List of Things Batman Returns got Right/Wrong

[Kevin Roegele]

• BATMAN KILLING PEOPLE!

• 
  
  Batman kills people in the early comics, the Bob Kane comics, the very comics this movie is based on. Are you therefore saying Bob Kane himself got Batman wrong because you don't think he should kill people?

 

[Leenie]

Batman kills people in the early comics, the Bob Kane comics, the very comics this movie is based on. Are you therefore saying Bob Kane himself got Batman wrong because you don't think he should kill people?

So, because the 1960's comics were really absurdly cheesy, then that should justify the cheesiness of Batman & Robin? Do you think that Schumacher's Batman is a faithful adaptation of Batman, then?

I am saying that the way Tim Burton handled the killing was screwed up. We see no conflict in Batman's character whatsoever about taking lives, so when I see him killing people out of the blue (and seeming to enjoy himself while doing it), then that makes him no different from his enemies. How am I supposed to cheer for that so-called hero?

Burton totally messed up in terms of storytelling. Perhaps if I had seen some more of the conflict that I'm talking about, then I would have felt more for the character. For example, if I were to see Nolan's Batman killing off a villain, it would mean a lot more since it's been established that he's no killer. From what I saw in the final TDK trailer, it looks like Batman is going to deal with that struggle against the Joker, and that, to me, should make some good storytelling.

 

[sasquatchs]

Why should it? Batman Returns wasn't trying to point out that kind of conflict, he's not a straightforward hero and you're not supposed to cheer for him

 

[Kevin Roegele]

So, because the 1960's comics were really absurdly cheesy, then that should justify the cheesiness of Batman & Robin? Do you think that Schumacher's Batman is a faithful adaptation of Batman, then?

Not at all. 'Cheesiness' is a word you've come up with. I'm talking specifics. Batman did kill people in the original comics, and he kills people in the Burton movies. You can't possibly say that it's incorrect for an adaption of said comics to contain the same thing.

Anyway, we all (hopefully) know the 60's (and 50's) Batman comics were deliberately toned down because of Seduction of the Innocent. They were far away from Kane and Finger's original stories.

I am saying that the way Tim Burton handled the killing was screwed up. We see no conflict in Batman's character whatsoever about taking lives, so when I see him killing people out of the blue (and seeming to enjoy himself while doing it), then that makes him no different from his enemies. How am I supposed to cheer for that so-called hero?

You're not. Burton is asking the audience exactly that question. "Is this your hero? He's a lunatic!"

In the very first Batman story, Batman knocks a gangster into a vat of acid, and calls it, "A fiiting end for his kind." Nor remorse, no conflict.

Burton totally messed up in terms of storytelling. Perhaps if I had seen some more of the conflict that I'm talking about, then I would have felt more for the character. For example, if I were to see Nolan's Batman killing off a villain, it would mean a lot more since it's been established that he's no killer. From what I saw in the final TDK trailer, it looks like Batman is going to deal with that struggle against the Joker, and that, to me, should make some good storytelling.

But that's just what you want to see from the story. That's nothing to do with good storytelling per se.

 

[Hole Shot]

Not at all. 'Cheesiness' is a word you've come up with. I'm talking specifics. Batman did kill people in the original comics, and he kills people in the Burton movies. You can't possibly say that it's incorrect for an adaption of said comics to contain the same thing.

I have a question, and I'm not asking to be argumentative but for my knowledge. When you say Batman killing people in the early days, I am aware of the Detective Comics 27 issue you're referring to with the acid vat. But I only know of that because it's his first appearance that I read a scan of for that reason, I'm not that savvy on the older stuff... so could you share some other moments?

 

[The Guard]

Famous momentwise, he kills The Monk in an early story and some of the monster men in an early Hugo Strange tale.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Not at all. 'Cheesiness' is a word you've come up with. I'm talking specifics. Batman did kill people in the original comics, and he kills people in the Burton movies. You can't possibly say that it's incorrect for an adaption of said comics to contain the same thing.

