Should the Batman character ever go back to a lighter tone?

[The Joker]

Well maybe you should have paid some more attention. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the Batman Returns thread.

Don't get condescending. I've seen it discussed to death and the only excuse is that Bruce sees Selina the same as himself. Which doesn't excuse that he lays down his secret identity for her and asks her to come home with him.

He hardly knows her, and she is NOT trustworthy. It's why I hate that Bruce left his mantle to John Blake in TDKR. Same problem. He and Bruce had similarities. Angry orphaned kids, Blake recognized his pain in Bruce etc. Bruce spent very little time with him, but decides to leave his Batman mantle to him.

You need to develop these things to make them believable.

It was, because I brought the romance, and the scene required that kind of drama.

In other words your opinion. You bought the under written romance you were given.

To me, their relationship was based around her constantly chastising him and Bruce trying to live up to her expectations. Very dry, very vanilla, very boring.

That's why they were not suited to be together. That's why she left him for Dent. Nolan was not asking you to believe that they were meant to be anything more than friends.

Whereas BR expected us to believe Batman would make a fool of himself for a woman he barely knows, and who beat him up and framed him.

Politicians are full of ****, all of them. They also complained about Batman '89. Moral wowsers.

It wasn't the politician part I was referring to. It was this;

Parents who have lodged a record number complaints about violence in The Dark Knight, the latest Batman film, have been supported by several MPs

All the politician did was back them. Granted this was just a storm in a tea cup compared to the backlash Batman Returns got.

The Shadow (1994)

That doesn't look nearly as bad as the one in TDK. No red seared skin around the stitching or anything.

"Whilst a good makeup effect can look seamless."

And a bad one can look awful. Just like good CGI can look seamless, like Dent's in TDK.

It was obvious CGI. I knew, when I first saw it.

For you.

It's not as bad as some people say. Rick Baker did the effects, I think.

Again for you. Like I said it's the consensus that it looked naff, and the character in general was bad.

 

[CountOrlok]

Don't get condescending. I've seen it discussed to death and the only excuse is that Bruce sees Selina the same as himself. Which doesn't excuse that he lays down his secret identity for her and asks her to come home with him.

He hardly knows her, and she is NOT trustworthy. It's why I hate that Bruce left his mantle to John Blake in TDKR. Same problem. He and Bruce had similarities. Angry orphaned kids, Blake recognized his pain in Bruce etc. Bruce spent very little time with him, but decides to leave his Batman mantle to him.

You need to develop these things to make them believable.

Well how much development can you have in a 2 hour movie, that also has other characters to cover? I didn't need to see long scenes of their courtship. The few scenes we got were extremely good. Basically, they had to convey a lot of things in a very short amount of time.

As for Robin, hated him in TDKR. Nowhere near comparable to the development given to Selena in BR.

In other words your opinion. You bought the under written romance you were given.

It was less the writing and more to do with the talents of the actors.

That's why they were not suited to be together. That's why she left him for Dent. Nolan was not asking you to believe that they were meant to be anything more than friends.

Whereas BR expected us to believe Batman would make a fool of himself for a woman he barely knows, and who beat him up and framed him.

Because Bruce saw himself in her, as you said.

It wasn't the politician part I was referring to. It was this;



All the politician did was back them. Granted this was just a storm in a tea cup compared to the backlash Batman Returns got.

Yeah, parents can be idiots. It's because of the popularity of these films, particularly among children. Other similar films with more violent content would have slipped below the radar because they are not as popular/successful.

That doesn't look nearly as bad as the one in TDK. No red seared skin around the stitching or anything.

Ok man, ok. A scar is a scar. It still isn't a severed hand, a burnt corpse, slashed face, bloody chin, black bile, unconscious woman bleeding/bitten by cats, etc that we got in Batman/Batman Returns.

Oh, and what about the scarred face of Alicia, Joker's girlfriend?

And a bad one can look awful. Just like good CGI can look seamless, like Dent's in TDK.

Ok, your opinion.

Again for you. Like I said it's the consensus that it looked naff, and the character in general was bad.

