Is Batman Returns darker than Batman89?

[El Payaso]

Eh, he was promoting. What do you expect? That he said "Guys, we ****ed up. The Gothic weirdo took over, we got rid of everything that was great about the first one and replaced it with trash."

No, because that's not true.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I dont think Keaton meant it as any kind of bashing of the film, just that he wasnt as happy with it as 89. Im pretty sure he even got paid more that time around for donning the cowl a second time.

 

[GothamLegend]

Sadly, GothamLegend is kinda right here.

Why is that sad that I am right? I have been right before about things on here.

He did appreciate it more in '92 when he said its much better than the first one on Letterman

Because he was in the business of SELLING at the time. Truth comes out later on ... same was Jon F. and RDJ came clean a year after Iron Man 2's release and said they didn't like it all that much, either. Because it was clearly inferior than the original.

I mean if you ever take someone promoting their film before it's release at face value, they generally are always being a con-man, unless the movie ACTUALLY is really good.

Hell, Bob Kane with EVERY new movie would change his tune. He would say, oh this is how I REALLY wanted Gotham / Batman, etc to be like when I invented it. Even if each passing thing was radically different.

Hell, he was PRAISING Batman and Robin, and George Clooney being the ultimate Batman before his passing, and before Batman and Robin was released to the public. You can't put ANY kind of stock into that stuff.

Keaton loved Batman Begins, said he had an idea that he wanted to pitch to the studio that was similar. That would have treated the character with integrity, and made the protagonist the actual central plot of the film. He also said TDK was fantastic.

So far he's on record as really only liking B89, Begins, and TDK.

His statements on Returns, indicating he's only watched it once, the loose lips about sequels not having ambitions beyond the first film, are all pretty much indications and a nice way of saying he didn't care for THE ONLY sequel he's EVER participated in ... SMH @ the Returns fans with the back tracking.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Why is that sad that I am right? I have been right before about things on here.

Its not sad that youre right. Its sad that Keaton really ISNt that fond of BR. I love that movie. For me its a great, expressonist and very bizarre fairy tale with phenomenal soundtrack

Because he was in the business of SELLING at the time.

Absolutely, never argued that

 

[GothamLegend]

Its sad that Keaton really ISNt that fond of BR. I love that movie. For me its a great, expressonist and very bizarre fairy tale with phenomenal soundtrack

So are you more of a fan of bizarre fairy tales or a fan of Batman?

Because if it's the former, Burton has done superior "bizarre fairy tales" ... he's made his career on them. Edward Scissor Hands, Beetlejuice, Big Fish, all superior and entertaining fairy tales that cater to Burton's sensibilities without boring, infringing and dragging an exciting and worldly beloved concept such as Batman through the mud.

 

[El Payaso]

Why is that sad that I am right?

Because that happens just in your head. Outside, in the real world, Keaton has never said he "hates" anything BR. Burton wasn't satisfied with B89 and many people love it.

I have been right before about things on here.

Which explains your multiple new SHH accounts.

Because he was in the business of SELLING at the time. Truth comes out later on ... same was Jon F. and RDJ came clean a year after Iron Man 2's release and said they didn't like it all that much, either. Because it was clearly inferior than the original.

I mean if you ever take someone promoting their film before it's release at face value, they generally are always being a con-man, unless the movie ACTUALLY is really good.

Maybe, maybe not. Then again we have facts like Keaton was going to do a third Batman as long as it kept Burton's approach.

Hell, Bob Kane with EVERY new movie would change his tune. He would say, oh this is how I REALLY wanted Gotham / Batman, etc to be like when I invented it. Even if each passing thing was radically different.

Hell, he was PRAISING Batman and Robin, and George Clooney being the ultimate Batman before his passing, and before Batman and Robin was released to the public. You can't put ANY kind of stock into that stuff.

I see. So these guys' opinions are not very reliable. Not like you can quote them to state a fact or anything like that.

Keaton loved Batman Begins, said he had an idea that he wanted to pitch to the studio that was similar. That would have treated the character with integrity, and made the protagonist the actual central plot of the film. He also said TDK was fantastic.

So far he's on record as really only liking B89, Begins, and TDK.

