condescending I genuinely just found it funny how insistant you are about your interpretation being a fact is all.

How was I being insistent? I simply stated my opinion. Saying I am "agitated" and that you find that "hysterical" was not only inaccurate (I am not agitated) but also unnecessary. If you want to disagree, argue your points and refrain from making personal remarks.

That's nice of you to try to spell it out as if I was dense enough to not get your point the first time but it doesn't mean you're correct.

Now you are just being odd. I reiterated my point because you appeared not to reply to it. I wasn't implying you were dense.

One of Burton's biggest influences on this film amongst many was The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari one of the most ambigiuous films ever made. Knowing this fact is enough to let me know why there are vague elements present in Batman Returns as they were a big part of Caligari's charm.

Sorry, I don't get what you are arguing here. My point is that it is clear what Burton was doing with Kyle in that scene. Stating that Burton was influenced by a film that uses ambiguity does not address my point. At least, you haven't explained why just because Burton is supposedly influenced by a genre that uses ambiguity that that therefore means the scene was supposed to be open to interpretation.

It's no different from when a Scorsese film showcases his Kurosawa or Peckinpah influences in his work which he states do exist in many of his films and are obvious to anybody familiar with those director's styles.

Um, this is getting ridiculous. All directors are have influences. Stating that fact is not bringing anything to this discussion. I am not stating that Burton is not influenced.

Not it isn't and if it is then explain how it is obvious.

She fell nd survived from a great height. Awnings or not, nobody could survive that. She then picked up characteristics of a cat and nine lives. It would be forced to argue that she miraculously survived all these deaths and somehow became a martial arts expert and as agile as a cat.

What I see are operatic visuals used to convey the intensity and shock of the character's present emotional moment.

That's fine but it doesn't mean she wasn't brought back to life by cats.

One of the reasons Burton started out as an animator was because his strong point was in using visuals to express the scene. This is no different had there been no awnings though perhaps we'd be in agreement but since there was something present that gravity could've used to break her fall I just don't see it.
How so? people have survived much crazier life threatening accidents in real life than any of her "deaths" which were majorly falls broken by some different objects whether a mountain of kitty litter on the back of a flatbed truck or a green house.

People don't survive multiple life threatening accidents in a row like this. She even states that she has been killed. That's right. She says it literally "You killed me, Penguin killed me..." and then continually stood there as Shreck unloaded bullets into her. She then electrified him and herself in a massive explosion but appears at the end of the film alive and well. I'm sorry but there is no ambguity here.

Lots of artists wear their influences on their sleeves not just movie directors. We're talking about Tim Burton here so let me cite some examples regarding him. Here are some things purposely left ambiguous in his films as have been confirmed in commentary's and interviews the final image in Corpse Bride, the infamous Planet of the Apes ending.

In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory we're never told were Wonka's factory is located. Some people could assume it's in europe others the US we're given hints that point to either but never explicitly told. In Sweeney Todd we have no idea why Toby's final actions happen but there are many hints throughout the film that could explain different reasonings. So you see where I'm getting at here? vagueness is something Burton has always had an affinity for as it was something present in many of his influences so it will naturally reflect in some of his art.

Vagueness is something David Lynch has an affinity for. The things you cite are nothing special. You can pretty much yank out any director and cite some ambguity they have used in their films. That doesn't mean it is an obvious style the director is well known for.

This is a mentally fractured woman who's comfort zone was the company of cats. Her need to dress like a cat and perception of having "nine lives" obviously stems from that love she has for cats. The woman clearly has a scarred psyche so to take her so literally when there is nothing in the film that confirms any of that actually being literal it seems funny to me and far from obvious.

See my comments above. There is no way she could survive all those things. Unless you literally want a character to come out and say "wow, she has come back to life with the characteristics of a cat" then I don't know how much more obvious it has to be. And you failed to explain how she can overnight become a martial arts expert (enough to go toe to toe with Batman) and demonstrate that agility of...a cat. Oh, and use a whip as well. Mentally fractured people don't spontaneously develop such abilities. Face it, the writing is on the wall.

 

[Cain]

Now you are just being odd. I reiterated my point because you appeared not to reply to it. I wasn't implying you were dense.

I replied to it when I told you earlier that your point about it not being vague is incorrect as there is actually no right or wrong answer regarding that scene. It's a possibility because again it's open to interpretation but there is nothing in this movie that confirms your point as a fact.

At least, you haven't explained why just because Burton is supposedly influenced by a genre that uses ambiguity that that therefore means the scene was supposed to be open to interpretation.

Are you kidding me? because he cited that specific movie and it's open ended elements as a major influence on this project. Because he borrowed many elements from it as it is for this movie. Because it is something that he has been known to do in many of his movies including the original Batman were we never know whether Batman tried to save Napier or purposely dropped him in the acid. It's a stylistic trademark of the guy's.

Um, this is getting ridiculous. All directors are have influences. Stating that fact is not bringing anything to this discussion. I am not stating that Burton is not influenced.

I stated one of his direct influences for this particular project so that you could look into said influence and see the parrallels it shares with Batman Returns yourself. Including elements used in the Penguin character as well as the use of ambiguous elements throughout the film. It's like how anybody who is familiar with James Whale's Frankenstein could see that movie's influences all over Edward Scissorhands without anybody having to tell them. Then realizing how deliberate it all was when they discover this is one of Burton's most favorite movies.