Ok. I grew up with that version of the character so I don't mind it. I do think Aaron Eckhardt did a better performance, though.

 

[The Joker]

Well how much development can you have in a 2 hour movie, that also has other characters to cover? I didn't need to see long scenes of their courtship. The few scenes we got were extremely good. Basically, they had to convey a lot of things in a very short amount of time.

Don't have so many characters to accommodate if you can't develop their relationships properly. It's common knowledge that one of the main criticisms against Burton's movies was how Batman/Bruce Wayne was always sidelined by the villains.

As for Robin, hated him in TDKR. Nowhere near comparable to the development given to Selena in BR.

It's the exact same. He and Bruce barely knew each other, but they both were sold as characters who were the same and recognized that in each other, and Bruce makes a big dramatic personal gesture to him.

The only defense you could give to it is that Blake was a Cop, and proved himself noble and a fighter for justice in the movie. Catwoman in BR did not.

It was less the writing and more to do with the talents of the actors.

Even the most talented actors can't turn crap into gold (not that I think BR's romance story was crap, just under written).

Because Bruce saw himself in her, as you said.

Not enough. Do you automatically trust someone you just met just because you have a lot in common? Just because you see someone similar to yourself doesn't mean they automatically earn your trust, especially when they've spent the bulk of the movie as your enemy.

Yeah, parents can be idiots. It's because of the popularity of these films, particularly among children. Other similar films with more violent content would have slipped below the radar because they are not as popular/successful.

The point is that both TDK and BR got criticisms for being too scary for kids.

Ok man, ok. A scar is a scar. It still isn't a severed hand, a burnt corpse, slashed face, bloody chin, black bile, unconscious woman bleeding/bitten by cats, etc that we got in Batman/Batman Returns.

No, it's not. That's why the backlash was stronger against Returns, and with repercussions. I never denied that. I just refuted your claim that there was no blood or graphic imagery in the Nolan movies.

Oh, and what about the scarred face of Alicia, Joker's girlfriend?

Looks tame by today's standards.

Ok. I grew up with that version of the character so I don't mind it. I do think Aaron Eckhardt did a better performance, though.

I grew up with it, too. Burton/BTAS/Schumacher was my childhood. I always hated BF's Two Face. From his look to his personality.

 

[milost]

How is Selina from Returns comparable to John Blake. It's not even the same.

 

[CountOrlok]

Don't have so many characters to accommodate if you can't develop their relationships properly. It's common knowledge that one of the main criticisms against Burton's movies was how Batman/Bruce Wayne was always sidelined by the villains.

I know of that criticism. That was Burton's approach. Some don't like it and prefer Nolan's approach. They're both valid, no reason to do things the same way all the time.

It's the exact same. He and Bruce barely knew each other, but they both were sold as characters who were the same and recognized that in each other, and Bruce makes a big dramatic personal gesture to him.

Not at all. When Bruce first met Selina, she was a dorky secretary. Then when he next sees her in the board meeting, she is totally different. Two sides to her personality.

You can even see by the look on his face, he is totally awestruck and dumbfounded.

The only defense you could give to it is that Blake was a Cop, and proved himself noble and a fighter for justice in the movie. Catwoman in BR did not.

Catwoman wanted to take out Schreck, who was a corrupt businessman, she just had different methods and saw Batman as an enemy. A more complex characterisation than a cop who figured out Batman's identity because he was an orphan or some lame ******ed thing.

Schumacher did Robin way better than Nolan.

Even the most talented actors can't turn crap into gold (not that I think BR's romance story was crap, just under written).

I agree. I wish we got more.

Not enough. Do you automatically trust someone you just met just because you have a lot in common? Just because you see someone similar to yourself doesn't mean they automatically earn your trust, especially when they've spent the bulk of the movie as your enemy.

I don't know where trust enters into it, but he was obviously intrigued by her.

No, it's not. That's why the backlash was stronger against Returns, and with repercussions. I never denied that. I just refuted your claim that there was no blood or graphic imagery in the Nolan movies.