And Nolan liked Burton movies. Is it like that is changing anything here?

His statements on Returns, indicating he's only watched it once, the loose lips about sequels not having ambitions beyond the first film, are all pretty much indications and a nice way of saying he didn't care for THE ONLY sequel he's EVER participated in ... SMH @ the Returns fans with the back tracking.

Well, Johnnie Depp never sees his movies.

 

[The Morningstar]

So are you more of a fan of bizarre fairy tales or a fan of Batman?

Because if it's the former, Burton has done superior "bizarre fairy tales" ... he's made his career on them. Edward Scissor Hands, Beetlejuice, Big Fish, all superior and entertaining fairy tales that cater to Burton's sensibilities without boring, infringing and dragging an exciting and worldly beloved concept such as Batman through the mud.

Yea... not many people think Burton dragged Batman through the mud. With Batman 89, he helped re-enforce Batman as a pop culture icon.

 

[GothamAlleys]

So are you more of a fan of bizarre fairy tales or a fan of Batman?

Both, and the movie has both.

 

[GothamLegend]

With Batman 89, he helped re-enforce Batman as a pop culture icon.

Agreed there.

 

[バット人]

I don't think Michael Keaton, or most other actors that have had parts or portrayed characters even care as much about the films. I mean, why would they? Look at Gary Oldman for example with TDKR. Do you really think his positive, "epic" comments are really how he feels? Of course not. It's all predetermined, probably by the studios, things going on behind the scenes that we'll NEVER see. Is an actor really going to slam a film they're trying to promote? No, they're going to praise the hell out of it and hype it up.

Judging by Keaton's personality I doubt he cares. It's just a role and a job. It certainly doesn't matter to him as much as it does to us. I seem to recall interviews with Keaton where he claimed he felt silly in the suit and with the material. I can only assume but I doubt the man cares if fans think he's the greatest Batman, or the worst not to mention the films he has appeared in. Why would an actor's opinion even matter? If YOU like a film, another person's feeling (be it a fan or a gloried actor) shouldn't even matter. That's why I find it bizarre that people will rally behind actors be Christian Bale or Michael Keaton that portray their preferred interpretations and then use their quotes to support their feelings. Using quotes, old and new will never be 100% accurate to how some one really feels. This isn't E! True Hollywood Story.

People change, opinions change. The fan base is probably the only group that actually cares about what is considered the "best". Everyone else involved with the pictures have moved on. That's why I find it asinine when fans try to use how other actors supposedly feel to support their feelings.

 

[Cain]

^ I get where you're coming from.

I don't normally like to use labels and hate categorizing in general. But '89 was the better movie while Returns was the better film. I guess the polarization boils down to Keaton being more of a movie fan and Burton more into film. I like both.

To me the cinematic language in general it's just a beautiful thing. To miss out on any of it is a disservice to your soul. There are people with preferences though and that must be respected. Just that to me personally great art is inspiring I don't care if it was an action movie, a horror movie, a c-list straight to DVD movie or an art school classic if it resonates with me we're gold. Therefore I don't give a **** that Michael Keaton doesn't like Batman Returns or that Tim Burton doesn't like BATMAN;because I did.

Oh to get back on topic I think in terms of superficiality the original was darker. The scale of the production is more vast beyond just it's clearly 3 sets on a soundstage. It feels gritty and real and that is scary cause it was so reflective of urban society at that point in time. The scope of the 89 sets and that whole atmosphere felt very "adult" for a comic book movie. That and I know people in their 30's who grew up creeped out by Nicholson's Joker makeup but didn't even whince at DeVito.

Thematically though I think BR is darker most definitely. It took the themes from 89 (the effects of psychological trauma, isolation, duality) and multiplied them by 10 then on top of that sprinkled even more pervasive (Catwoman's S&M garb and demeanor; Penguin's horniness) and introduced themes to the table that were just flat out darker (abandonment, cold blooded murder [including planning to murder children], social corruption) than anything in '89. As a kid I thought BR was a bit sillier than '89. Found it more playful but as an adult I could now see why soccer moms went nuts.

 

[The Morningstar]

I think it kinda comes down to the nature of the villains.

