Rank the Batman Franchise!

I was 9 in the summer of 95. There was absolutely no escaping that marketing blitz.

That said, no regrets. I do have fond memories of it. The character posters everywhere you looked, the McDonald's glasses, the toys, the video game, the soundtrack, Kiss from a Rose on the radio and MTV nonstop. Borderline propaganda? Maybe. But it was fun if you were the right age. It was something to talk about with your friends and get all excited about. And there are aspects of the movie that I'd defend. I'd definitely be down to watch the Schumacher cut.

WB had to learn the hard way with B&R that they couldn't just coast on the idea of "Batman" movie indefinitely though.

Personally, I think part of the fun of the franchise is that it's tonally all over the place and you can go in so many directions with it. It's a bit like Bond in that sense.

Yeah I'd just finished my first year of high school when that movie came out, so I think I was starting to prefer more mature ideas, themes, etc. and despite the fact that I've been a huge Batman fan for my whole life, the Schumacher films just weren't cutting it for me. I am grateful they exist, though, since it's probably the single largest contributing factor as to why we got the TDK trilogy, Joker, and now these Reeves films. I'm personally excited to hear that they seem to be going all-in on Reeves' vision. We could end up with some damn good television on top of another classic trilogy.
 
Ah, yes, I very much remember the comic book issue revealing Selina's origin to be her as a secretary getting pushed out of a window and being ressurected by cats and given cat-like powers.

Or the one where Joker kills Batman's parents.

Or where Penguin is a sewer dwelling mutant who-- you get the idea
I mean there's a reason these films are always referred to as adaptations and not straight up translations of the source material. But sure, substituting witticisms for actual argument is always a sure winner, so I don't blame you lol.
 
I mean there's a reason these films are always referred to as adaptations and not straight up translations of the source material. But sure, substituting witticisms for actual argument is always a sure winner, so I don't blame you lol.

Adaptation still implies people want it to be "faithful" to that source material. Whether or not it is or isn't is completely arbitrary but your interpretation isn't law. Some people want something more faithful, others want something different. It's not that complicated.

Also openly belittling someone's opinions in a debate about Batman movies is not a good look lmao
 
Whether or not it is or isn't is completely arbitrary but your interpretation isn't law. Some people want something more faithful, others want something different. It's not that complicated.

Evidently it is, because that's exactly the point I've been making the whole time. You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

And if someone's blatantly refusing to see any legitimacy to any interpretation that isn't relatively grounded like Nolan's was, then it strikes me as being perfectly fine to call that opinion a childish one. Practically everyone on here mocks other peoples opinions, whether it be subtly or bluntly. So if you're going to act all self-righteous, do me a favour and call everyone else out on it, too.
 
Last edited:
Evidently it is, because that's exactly the point I've been making the whole time. You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

And if someone's blatantly refusing to see any legitimacy to any interpretation that isn't relatively grounded like Nolan's was, then it strikes me as being perfectly fine to call that opinion a childish one. Practically everyone on here mocks other peoples opinions, whether it be subtly or bluntly. So if you're going to act all self-righteous, do me a favour and call everyone else out on it, too.

I would, if I was on here 24/7. But I'm not and this is the only time I've seen it recently. And honestly, my comment about it not being a good look goes both ways for both of you. I get being passionate about this, Batman's my favourite fictional character of all time. But it's just weird to get...personal, when having fan debates of a fictional character. To me, anyway
 
1. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
2. Batman Begins
3. The Dark Knight
4. Batman: Under the Red Hood
5. Batman 89
6. Batman: Year One
7. Batman : Sub Zero
8. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
9. The Dark Knight Rises
10. Batman : The Dark Knight Returns
11. Batman Forever
12. Batman: Gotham by Gaslight
13. Batman: The Long Halloween
14. Batman Returns
15. Batman: Son of Batman
16. Batman: The Movie
17. Batman : Gotham Knights
18. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
19. Batman: Hush
20. Lego Batman
21. Batman: Soul of the Dragon
22. Batman vs Robin
23. Batman : The killing Joke
24. Batman & Robin
 
I would, if I was on here 24/7. But I'm not and this is the only time I've seen it recently. And honestly, my comment about it not being a good look goes both ways for both of you. I get being passionate about this, Batman's my favourite fictional character of all time. But it's just weird to get...personal, when having fan debates of a fictional character. To me, anyway

To be fair, I wasn't so much belittling an opinion as I was defending one.
 