I said:

It also cut away every time there was a violent/bloody scene. Compared to Batman/Batman Returns which weren't afraid of showing blood, severed arms and burnt corpses.

Which is true to to an extent.

I grew up with it, too. Burton/BTAS/Schumacher was my childhood. I always hated BF's Two Face. From his look to his personality.

I liked it but in retrospect, I'd much prefer a darker and more serious Two-Face by Tommy Lee Jones, and Jim Carrey should have toned it down a bit.

How is Selina from Returns comparable to John Blake. It's not even the same.

Not really comparable at all.

 

[The Joker]

I know of that criticism. That was Burton's approach. Some don't like it and prefer Nolan's approach. They're both valid, no reason to do things the same way all the time.

The point is that the lack of Bruce development meant under development of the romance with Selina and therefore the big gesture he makes at the end, taking his mask off in front of Schreck and asking Selina to come live with him was unbelievable considering he hardly knows her, and certainly has no basis to trust her like that.

It's sloppy and unbelievable, and makes Bruce look like a fool. Nothing happened in their very brief romance to warrant this.

Not at all. When Bruce first met Selina, she was a dorky secretary. Then when he next sees her in the board meeting, she is totally different. Two sides to her personality.

Yes at all. Who cares if he was intrigued by her? Do you place all your trust in someone like that and throw away your secret identity because you're intrigued by some stranger?

Catwoman wanted to take out Schreck, who was a corrupt businessman, she just had different methods and saw Batman as an enemy. A more complex characterisation than a cop who figured out Batman's identity because he was an orphan or some lame ******ed thing.

Rubbish. Selina didn't give a toss that Schreck was corrupt. She did nothing to try and curb his corrupt activities. It was that he pushed her out the window that made him her target. It was revenge. Not complex at all. Just like Batman became a target after he napalmed her arm and knocked her off a building.

I don't know where trust enters into it, but he was obviously intrigued by her.

So you concede he was an idiot for giving away his secret identity to Schreck and asking this psycho woman he hardly knows who beat him up and framed him to move in with him.

No matter what way you swing it that was ten times more idiotic than Bruce leaving his mantle to an honest Cop.

I said:

Which is true to to an extent.

Which doesn't negate that they also showed blood and graphic imagery, too. A point I don't know why you raised in the first place since showing blood and violent imagery doesn't make a movie better, or more mature. Which I believe was a point you were trying to argue in the first place saying Burton's were more mature, which they're not.

Not really comparable at all.

Very comparable. John Blake and Selina are people Bruce doesn't know from Adam. They both come into his life and are presented as people who are the same as him in some way. Bruce spends a minute amount of screen time with each one, and in the end makes a big personal gesture to both. In Selina's case he takes his mask off in front of a powerful corrupt business man and asks Selina to come home with him. In Rises he leaves the mantle of the Batman to Blake.

Only difference is Bruce in Rises placed his trust in someone he knows is at least honest and noble. That's why Bruce in BR looks much more of an idiot. He took off his mask and invited home a woman who did nothing to earn his trust, and who beat him up, and teamed with The Penguin to frame him.

 

[milost]

Very comparable. John Blake and Selina are people Bruce doesn't know from Adam. They both come into his life and are presented as people who are the same as him in some way. Bruce spends a minute amount of screen time with each one, and in the end makes a big personal gesture to both. In Selina's case he takes his mask off in front of a powerful corrupt business man and asks Selina to come home with him. In Rises he leaves the mantle of the Batman to Blake.

Only difference is Bruce in Rises placed his trust in someone he knows is at least honest and noble. That's why Bruce in BR looks much more of an idiot. He took off his mask and invited home a woman who did nothing to earn his trust, and who beat him up, and teamed with The Penguin to frame him.

Man, what happened Joker. We're just not agreeing lately.


I don't think the comparison works at all. Bruce and Selina have more screen time and development than Blake and Bruce do. Is that even debatable? Batman and Selina (which is about a minute), Bruce and Selina after the conference meeting? Wayne Manor (where their similarities and dualism is really played up)? Batman and Catwoman? Shreck's masquerade ball?