The modern BAtman does not kill. The "average Batman" (take all Batman incarantions) should not kill and in a big movie blockbuster he should not kill.

Anyway, we all (hopefully) know the 60's (and 50's) Batman comics were deliberately toned down because of Seduction of the Innocent. They were far away from Kane and Finger's original stories.

That's debatable.

You're not. Burton is asking the audience exactly that question. "Is this your hero? He's a lunatic!"

And this is why he failed.

In the very first Batman story, Batman knocks a gangster into a vat of acid, and calls it, "A fiiting end for his kind." Nor remorse, no conflict.

So what. Should Superman kill in the new movie because he did it back then? You know what the problem is: Burton's Batman comes off like a ruthless, cold-blood killer. In the so called "eartly Batman killer comics" the "deaths" were more like accidents in action. He even admits that he hates to take a human life.

But that's just what you want to see from the story. That's nothing to do with good storytelling per se.

The storytelling in the Burton movies is flawed, especially in Batman Forever. That is undeniable. And the action isn't good, either.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Burton totally messed up in terms of storytelling. Perhaps if I had seen some more of the conflict that I'm talking about, then I would have felt more for the character. For example, if I were to see Nolan's Batman killing off a villain, it would mean a lot more since it's been established that he's no killer. From what I saw in the final TDK trailer, it looks like Batman is going to deal with that struggle against the Joker, and that, to me, should make some good storytelling.

So if in Nolan's films he does something like blow up a building with many nonjas inside and we see at least four engulfed by the flames that Wayne created that you would like to see conflict.

BTW stop being as arrogant to believe that your Batman is the correct one. Burton made his films based on what Kane did and with the aid of Kane as well. They are based on the early stories; Robin even killed in his first appearnce.

What's the difference between Burton's Batman and his villians? Not much and that's the point. In returns each of the villians are actually indivdual pieces of his personality; the tottured orphan; the businessman and the masked viligante. They are him; he is fighting against himself.

Burton wants you to question and he wants to question Batman's motives and tactics. So that we can see growth in his character. Burton always viewed Wayne as someone who has gone mad and the first film is about what if he fell in love and started to go sane? That's why the ending is bitter sweet; he should have won; he got the girl; he got his parents killer and he got his life back. But he's still out there because he can't escape his demons. So in the next film Vale is gone and so is his purpose; his parents killer. So he starts to grow even madder and that is why he kills without remoarse; he has been consumed by Batman. Look at the first time we meet Bruce in Batman he's having a party; in Returns he's sitting alone in the darkness of his study. He's not Wayne anymore he's Batman; all the time he spends as Wayne is just time waiting to become Batman once more. Then he see's his reflection in Catwoman; who is out to avenge herself against the men who have wronged her in the past. He think's by saving her he can save himself. He see's the mistakes he's made and he wants to stop her from making the same. This is further dealt with in Forever, based on a Burton idea, with Dick Grayson.

 

[Leenie]

Burton is asking the audience exactly that question. "Is this your hero? He's a lunatic!"

And I think that's completely jacked up. WHY call him a hero when he isn't being heroic? WHY would I want to watch a movie where none of the characters are likable? I'm not saying that everyone should have the same thought process as mine, but I'm not just going to go along with it because Burton is shoving it in my face.

From what I heard, by the way, Bob Kane said that Val Kilmer's Batman was the most faithful adaptation of the character he had seen on screen. I didn't see Batman doing any of the stuff in Forever that he did in Returns. I think that Forever showed better character depth in Bruce Wayne than Returns did.

But that's just what you want to see from the story. That's nothing to do with good storytelling per se.

Um, going into the main character's motives and conflicts IS good storytelling. You want to see a movie that has no character depth? You want to see a movie where the characters do stuff without any explanation and/or motives? That's how I feel whenever I watch Returns. When the villains' motives are described much better than the hero's, then there's a problem!

