Discussion in 'Batman World' started by CFE, Oct 20, 2007.
At any rate, MK's Bruce Wayne had more wit than you do:
And yes, I realize this is BR we're discussing... but these tired nitpicks are commonly levelled at Burton's Batman take as a whole.
I could point to Bruce's interaction with Max Shreck (sp?) as proof that Wayne in Returns was sociable, albeit to a lesser extent than what we see in the comics these days.
The whole "Bruce was a nerdy psycopath" doesn't really cut it. Some people just aren't getting it. They either aren't getting the spirit of the movies, or the comic era they were drawn from.
Also: We never claimed that the Golden Age was the SOLE source aside from Batman the character as seen in B89/BR.
Burton at least flipped through TKJ for Nicholson's direction. The Penguin was a reimagining altogether, and Catwoman was a hodge-podge. Nobody is denying that.
Tim Burton himself, admitted that he doesn't read a lot of comic books. So how do you know for sure about his depth of knowledge of Batman?
I never said that those aspects shouldn't be apart of Batman's universe (especially with characters like Joker and Two-Face). My point is that I felt that Tim Burton went way, way overboard with these themes and lack a certain sense of rhyme and reason.
If the movies are called "Batman and "Batman Returns", then it would logically, make the most sense to give the most prominence to the title character. That would be like making a Superman film and giving more time and interest developing Lex Luthor.
I know the actor's name (get a sense of humor while your at it). Just like Beetlejuice played Batman in Tim Burton's films, and Iceman from "Top Gun" and Danny Ocean played Batman in Joel Schumacher's films.
The black Nick Fury was based on the "Ultimates" comics not from a film or television adaption. Two-Face on "Batman: The Animated Series" wasn't African American, he seemed to look more Italian (Scilian).
The point of Batman not wanting to resort to killing criminals is because he feared that he would wound up becoming like the man who killed his parents. He didn't want to embody criminal-like methods himself. Did you have a problem with him then, not wanting to kill in Schumacher's films or "Batman Begins"?
Where did it say in Batman's first incarnation that the Joker killed his parents?
Non-killing Batman has always been more heroic than killing Batman, and that's how it should be. Batman is a hero who fights against crime because of his love for humankind, not because he's some insane little boy. Because of his heart, he would never do something as evil as taking another man's life. Burton didn't understand this, but he still made very good movie that deservers all the credit it's been given.
The guy had his parents killed randomly when he was 6. Youll understand he might be a strange, somehow emotionless and deranged guy.
Theres nothing wrong about that approach. Its Frank Millers approach, where Bruce Wayne its all of that.
That said, he wasnt totally emotionless. And even Batman begins also influenced by Millers approach - got it right when it showed Bruce pretending to be the cool guy. But he wasnt.
Ridiculous. And a juvenil statement.
Being in emotional pain is far from being a loser.
And Burtons Batman was cool. He said little and his movements were just a few, but everytime he moved, some guy fell to the floor unconscious.
What makes me wonder, what do you expect from a poster who says things like "Burtons Batman is a pathetic loser
The point is to be better than the source material.
Yes, he is. He even looks and feels more of a penguin than just being a chubby guy with a big nose. And his motivations are not only as strong as the comic books' version but him being deformed makes him a real tragic figure with a more powerful resentment towards society.
FAR better than the original. And still a penguin.
Yes, he is.
And so far that sounds far better then the comics version.
They could have made the Penguin a real memorable tragic monster-like figure better than the original and some people would scream "Yeah, but its nothing like the comics".
Because many elements from the original version are good. But the whole concept was still lame.
Like when Shakespeare took Hamlet and made it a better character with a better story. He improved the original material just like Burton did with the Penguin.
Again struggling with perfection for the sake of a tiny detail that wasnt important for the story. What can I say, It's not that they changed the source material, that happens all the time and is for a movie
So he did play a great Joker but darker? Booyah.
You already monopolized that?
^ The illogical things monopoly.
In comics and movies we know who he is. Yet some might reasonably think that a faceless murder is better for the story (revenge is impossible and pointless, crime has no face). And as much as I like B89 and BB's approaches, I find that quite a great idea.
Yes, of course.
In the movie its fully explained. Major Borg said to Gotham that the authorities couldnt warrantee citizens safety.
Yeah, manipulating a car is virtually an absurd concept. In the illogical things monopoly system maybe.