That relationship is way more developed, by far. Selina just doesn't come into the scene saying she relates to Bruce and knows who he is. They play with it and work up to it with the scenes they have together. I mean, who said anything about trust here? Bruce in Returns never says that, he sees Selina as a tortured soul and he reaches out to her. How does he do it? By an extreme, dramatic unveiling. They both know who the other one is, unmasking himself is his way of reaching out to her (which almost works considering she breaks down and cries). Who cares if Shreck is there? Bruce doesn't. Shreck is small potatoes to Wayne. Hell, Shreck doesn't even believe it and thinks Bruce was just masquerading as Batman. It's a ballsy move on Bruce's part, sure, but it's his way of trying to dissuade Selina from killing Shreck. He's not giving his suit and equipment to someone he barely knows, he's trying to prevent someone "he barely knows" from going down a path of self destruction.

I'd say it's apples and oranges. Returns develops Bruce and Selina's thing way more than Rises does with Blake. Returns doesn't just throw some big revelations like "I know who you are because I'm an orphan and I know of a look on your face". The relationship between Bruce and Selina might be the BEST aspect of Returns and one of the better romances in all 7 of the main Batman films. I've never seen it be put into question until now.

"Don't kill this man, don't do this, come home with me" =/= "here's my assets and mantle, have fun and remember to wear a mask"

 

[The Joker]

Man, what happened Joker. We're just not agreeing lately.

Don't despair, variety is the spice of life.

I don't think the comparison works at all. Bruce and Selina have more screen time and development than Blake and Bruce do. Is that even debatable? Batman and Selina (which is about a minute), Bruce and Selina after the conference meeting? Wayne Manor (where their similarities and dualism is really played up)? Batman and Catwoman? Shreck's masquerade ball?

Yes it's debatable. Look at the content of those aforementioned scenes. The office meeting? What did they say to each other there that was so deep and meaningful? The Wayne Manor date is the only scene where they actually talk about themselves, and it's very brief. The masquerade ball, he finds out she's planning to kill her boss, then finds out she's Catwoman.

As for Batman and Catwoman, that's when they were enemies. They didn't know who each other was. As Catwoman she beat him up and framed him.

That relationship is way more developed, by far. Selina just doesn't come into the scene saying she relates to Bruce and knows who he is. They play with it and work up to it with the scenes they have together. I mean, who said anything about trust here?

When you take your mask off in front of Schreck and ask someone to come and live with you, that takes some kind of trust. Unless Bruce is into inviting people into his home who he doesn't trust.

Who cares if Shreck is there? Bruce doesn't. Shreck is small potatoes to Wayne.

That's why he was an idiot. Schreck was not small potatoes. He was a powerful businessman with a lot of clout on Gotham.

Hell, Shreck doesn't even believe it and thinks Bruce was just masquerading as Batman. It's a ballsy move on Bruce's part, sure, but it's his way of trying to dissuade Selina from killing Shreck.

That's not the point. Bruce didn't predict Schreck would be initially skeptical that Bruce is Batman.

Batman didn't have to rip his mask off and invite her to live with him in order to stop her from killing Schreck. He's Batman. He can physically stop her and then have his cosy little chat with her about what she's doing later.

This was all just needless drama to make the scene dramatic.

He's not giving his suit and equipment to someone he barely knows, he's trying to prevent someone "he barely knows" from going down a path of self destruction.

In the stupidest possible way.

I'd say it's apples and oranges. Returns develops Bruce and Selina's thing way more than Rises does with Blake. Returns doesn't just throw some big revelations like "I know who you are because I'm an orphan and I know of a look on your face". The relationship between Bruce and Selina might be the BEST aspect of Returns and one of the better romances in all 7 of the main Batman films. I've never seen it be put into question until now.

Now you have. It was an under written, unbelievable scenario. As unbelievable and silly as the Blake scenario.

Batman doesn't take his mask off in front of villains to save the soul of a some crazy woman he hardly knows, and he doesn't leave his mantle to noble Cops he barely knows either.