Like I said before, my main complaint about Batman killing people in Returns is that he just kills people. The movie doesn't explain why he does it, and the movie doesn't tell the audience that what he was doing blurs the line between good and evil. The movie failed to make any connection between Bruce's parents being killed and Batman killing Penguin's goons. It failed to recognize what Batman was doing, period. In my opinion, the movie pretty much tells me, "Oh, well, here's a cool scene where Batman sets someone on fire. Oh, and here's another cool scene where he blows up a person with a bomb. Now, we're going to make Batman smile as the person is blowing up to make the audience laugh." If Burton was trying to convey the message that you described, then I think he flat-out FAILED.

Additionally, I would just like to add that I'm not savvy on the earliest comics (especially since I was born a good 40-something years after). That's not the Batman I grew up with. Batman has changed with every generation, and the Batman I've been growing up with doesn't kill. No disrespect intended towards Bob Kane, but his Batman is different from the one I've grown up with. Perhaps my views would be different if I had been born decades earlier.

 

[Darkfly]

WOW, haven't touched this thread since the beginning of it & man its ****** up with people arguing.

I mean somebody said Burton's Batman is a cold blooded ruthless killer, so what he killed somebody but he certainly isn't a cold blooded ruthless killer. And so what if the average or new batman doesn't kill in the comics, fact is he has, its exactly like saying he killed in the old Burton movies but in the new Nolan movies the new Batman doesn't kill, load of BS that argument, the fact is he's killed in comics & the movies which means neither interpretation can be wrong.

 

[Leenie]

BTW stop being as arrogant to believe that your Batman is the correct one.

When did I say that "my Batman" is the correct one? I listed things that I liked and disliked about Burton's second Batfilm. I have no absolutely problems with people disagreeing with me, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when the topic is asking for my opinion.

I had no idea that disliking Batman Returns = arrogance.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Before you read this, this is not an argument, this is a considered response, with due respect.

And I think that's completely jacked up. WHY call him a hero when he isn't being heroic? WHY would I want to watch a movie where none of the characters are likable? I'm not saying that everyone should have the same thought process as mine, but I'm not just going to go along with it because Burton is shoving it in my face.

You don't have to, no-one is suggesting you should like it. And Burton never says Batman is not likeable. Obviously that would be a huge mistake. He is the hero of the film (in narrative terms) by default. And he does heroic things (rescues Vicki, saves Gotham from poisoning, etc). That doesn't mean he's sane. That doesn't mean his actions aren't questionable. You asked for character conflict, it's right there. Bruce is asking himself the same question. Why do this?

From what I heard, by the way, Bob Kane said that Val Kilmer's Batman was the most faithful adaptation of the character he had seen on screen. I didn't see Batman doing any of the stuff in Forever that he did in Returns. I think that Forever showed better character depth in Bruce Wayne than Returns did.

Kane did say he liked Kilmer best, but he did not say anything about the movie itself. Bob Kane also said he liked the Burton movies because they are dark but a lot of fun.

Um, going into the main character's motives and conflicts IS good storytelling. You want to see a movie that has no character depth? You want to see a movie where the characters do stuff without any explanation and/or motives? That's how I feel whenever I watch Returns. When the villains' motives are described much better than the hero's, then there's a problem!

If you look at Returns as just black and white heroes and villains, then....well, respectfully, give up. That's not what it is. It's about psychologically shattered people who assume animal totems in their extreme attempts to handle their lives. Also, Batman Returns is all about Batman. All the characters are elements of his psyche. It's German Expressionism. It's genius, and it's a real work of art, but I completely understand why someone looking for a straight adaption of Batman comics of the 80s/90s would not enjoy it.

Like I said before, my main complaint about Batman killing people in Returns is that he just kills people. The movie doesn't explain why he does it, and the movie doesn't tell the audience that what he was doing blurs the line between good and evil.

And why should the movie tell you if it's good or bad? Burton is asking you to make that decision. Every time you think, "Wait - that was a bit extreme, did Batman need to kill that guy?" that's what Burton has done it for.