Live Action:
1.Batman Begins.
2 The Dark Knight Rises
3 The Dark Knight.
4 Zack Snyders Justice League
5.B89
6 Batman 1966
7 Batman V Superman
8 Batman Forever
9 Justice League Theatrical Cut
10 Batman Returns
11 Batman &Robin


And as a little note, i thought Batman/Bruce was portrayed great by Affleck in Ayers Suicide Squad. Its a small cameo so I didnt include that in the list. But in general that was a really good , close to comics take in those few scenes.
 
Last edited:
I would, if I was on here 24/7. But I'm not and this is the only time I've seen it recently. And honestly, my comment about it not being a good look goes both ways for both of you. I get being passionate about this, Batman's my favourite fictional character of all time. But it's just weird to get...personal, when having fan debates of a fictional character. To me, anyway
I don't think attacking an argument is getting personal. I'm sure they're a perfectly reasonable person outside of this bizarre refusal to see the worth of any interpretation that doesn't try to portray the character in a decidedly grounded fashion.

Apology accepted for mischaracterising my position in the first place btw. It was big of you to admit to that...
 
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Begins
Batman Returns
Batman (1989)
Joker
Batman (1966)
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Batman Forever
The Lego Batman Movie
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Batman & Robin
Catwoman
 
The Dark Knight
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman 89
Joker
Batman v Superman
Batman Returns
Zaddy Cut
Theatrical Justice League
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Suicide Squad

Been too long since I've seen 66 to judge. If we're counting comedic purpose then B&R skyrockets to like #4. I kind of think around half of them are bad tbh lol
 
Batman '89 was successful less for whatever incarnation of the character Burton was trying to present and more for the fact that it was the first major modern Batman movie. It wouldn't have mattered what incarnation of the character it was, people still would've lined up in droves to see it regardless. But that film has still managed to hold up somewhat over time not only because it leaps off the screen visually, but because it has a decent cast, and the right amount of levity mixed into the seriousness, which makes it enjoyable for a wider audience without ever being unforgivably corny. Fans could almost let Burton slide for going against canon by making the Joker be the one to kill Bruce's parents.

The number one reason why a Batman story does or doesn't work on film is essentially whether money is the priority over making a piece of art that will stand the test of time. The studio simply didn't give the Batman fanbase enough credit. Since the rogues gallery and their various costumes are essentially a marketing dream, it became something of a paint-by-numbers formula to maximize revenue and merchandising for each subsequent film by casting a major star in a wacky portrayal of the next villain(s) and hot actress as love interest and/or villain, neon, nipples and one-liners galore. Sure, Returns is a pretty film to look at, and the art is still incredible to this day, but the story is simply ridiculous, complete style over substance.

Post-Schumacher, the studio finally wised up and realized that story is what makes the character so unique, awesome and beloved. It could also be a matter of public taste in that audiences today have grown to become more interested in psychological aspects of certain characters, and Bruce/Batman and his companions and rogues happens to lend themselves extremely well to those types of stories. You can't have this crime drama, murder mystery, detective story, psychological character study, and then suddenly have a mutant or someone with super powers, or even a character in a bright green or purple costume, or fishbowl on his head breaking that tone, it doesn't work.

They could've gone any one of several different ways with a standalone Joker film, and the route they decided to take (which couldn't be any more grounded in reality i.e. no acid bath or permasmile) resulted in not just one of the best comic book movies of all time, but one of the most acclaimed films of all-time period. If that doesn't indicate for you what style or incarnation of these characters the GA would prefer to see, nothing will.
My dude, what? I like Joker a lot but that is sheer hyperbole.
 
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Begins
Return of the Joker
Batman '66
Batman 89
Joker
Batman Returns
Mask of the Phantasm
Batman Forever
LEGO Batman
Batman & Robin
Batman v Superman
Josstice League
ZSJL
Suicide Squad
 
List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film) - Wikipedia

And that's on top of raking in $1B+, 31st highest-grossing film of all-time, and highest R-rated film of all time. What exactly is hyperbolic about what I said?
It was very well received for the most part! Especially by audiences. Never said it wasn’t. It is, also, massively derivative, controversial (for reasons fair and unfair) and the acclaim is nowhere near universal.

Lots of films win awards that aren’t considered among the most acclaimed of all time. Acclaim and being on the level of The Godfather or something like that are two enormously disparate things.
 
It was very well received for the most part! Especially by audiences. Never said it wasn’t. It is, also, massively derivative, controversial (for reasons fair and unfair) and the acclaim is nowhere near universal.

Lots of films win awards that aren’t considered among the most acclaimed of all time. Acclaim and being on the level of The Godfather or something like that are two enormously disparate things.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but for you to suggest that Joker wasn't one of the most acclaimed films of all-time (whether on the basis of accolades OR financial success, of which it had both) is preposterous.