She fell nd survived from a great height. Awnings or not, nobody could survive that. She then picked up characteristics of a cat and nine lives. It would be forced to argue that she miraculously survived all these deaths and somehow became a martial arts expert and as agile as a cat.

Ever heard of Juliane Kopcke? this woman fell two miles into the earth and with a broken collarbone amongst other injuries managed to roam the jungles for 11 days off adrenaline alone after she landed. Werner Herzog made a great documentary about her story. There was a guy who a couple of years back fell 20 stories into a river.

Hell earlier this year here in my city there was a window cleaner who fell 47 stories straight and survived. Now Juliane Kopcke was strapped to a plane seat so that broke her fall, nobody could explain the guy in the river and the dude who fell 47 floors down got saved because the platform he rode down also broke his fall.

Now these aren't common occurences your average person probably wouldn't have survived any of that. However they still did happen and have happened in the past and continue to happen today. Crazy **** happens in the world everyday and people have managed to dodge death crazily before. With that in mind then there is no logical reason to honestly believe that multiple awnings wouldn't affect the velocity of such a drop to the point that the person dropping wouldn't die. Especially considering things that have happened in the real world and that this is just a movie.

That's fine but it doesn't mean she wasn't brought back to life by cats.

Yet there is nothing that specifically states says that she was. We see cats nibble on her and see her in a state of shock. Anybody who survives something like that would be in complete shock. Cats were the first things she encountered and she also had an affinity for felines as previously stated in the film. A woman with such a shattered psyche could associate herself with that type of imagery hence becoming a "catwoman" it doesn't have to be out of literal circumstances.

People don't survive multiple life threatening accidents in a row like this. She even states that she has been killed.

People don't live inside a comic book movie either. The point is there are people who have survived worse than all of her "deaths" in the real world. This isn't anything to confirm that she is of supernatural origin. Also again she states she has been killed but we also know that her warped mentality has she thinking she actually is a cat it doesn't mean that she is one. The Penguin in the same movie believes himself to be like a Penguin it doesn't mean he is one we just see a lonely mutant.

That's right. She says it literally "You killed me, Penguin killed me..." and then continually stood there as Shreck unloaded bullets into her. She then electrified him and herself in a massive explosion but appears at the end of the film alive and well. I'm sorry but there is no ambguity here.

If it wasn't for the fact that we never saw how she even managed to escape that in the first place I'd concede. Couple this with the fact that the scene wasn't even originally supposed to be in the film meaning originally they had more than likely killed her off I still see no concrete evidence of supernatural shenanigans.

Vagueness is something David Lynch has an affinity for. The things you cite are nothing special. You can pretty much yank out any director and cite some ambguity they have used in their films. That doesn't mean it is an obvious style the director is well known for.

LOL @ this **** I give you clear cut examples of Burton purposely containing vague scenes in many of his work and now it's not vague enough and not a part of his filmmaking technique when he has repeatedly used that technique multiple times before. It's not like it was something Burton only did in Batman Returns.

And you failed to explain how she can overnight become a martial arts expert (enough to go toe to toe with Batman) and demonstrate that agility of...a cat. Oh, and use a whip as well. Mentally fractured people don't spontaneously develop such abilities. Face it, the writing is on the wall.

The same way the comic book Catwoman Burton was familiar with and adapted went from a flight attendant who survived a plane crash with amnesia and serious head trauma managed to be a competent fighting opponent for Batman and an agile one to boot. It's never explained it just is but I'll tell you one thing in the comics there is nothing to suggest this is because of supernatural behavior. In the movie neither hell we even get hints at Selina being into self defense in the movie. We don't know for a fact that this all happens because she is "revived by cats" so no I guess you're the only one reading the writing on the wall because I'm blind to such writing.

Anyway I'm through wasting energy typing the same stuff over and over again. If you don't get where I'm coming from by this post then you never will.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I didn't mind that aspect, but the problem I had with him was his ability to swim underwater, and survive in freezing water in the middle of winter when it would have killed any normal man to be in there for an extended amount of time. He was supposed to be a mutant, not superhuman.

Well, first of all, this isn't a movie that's really concerned with what would happen to a "normal" man in these circumstances, since Penguin is anything but in this film. I mean, the guy bled black ooze. Penguins do not roam around the city with rockets on their back in the real word, either. It's a fantasy film.

Also, it seemed pretty clear to me that Burton's Penguin thrived in cooler temperatures and was adverse to warmer temperatures. When Catwoman goes to visit him, she mentions it being chilly, meaning that he apparently had no heating in his room. Someone more knowledgeable about the movie than I can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed the fires burning in his lair contributed to his death. I'm sure that toxic waste he had in the water helped too, but his last words are "Heat's getting to me. I'll murder you momentarily, but first, I'll need a cool drink of ice water." If he were anywhere near freezing to death after being in that COLD water, why would he want ice water to drink? I tend to think of someone "superhuman" as being almost godly, like Superman. The Penguin, as he was depicted in this film, was a mere oddity.