The movie failed to make any connection between Bruce's parents being killed and Batman killing Penguin's goons. It failed to recognize what Batman was doing, period. In my opinion, the movie pretty much tells me, "Oh, well, here's a cool scene where Batman sets someone on fire. Oh, and here's another cool scene where he blows up a person with a bomb. Now, we're going to make Batman smile as the person is blowing up to make the audience laugh." If Burton was trying to convey the message that you described, then I think he flat-out FAILED.

He didn't fail. He had to make a movie that would get past Warner Bros execs as a summer superhero blockbuster and sell action figures, and at the same time he somehow made a modern German Expressionist film that has endless layers and reveals many deep and dark elements of these characters. Batman Returns is a huge success.

Additionally, I would just like to add that I'm not savvy on the earliest comics (especially since I was born a good 40-something years after). That's not the Batman I grew up with. Batman has changed with every generation, and the Batman I've been growing up with doesn't kill. No disrespect intended towards Bob Kane, but his Batman is different from the one I've grown up with. Perhaps my views would be different if I had been born decades earlier.

But that has nothing to do with Tim Burton, does it? He made movies based on the Bob Kane comics. You can't criticise him for the fact that you yourself have not read those comics, and you personally don't like Batman killing people.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

When did I say that "my Batman" is the correct one? I listed things that I liked and disliked about Burton's second Batfilm. I have no absolutely problems with people disagreeing with me, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when the topic is asking for my opinion.

I had no idea that disliking Batman Returns = arrogance.

I apologyise; I wasn't referring to your post I was referring to a post by TruerToTheCore who was stating what should and should not happen in Batman film and saying that his opinion was undeniable.

I don't know why I forgot to point that out.

So sorry again.

And I think that's completely jacked up. WHY call him a hero when he isn't being heroic? WHY would I want to watch a movie where none of the characters are likable? I'm not saying that everyone should have the same thought process as mine, but I'm not just going to go along with it because Burton is shoving it in my face.

Just because he is a killer doesn't mean he is unlikeable. In films like Goodfellas and Bonnie and Clyde our "hero's" are villians. Just this year Robert Ford was the bad guy when he took down one of the biggest outlaws ever in The Assasiniation of Jesse James. What about the Popeye Doyle in The French Connection he shoots bad guys in the back. These films leave it up to you to decide who to cheer; just like Batman Returns.

 

[Evil Twin]

There's a whole bunch of scenes/images lifted straight from the early Kane/Finger Batman stories in Batman(1989). Heck, the first act is basically a remake of "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" complete with Batman's first confrontation being with two hoods on a rooftop and ending with the villain being dumped in a vat of acid in a chemical factory.

Batman strafing the parade is also a clear homage to the Hugo Strange monster men story of Batman #1.

Batman also throws a criminal off a roof (and the Joker down a trapdoor to his apparent death) in a similar manner to his confrontation with the henchman in the belfrey.

Blowing up the chemical factory isn't clearly referenced in early Batman stories, but Batman does send the Batgyro on a kamikaze run into a dirigible full of criminals in Detective Comics #31, which is thematically similar.

And there are plenty of other references.

Burton and Hamm are clearly referencing early Kane/Finger stories, as well as Englehart/Rogers (Grissom and Vicki Vale are standins for Boss Thorne and Silver St. Cloud), a bit of DKR, the running media commentary, Batman using guns, and the exagerrated Gotham City, and some of the aesthetic of The Killing Joke in that adaptation.

Nolan is clearly referencing "The Man Who Falls", "Batman: Year One", "The Long Halloween", and a bit of O'Neil/Adams in his adaptation.

Schumacher is clearly referencing the Batman of the late 50s, his youth, and the Adam West show in his adaptations. Arguably, he took less liberties with his movies than Burton or Nolan.

People have different eras and interpretations that speak to their interest. All are valid for adaptation. There's no right or wrong in picking an era. Just as there's no right or wrong in picking a favorite artist.