Sure. Nipples, butts, neon lights, the anti-Two-Face, many Riddlers riddles that points to... nowhere (Mr. E!???? Thats it???) Its a pleasure. In the illogical things monopoly system that is.
Harvey, you need help. I can offer you a bunch of silver coins so you can lose balance and fall to your death. I hope you can appreciate my infinite compassion buddy.
Illogical monopoly strikes again.
Highly perturbed by his parents death. Something that Schumacher was luckily able to keep from Burtons movies.
Those Academy guys cant appreciate nipples! They need to go out more, in words of Schumacher himself.
It symbolized how people you love fall much slower than any other kind of person (like Harvey Dent, who Batman refused to save as he did with Robin and Chase) so you can save them on time.
Ill tell you wtf.
Schumacher got many elements terribly wrong. And the changes were for the worst. Opposite to Burtons movies. Two-Face was nothing of Two-Face and Riddler was played as Frank-Gorshin-gone-homicidal.
Now, settle down. Just agree to disagree and go to some other forum to have fun.
And his interactions with Vicki Vale didn't?
"to tell you the truth I don't even think I've ever eaten in this room before"
"one drink and I'm flying"
and then poof off to the sack they went.
You have seemed to conveniently forget about Silver St. Cloud and how his relationship with her was also an influence used in this movie.
Yes he was. Deeply perturbed and obssessive.
So basically you dont even like the Batman concept. Or your comprehension of the character is so vastly poor that all you can throw is that ignorant half-assed definition of both what a loser is and what a traumatized person is.
Any average person can cry his parents death for 20 years even if they werent killed. Most of us are able to see that reality and deal with it.
Its as juvenile as saying compassionate people are losers.
That said, you might want to check your dvd player. It seems to be distorting images. Theres no scene where Bruce Wayne or Batman is crying. Except in that underrated masterpiece called Batman Forever. So I suggest you should call tech support as soon as possible.
Yes, it seems that directors, much as writers in comics and movies have their own views on the characters they work with.
Its never late to learn the most obvious things of this life. I encourage you to keep going.
It seems your dvd player is distorting images. You might want to check it. I suggest you should call tech support as soon as possible.
Now, if you happen to have gotten the scene entirely wrong, the tech support for that might be considerably more expensive.
Mh. So far the aforementioned words game has more wit in it than any of your criticisms. So please appreciate it.
I could cite plenty of comics where Bruce Wayne came across as an aloof person. This is how he has portrayed himself in public for decades as someone who is rich but also somewhat dumb not a spoiled snob. Granted Keaton/Burton took it to another level by making him more introverted but it served for the purpose of what they were trying to portray a more realistic take on a guy who plays dumb in public. There are many rich guys in real life who are that way it's the same way Bale/Nolan had him act like a complete jerk which is different from the comics but again a more realistic take as there are many rich people who also act that way in real life as well.
Show me the movie where Bruce Wayne seems to suffer from something like the Asperger syndrome or some attention deficit thing.
I mean, other than Batman & Robin.
As many times in comics Batman is unsure of his crimefighter career.
And where did he wear that scarf from batman begins? And where did he wear that housecoat? And where did he wear that watch?
I thought you were the one saying It's not that they changed the source material, that happens all the time.
Maybe you want a moment alone to reach an agreement with yourself?
As much as many scenes that prove the same thing.
He, in fact, was.
As many people with severe child traumas. Something else that urton got better than many comics.
Still, that is not crying. You owe us a rectification.
Havent you called tech support for your defective dvd player yet?
Or its still the getting scenes wrong thing?
That blind people pictogram might sum up accurately much of your criticism.
No he was not. He started to dedicate his life to help other people. He has never been portrayed disturbed until Burton's Batman came around (Frank Miller doesn't count. DKR played at the end of Batman's career and in Y1 he was quite normal). Yeah, yeah, I know "who can a guy who dresses up like a bat be normal"? I tell you: He doesn't think he is a bat, he just uses the motif and the night as an advantage because he hasn't any superpowers. And, BTW; he lives in world where it's quite normal to wear a mask and fight/or commit crimes. The murder of his parents was seldom mentioned, more in some of Batman's sentimental moments. Oh and of course I talk about the Batman before Zero Hour, before he became a truly deranged nutcase - but this guy doesn't count because he didn't exist in 1989.