The Joker, whilst a homicidal maniac is all fun and games. But really, that whole hand buzzer scene, and especially the end of it, is disturbing stuff. I think Nicholson's Joker is actually a bit underrated there, with the menace and "darker" insanity, so to speak. I mean, he's holding a conversation with a charred ****ing corpse. Creepy stuff.

Penguin is just a nastier, meaner piece of work. With no real charisma or "fun" about him. He is a very disturbing character. Playing the victim card (and he does it well), gaining sympathy. But really, he wanted revenge all along. The scene where he is sifting through all the birth certificates in the record archive is very creepy when you look at it in hindsight. That point in the film we don't actually know his end game, we just assume he's looking through the records for his birth certificate and his real family name. But no, he's making a list, and checking it twice... ready to murder all the first borns of Gotham, whether naughty or nice.

Yea, that's ****ed up.

 

[バット人]

Therefore I don't give a **** that Michael Keaton doesn't like Batman Returns or that Tim Burton doesn't like BATMAN; because I did.

Yep, that's exactly it. I don't care if Keaton hates Batman, the Batman films or fans in general, I still enjoy what he brought to the table. This applies to the the other films and actors/directors as well. I don't see why fans feel the need to "protect" what they like or feel threatened by other interpretations out there. There's way too much blatant negative criticism as well as staunch support on here for all aspects and interpretations of the character. I don't care what or who someone thinks is better because at the end of the day, the only critic or opinion that matters is essentially your own. It's best to leave it at that instead of going on long rants or tirades (similar to what I'm doing now) to make your voice be heard. I think the internet and these message boards are great for information but they've really brought out the ugly side in fans.

 

[Cain]

Yep, that's exactly it. I don't care if Keaton hates Batman, the Batman films or fans in general, I still enjoy what he brought to the table. This applies to the the other films and actors/directors as well. I don't see why fans feel the need to "protect" what they like or feel threatened by other interpretations out there. There's way too much blatant negative criticism as well as staunch support on here for all aspects and interpretations of the character. I don't care what or who someone thinks is better because at the end of the day, the only critic or opinion that matters is essentially your own. It's best to leave it at that instead of going on long rants or tirades (similar to what I'm doing now) to make your voice be heard. I think the internet and these message boards are great for information but they've really brought out the ugly side in fans.

As someone who has used the internet since AOL was the only way to get online with a subscription service I agree with this wholeheartedly. In the beginning I'd say like especially 97 - 98 the fraternal bond that fanboys always have for each other despite their differentce; the mutual respect if you will was more prevalent then than it is now.

People are so much more cynical and mean spirited now a days that it gets too personal and downright nasty to the point of killing the enjoyment of such discussion after a while. It's reasons like this that I haven't even looked at sites like AICN for example since around 2005 or so. It just got too sickening. I stick by here still to this day cause the mods were always more alert on this board and actually seemed like they cared about the quality of the discussions.

 

[Marx]

To answer the original post question, I do not believe that Batman Returns is darker than B89. BR may be darker visually but B89 is darker story-wise. The Joker's entire angle is about poisoning Gotham in B89. I mean, Joker kills every person in the Gotham Museum and then dances over their dead bodies while dancing to music and defacing art. That's a lot darker than Red Triangle Gang throwing children into a small circus train so the Penguin can kidnap them.

 

[El Payaso]

To answer the original post question, I do not believe that Batman Returns is darker than B89. BR may be darker visually but B89 is darker story-wise. The Joker's entire angle is about poisoning Gotham in B89. I mean, Joker kills every person in the Gotham Museum and then dances over their dead bodies while dancing to music and defacing art. That's a lot darker than Red Triangle Gang throwing children into a small circus train so the Penguin can kidnap them.

That's absolutely one way to see it. But I feel some people feel BR was darker because in the end Batman doesn't get the girl, he's believed to have killed a girl, etc. I mean, it has a sad ending, opposite to B89.

 

[Marx]

...but Batman isn't about "getting the girl".

Batman Returns definitely ended on a down note but I don't really think it's darker story-wise.