 

[El Payaso]

I am saying that the way Tim Burton handled the killing was screwed up. We see no conflict in Batman's character whatsoever about taking lives, so when I see him killing people out of the blue (and seeming to enjoy himself while doing it), then that makes him no different from his enemies. How am I supposed to cheer for that so-called hero?

I don’t remember anyone calling Batman a hero on Burton’s movies. Nevertheless, yes, Gothamites and Police Dep. were real happy having someone who eliminates the ones who’re killing innocent people and screwing up the city. Burton went beyond the black and white depiction of a superhero which simple divides characters between the good ones and the bad ones. Batman has a little of both sides in this vision.

Burton totally messed up in terms of storytelling. Perhaps if I had seen some more of the conflict that I'm talking about, then I would have felt more for the character. For example, if I were to see Nolan's Batman killing off a villain, it would mean a lot more since it's been established that he's no killer. From what I saw in the final TDK trailer, it looks like Batman is going to deal with that struggle against the Joker, and that, to me, should make some good storytelling.

You said it yourself: since Nolan depicted Batman as no killer, having him killing woul be weird. Since Burton never depicted Batman as no killer he doesn’t have to deal with such issue. In Burton’s vision Batman doesn’t even question himself about killing the bad guys off, since that way he eliminates many future innocent lives deaths. He’s all about efficiency not morals. Since he saw Jack Napier killing his parents but never being captured and punished for that, that’s the lesson he got.

That doesn’t mean there’s no conflict in the caracther. Just not the one you personally would have added if you were directing the movie.

---------------------------------

And I think that's completely jacked up. WHY call him a hero when he isn't being heroic?

So far you’re the only one calling him a hero.

Nevertheless you gotta admit Batman risked his life to save Gotham people.

WHY would I want to watch a movie where none of the characters are likable?

You mean the Joker is not a likeable carácter because he kills people?

I'm not saying that everyone should have the same thought process as mine, but I'm not just going to go along with it because Burton is shoving it in my face.

We certainkly won’t go the same process as you. But since the movie is coherent with itself in that respect, it is not something that “the movie got wrong” but merely something you personally don’t like about characters depiction. You can’t rate a movie based only on your personal morals but the coherente that the movie has with istelf.

From what I heard, by the way, Bob Kane said that Val Kilmer's Batman was the most faithful adaptation of the character he had seen on screen. I didn't see Batman doing any of the stuff in Forever that he did in Returns. I think that Forever showed better character depth in Bruce Wayne than Returns did.

I think what Kane said was that Kilmer looked the closest to Bruce Wayne.

 

[El Payaso]

Um, going into the main character's motives and conflicts IS good storytelling. You want to see a movie that has no character depth? You want to see a movie where the characters do stuff without any explanation and/or motives? That's how I feel whenever I watch Returns. When the villains' motives are described much better than the hero's, then there's a problem!

On Burton’s movies, Batman had every reason to kill villiains. And it was never state that Bruce Wayne somehow learnt the sacred value of a human life, no matter if it’s from a killer, as Nolan did (and very well I must add). Maybe it wasn’t spoonfed as in other adaptations, but the reason were all over.

Like I said before, my main complaint about Batman killing people in Returns is that he just kills people. The movie doesn't explain why he does it, and the movie doesn't tell the audience that what he was doing blurs the line between good and evil. The movie failed to make any connection between Bruce's parents being killed and Batman killing Penguin's goons. It failed to recognize what Batman was doing, period. In my opinion, the movie pretty much tells me, "Oh, well, here's a cool scene where Batman sets someone on fire. Oh, and here's another cool scene where he blows up a person with a bomb. Now, we're going to make Batman smile as the person is blowing up to make the audience laugh." If Burton was trying to convey the message that you described, then I think he flat-out FAILED.

Batman Returns is suppossed and assumed to be a sequel. Burton didn’t have to explain the whole origin again.