Whether or not you, or anyone else found it derivative, controversial, or on the level of films like The Godfather is an entirely different conversation.
 
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but for you to suggest that Joker wasn't one of the most acclaimed films of all-time (whether on the basis of accolades OR financial success, of which it had both) is preposterous.

Whether or not you, or anyone else found it derivative, controversial, or on the level of films like The Godfather is an entirely different conversation.
Joker had the same level of acclaim most movies that get Oscar attention get. It’s nothing hugely special in that regard. One of the most acclaimed of the year? For sure! All time? That’s crazy talk.

Aquaman also made a billion dollars. No one would ever use that as an argument that it has GOAT status.
 
Joker had the same level of acclaim most movies that get Oscar attention get. It’s nothing hugely special in that regard. One of the most acclaimed of the year? For sure! All time? That’s crazy talk.

Aquaman also made a billion dollars. No one would ever use that as an argument that it has GOAT status.

How many Oscar-winning movies have made a billion?
How many R-Rated movies have made a billion?

You're right, Joker did have the same level of acclaim as most Oscar nominated films... because it had as many nominations as other universally acclaimed films such as Godfather II, Chinatown and LOTR: Return of the King.
 
How many Oscar-winning movies have made a billion?
How many R-Rated movies have made a billion?

You're right, Joker did have the same level of acclaim as most Oscar nominated films... because it had as many nominations as other universally acclaimed films such as Godfather II, Chinatown and LOTR: Return of the King.
Not many had the branding assistance of being a Batman adjacent film focused on one of the most popular film villains of all time!

Joker was not universally acclaimed. It was generally very well reviewed. Transparently not on the same level as the three films you listed.
 
You can't be one of the most critically acclaimed movies ever made if a good 30% of critics thought it was a cynical rip off of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver repackaged with a comic book character to make money. You said earlier you criticized a lot of the earlier Batman movies for being 2 hour toy commercials. Joker is not high art, it's just a way to make money, it's attached to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Luckily, it probably got a lot of teenagers into Scorsese, which is a huge win, but it is very much superficially a pastiche of better movies imo

I like it but it's factually incorrect to say it's one of the most universally critically acclaimed movies ever when many critics had issues with it, even if some of the controversy was unfair. To be universally critically acclaimed it means, well, to be universally loved by critics. Now, Taxi Driver is one of the most acclaimed movies ever made, that would fit the bill
 
Not many had the branding assistance of being a Batman adjacent film focused on one of the most popular film villains of all time!

Joker was not universally acclaimed. It was generally very well reviewed. Transparently not on the same level as the three films you listed.

That's a good point about it having the association to the Batman brand, but it's not as though people really knew what they were getting until the film came out but they kept going to see it, and not just comic book fans either, but film fans. It's a very carefully-written, beautiful looking, wonderfully scored film on it's own terms, and anyone who can't recognize what went into making it doesn't know **** about film.

While I respect your subjective opinion that Joker might not be on the same level as films like Godfather II and ROTK, you are not going to convince me that the first R-rated film to gross a billion and earn 11 Oscar nominations, including wins for best actor is not universally acclaimed, sorry.
 
You can't be one of the most critically acclaimed movies ever made if a good 30% of critics thought it was a cynical rip off of King of Comedy and Taxi Driver repackaged with a comic book character to make money. You said earlier you criticized a lot of the earlier Batman movies for being 2 hour toy commercials. Joker is not high art, it's just a way to make money, it's attached to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Luckily, it probably got a lot of teenagers into Scorsese, which is a huge win, but it is very much superficially a pastiche of better movies imo

I like it but it's factually incorrect to say it's one of the most universally critically acclaimed movies ever when many critics had issues with it, even if some of the controversy was unfair. To be universally critically acclaimed it means, well, to be universally loved by critics. Now, Taxi Driver is one of the most acclaimed movies ever made, that would fit the bill

Hey, I am here all day for Taxi Driver, but to suggest that that film was not without it's own controversy is revisionist to say the least.

1976: When ‘Taxi Driver’ Was Greeted With Boos at Cannes – The Hollywood Reporter
 
That is a very good point, I forgot that it gradually become beloved. Same with a lot of Kubrick. But Joker had the issue of franchise-attachment that those didn't. I still disagree that Joker is one of the most acclaimed of all time, comparing it to these other monumental landmarks of cinema just feels premature imo. It's just impossible for a comic book movie to be fully divorced from corporate business decisions, although a lot of that is mostly a time period thing. There's just so much more cynicism in the making of Joker than those early examples.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"