 

[DaveMoral]

Visually I don't actually think Returns is darker than 89. Returns is a far more polished film, the Batsuit is glossy while in 89 it was matte. Even the Batmobile seems to have more shine. The cave is better lit, while in 89 it was so dark it seemed like it was covered in soot. Gotham itself seems cleaner in Returns. Aesthetically I don't think there's a comparison, 89 is a far darker film.

As far as subject matter, it's a toss up to me. Returns is definitely a far more melancholy film, but I'm not sure if that makes it more dark to me or not. Penguin had plans and did some stuff... but the Joker... man, he was not shy about what he was up to. He murdered everyone in the museum, mob bosses, cops, Grissom, he murdered television news reporters live on-air. Definitely gassed more than a few Gothamites in the parade before Bats could get those balloons out of there. And on top of that, he deformed the face of Mick Jagger's ex-wife.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

For a 20-year-old movie being compared to its 23-year-old predecessor, this thread and the question driving it have had a surprising staying power. I have an answer, but the question of, "Is it darker?" isn't really a descriptive one. What does "darker" mean? Even if you're talking about just tone, it still doesn't mean much because there are lots of kinds of "dark." But I would say Batman Returns is darker than Batman, and that's mainly reflected in their endings. Batman has a happy ending, the sort that you'd expect from a summer superhero movie: the hero gets the girl, the villain is defeated spectacularly, but more importantly than anything, we see that our hero will continue standing guard over his city. There's a slightly melancholy feeling to the way Vicki says, "I'm not a bit surprised," and we then pan up to Batman standing up there alone, but it's very slight compared to what's happened by the end of Batman Returns. The love story in Returns is a tragic one, as is The Penguin's story, and all that we're left with is sadness. There's a fun tag revealing that Catwoman is still alive, but it's just that, a fun tag. Now, the movie overall has a lot of humor, both black comedy and broader stuff - but so does the first movie. They're actually very similar in the way they combine brooding, grim material with macabre humor (Tim Burton, after all). But I'd pick Returns because it ends up having more depth and bleakness to it. One of the reasons Batman '89 made such an impact, though, was its brooding atmosphere and tone, and so I could see it feeling "darker" for that reason: it came first.

 

[Macphisto]

I think it's darker and campier than B89 which is what makes it so unconventional, fascinating and bizarre. It's hard to define clearly. It's one of a kind.

 

[AnneFan]

Kidnapping children to toss them into a deep dark watery grave, cutting down a crop of Gothamites before their prime is pretty darn dark. The 'if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them' policy. And of course then it evolved into destroy everything because I'm no longer discriminating. So we more or less get The Joker's plot from B89 with the former drowning plot included.

 

[Elevator Man]

I think it's darker and campier than B89 which is what makes it so unconventional, fascinating and bizarre. It's hard to define clearly. It's one of a kind.

I found nothing "campy" about BR.

 

[Brain Damage]

I found nothing "campy" about BR.

Did you watch the fight scene with the Red Triangle Gang?
A poodle catching a batarang with its teeth?

That's pretty campy.
I actually agree with the poster who said that BR was both darker and campier than '89. That's one of the best descriptions of it I've heard.

The movie just has such a sense of dread throughout most of it, and the fact that a lot of the dreadfulness is mixed in with the camp makes it a truly bizarre movie that's pretty ****ing awesome.

 

[Mister Meddle]

It was somewhat cartoony.... a dark and nightmare-ish cartoon that isn't suitable for children. It had it's darker and lighter moments.

Drowning a bunch of kids is probably the lowest a human being (or creature) could stoop. It's something that only the Penguin would think of in his crazy head.

 

[CConn]

I dunno, stuff like that I'd just chalk up to small elements of a larger example of German Expressionism.

As GothamAlleys detailed in his blog; "Expressionism is a mode of representation whereby internal feelings and abstract concepts are displayed externally, often at the expense of realism and artistic convention. Expressionist art usually has a surreal or fantastic quality to it, presenting distorted aesthetics through which the true nature of a thing is belied in its external countenance."

Granted, a dog catching a batarang probably doesn't hold any deeper meaning, but in the confines of the inherently unrealistic film, I don't think it comes off as campy.