Now that guy set on fire. Are you assuming he died? Why exactly? All he had to do was to roll over the snow that was all around him?

Additionally, I would just like to add that I'm not savvy on the earliest comics (especially since I was born a good 40-something years after). That's not the Batman I grew up with. Batman has changed with every generation, and the Batman I've been growing up with doesn't kill. No disrespect intended towards Bob Kane, but his Batman is different from the one I've grown up with. Perhaps my views would be different if I had been born decades earlier.

No disrespect to you, but the Batman you grew up with is not the original one or even the only vision there is. And not for not being the one you grew up with it’s wrong. It’s preferable you to lecture yourself about the different Batman eras than reducing Batman to only one vision for everybody.

-------------------------

When did I say that "my Batman" is the correct one?

When you labelled another vision as the wrong one (as the title of this thread indicates) only because it didn’t match the “Batman you grew up with.”

I listed things that I liked and disliked about Burton's second Batfilm. I have no absolutely problems with people disagreeing with me, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when the topic is asking for my opinion.

The artistic choices weren’t your taste. That doesn’t make them wrong.

I had no idea that disliking Batman Returns = arrogance.

As you see, it’s more about the reasons than the disliking itself.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

El Payaso: Batman Returns is suppossed and assumed to be a sequel. Burton didn’t have to explain the whole origin again.


Didn't Burton say that 'Batman Returns' wasn't a sequel??

More of an episode...and that was one of the things that brought him back.

Despite the throwaway bits to Vicki which can easily be interpreted in a variety of ways... the movie doesn't scream sequel at all.


After the pressure Burton got on the first one... I'm glad he got more creative freedom this time around!

 

[El Payaso]

El Payaso: Batman Returns is suppossed and assumed to be a sequel. Burton didn’t have to explain the whole origin again.


Didn't Burton say that 'Batman Returns' wasn't a sequel??

More of an episode...and that was one of the things that brought him back.

Despite the throwaway bits to Vicki which can easily be interpreted in a variety of ways... the movie doesn't scream sequel at all.


After the pressure Burton got on the first one... I'm glad he got more creative freedom this time around!

Me too.

But for the way they kept mentioning Vicky Vale and the Alfred leading Vale into the batcave, I suspect that the non-sequel approach was more about not repeating the same formula and spending the whole movie talking about Joker or everything that happened on the first film than being a totally separate world.

 

[Evil Twin]

Me too.

But for the way they kept mentioning Vicky Vale and the Alfred leading Vale into the batcave, I suspect that the non-sequel approach was more about not repeating the same formula and spending the whole movie talking about Joker or everything that happened on the first film than being a totally separate world.

I agree. The non-sequel was more in not repeating what was done before rather than not acknowledging that the events of the first movie occurred. Different look, different love story, different villains, different themes.

I do think it's useful though to acknowledge that Burton does mirror certain scenes from the first movie in Returns. It's obviously no coincidence that The Penguin lays roses at the graves of his parents. Or that Bruce Wayne is left alone in the back of the limo while Catwoman prowls the rooftops at the end. It's probably no coincidence that the skylight entrance is reversed with Penguin rising from the sewers into the masquerade ball and Batman rides through the sewers instead of coming to the rescue from the skies.

 

[Leenie]

... Sigh.

I think that my criticisms with the movie are just as valid as people's praises with the movie. I give my opinion, and it puts people's panties in a bunch. It's only a bloody movie, and my opinion has sparked an all-out war, it seems.

I'm definitely NOT poopooing on Bob Kane's work. After all, without Kane, then we wouldn't even HAVE Batman. It's just that I didn't grow up with his work. Every generation has had a different take on Batman. In my parents' case, they grew up with the 1960's Batman. Because that's the Batman they are familiar with and fond of, that's the one they prefer. Does that make their opinions wrong? Absolutely not. I don't think that my preference towards the Batman I was fond of during my child hood (the Animated Series, for example) is wrong either. I like seeing Batman as a hero. I like seeing him do good things. Returns didn't show that (and it didn't explain why he did those things efficiently enough, in my opinion), and I don't like it one bit.