The curious thing is not why you keep hearing the truth but why you keep refusing to accept it.
The Frank Millers Batman is deppressive.
As many director, Burton chose the best elements of different eras that worked into the same context.
Like he had in all of the movies.
I suggest you should call tech support for your dvd player. It seems to be skipping scenes.
If you embrace your IQ you will see she survived as many other characters survive dangerous situations. Not because of any super-power.
Selina, in his twisted mind, was convinced it was the fact that she was a cat. But it wasnt in reality.
Or they could have searched amongst the old newspapers files.
Desperation leads to many kind of vagueness.
Wow this thread is going nuts looks like the Nut-Gun person is stirring up the honey pot.
The truth is: Burton didn't really care about the source material, he tried to change everything to fit HIS vision.
For the record. Burton's Batman has nothing to do with Miller'S DKR Batman. Yes, yes, they both wear bat costumes. But Miller's Batman is 80s! He is loud, aggressive, extroverted. Burton's Batman is silent, passive and introverted. (Same goes for his "Bruce Wayne")
Yeah, like the Penguin and Catwoman, back then in the "Gothic Age of comics".
And now? And why not? Afterall he used DEEP quotes like "You have a kind of dark side, don't yaa, Selina?" WOW! Sounds absolutely not forced! Romancing the stones!
It was at least hinted that she became some supernatural girl. She started to jump around and do martial arts afterwards.
Every time I see Selina Kyle moving like a real cat I feel a little bit embarrassed. Like Selina Kyle is supposed to be a human cat
They aren't too bright, i think that's a fact.
So you're saying someone who devotes themself to fighting for justice can't simultaneously struggle with internal demons (Demons being a metaphor here)......
Tim Burton himself admitted that he read Batman comics in order to do Batman 89. He mentioned The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns apart from the Bob Kane era comics.
By your original statement: Tim Burton seemed to think that Batman should be some quirky, neurotic psycho with a death wish, not a heroic adventure, who is more altruistic in his goals. it seemed like you were.
Again, by your post you ruled out heroism when in fact was part of Burtons Batman. Batman had every reason to be tough against crime and heroic about innocent people.
Or making a movie called King Kong or Jaws and giving the giant gorilla and the shark less screentime than the human characters.
Now, on a second thought, the shark thing worked pretty well.
I still think that is a problem about pre-determined thought. More screentime not always means more prominence.
You see then how calling an actor a previous character name unrelated to the movie were discussing brings an uncalled feel of bashing to it. Criticism about the movie I can get them. To call Dee Williams Lando Calrissian is bashing the election of the actor merely because of some past roles. Which is totally unrelated to your criticism of his race vs the original characters race. Our next point btw.
So a comic can make such a change but not an adaptation? Any rerason for this biased authorization?
I have to ask, how is changing Harvey Dent to a Sicilian man is better or more acceptable than to change him to a black man?
BTAS Harvey Dent was not black and sicilian it just looked a little bit like that because of the hair style.
On the contrary.
I felt that Batman Forever took that in quite a good way. After some years in the business Batman finally got a void feeling out of his crime-fighting career. He learnt that killing the criminals wouldnt make his pain go away. It took him some years to get to that.
Which leads me to B Begins.
Begins handled the revenge/ non killing aspect brilliantly. The origin story which was as inaccurate as Burtons by the way explained in an excellent way why Bruce was like that. He didnt born a hero. He did think about revenge a big deal. But it was circumstances what showed him that was not the way. It was brilliant.
But, as I said in another thread, both movies handled the story quite well being completely different circumstances. The fact I love how Batman 89 handled the origin story has never meant I cant accept a totally different approach as long as it makes sense.
Those are pretty full lips.
He is sorta reminiscent of... Jay Leno.
If you read properly I was merely talking about the killing Batman issue. About that issue Im right pointing out the Bob Kane era as the influence.
Because for that matter, wheres the comics where Ducard as Ras al Ghul are the same? Or where Ras is Batmans original mentor? Or the comics where we meet Rachel Dawes the childhood Bruces little friend?
Does that (not being in a comic book) mean those elements didnt work? No. Well, except for Rachel dawes, but that because of Katie Homes.
But about the killing Batman issue, that DOES have a precedent in comic books.
yeah, like Superman, Hawkman, Micky Mouse.
^ How do those examples have anything to do with that?