*puts soapbox away* I'm done.

 

[The Guard]

Burton's Batman was not the "average" Batman. He was a reinvention of the character that drew from the most classic comic book elements. To expect him to be "the usual Batman" is absurd, as that was the whole point of Burton making the film, and to take this approach to thinking about the movie is to miss the point entirely, though the character did have many of his classic comic book elements.

The storytelling in the Burton movies is flawed, especially in Batman Forever. That is undeniable. And the action isn't good, either.

How is the "storytelling" flawed in Burton's movies?

By today's standards. By the standards of a 1989 action film? It's pretty comparable.

And I think that's completely jacked up. WHY call him a hero when he isn't being heroic?

He was being heroic. Burton was simply making a point about the darker nature of the character and his world.

If you look at Returns as just black and white heroes and villains, then....well, respectfully, give up. That's not what it is. It's about psychologically shattered people who assume animal totems in their extreme attempts to handle their lives. Also, Batman Returns is all about Batman. All the characters are elements of his psyche. It's German Expressionism. It's genius, and it's a real work of art, but I completely understand why someone looking for a straight adaption of Batman comics of the 80s/90s would not enjoy it.

Well said.

If what it boils down to is "I prefer the classic Batman", fine. But say that and be done with it. Don't sit here and argue whether or not Burton's interpretation was faithful, valid, etc.

 

[Numez]

Batman Returns is perfect in every way. To say otherwise is silly.

 

[Cain]

If you look at Returns as just black and white heroes and villains, then....well, respectfully, give up. That's not what it is. It's about psychologically shattered people who assume animal totems in their extreme attempts to handle their lives. Also, Batman Returns is all about Batman. All the characters are elements of his psyche. It's German Expressionism. It's genius, and it's a real work of art, but I completely understand why someone looking for a straight adaption of Batman comics of the 80s/90s would not enjoy it.

Thank you for this great post Kevin cause in regards to the bold it seems the totem pole like poster artwork doesn't do enough to bring this message across. And yes Batman is fundamentally all over this film but I guess some cats need Burton himself to jump in the middle of the setpieces and yell "the reason why Gotham is so cluttered and damn near claustrophobic in scope is because it's a representation of Batman's mindstate in this film".

 

[Finlandman]

I don't remember who said it, but someone said that Burton's Bat-films are good films, but they really aren't about that incarnation of Batman that most people love most.
I agree 100%.

 

[MrQuinn]

... Sigh.

I think that my criticisms with the movie are just as valid as people's praises with the movie. I give my opinion, and it puts people's panties in a bunch. It's only a bloody movie, and my opinion has sparked an all-out war, it seems.

I'm definitely NOT poopooing on Bob Kane's work. After all, without Kane, then we wouldn't even HAVE Batman. It's just that I didn't grow up with his work. Every generation has had a different take on Batman. In my parents' case, they grew up with the 1960's Batman. Because that's the Batman they are familiar with and fond of, that's the one they prefer. Does that make their opinions wrong? Absolutely not. I don't think that my preference towards the Batman I was fond of during my child hood (the Animated Series, for example) is wrong either. I like seeing Batman as a hero. I like seeing him do good things. Returns didn't show that (and it didn't explain why he did those things efficiently enough, in my opinion), and I don't like it one bit.

*puts soapbox away* I'm done.

this is an interesting point of view because then that makes the Burton Batman MY generation's Batman, as I grew up with these films. That and TAS, which I always thought was a nod to the Burton films as well.
And before anyone tries to shut me down on that, I understand that TAS is not as "violent" or whatever as Burton's, but that's because it's a children's show. In fact, Forever should have been presented just like TAS as it was toned down enough for children, but still serious enough for adults. Kind of the like the X-men cartoon. Man, the early to mid 90's were a good time for comic cartoons...oh dear I've drifted off onto another topic...