Point is both Blake and Selina are presented as characters who are the "same" as Bruce, and he made an idiot of himself with both of them, only more so with Selina. The only difference here is that Keaton and Pfeiffer's scenes were more enjoyable to watch because Selina was a far more interesting character than Blake, and far better acted by Pfeiffer. That's why the horrid writing often gets over looked.

"Don't kill this man, don't do this, come home with me" =/= "here's my assets and mantle, have fun and remember to wear a mask"

They're the exact same. Unless you're trying to sell me the notion that Batman couldn't have stopped Selina and then tried to reason with her, instead of ripping his mask off and inviting her to shack up with him.

An obviously unbalanced woman who blew up a department store, beat him up, teamed with Penguin to frame him, and now was trying to kill her boss.

As much as I loathe TDKR's ending, it wasn't as stupid as that.

 

[milost]

Don't despair, variety is the spice of life.

Too true.

Yes it's debatable. Look at the content of those aforementioned scenes. The office meeting? What did they say to each other there that was so deep and meaningful? The Wayne Manor date is the only scene where they actually talk about themselves, and it's very brief. The masquerade ball, he finds out she's planning to kill her boss, then finds out she's Catwoman.

Okay, Batman saves Selina from the tazer clown. Obviously, Batman has no real interest in her (that he lets on in that scene anyway). Selina though? She's wowed by him. Next scene? Bruce recognizes that the woman he sees before him was the same woman he saved days earlier (I mistook me for someone else). He's clearly intrigued. How do you go from being a meek, scatter brained secretary making awkward small talk to this energetic, witty, devilish chick? His interest is piqued. We see it on his face, hell we see it on hers as well. They both even have an extreme disdain for Shreck. There's actually this chemistry there. A similarity that goes beyond "I knew who you were cuz of looks, bones and stuff" or, hey, you're a girl, I'm a guy, I gave you my clean energy device, let's BANG!".

The next scene actually isn't even at Wayne Manor (I forgot about this one), but on the streets where Selina is "just scaring herself". This is pretty revealing. Bruce sees yet another side to her, a conflicting side, in that store window. So now there just isn't intrigue, not just chemistry, but similarities also. She looks like a giddy little school girl when he invites her to his house and she completely forgets about her Catwoman persona.

I'm not sure what more anyone could ask for there? Do we need Alfred to have some, crazy long exposition about how these two are made for each other when it's clearly there in the story and script? Do we need another character to call out the dualism of personality and similarities when we are clearly shown that Bruce and Selina are similar (like when they both interact with Alfred in the same way).

Bruce digs this woman, this woman digs Bruce. There's something going on here. Certainly enough for a mere 126 minute running time. What more do you need in terms of development here Joker? How is this like Blake just proclaiming that he knows? Or Bruce just giving this advice to a character he's interacted with for a few fast scenes? I mean, it's not like the Keaton Bruce ever had instances where he put his trust into someone and had it backfire. Keaton Batman's intuition always proved to be right. So if anything, you should be able to give this situation the benefit of the doubt (if you dig Batman Returns that is).

Bale Bruce? Put his trust in Ducard . . . which blew up in his face. Put his trust in the "white knight", Harvey Dent . . . which blew up in his face. Put his trust in "Miranda Tate" . . . which blew up in his face. Why then, is this obsessive, surveillance conscious guy (like Keaton Bruce) so quick to trust the likes of Selina Kyle and Miranda Tate? Atleast with Keaton Bruce, there would be a first time for everything (and maybe he was just thinking with "what was in his pants"). Bale Bruce? Blake could very well be the 4th person in his life to disappoint and betray his trust.

Seems to me like you don't really buy Bruce and Selina's relationship in Returns. Well, I gotta ask. What relationships do you buy then? Chase Meridian? Miranda Tate? How about the comics? Catwoman's very first appearance and Batman was drooling over her like a little school boy without any rhyme or reason (I believe he was engaged at the time too). In fact, every incarnation seems to have Batman and Catwoman dig each other, just because. What could have possibly been added to flesh out these two characters in this film (Returns) that isn't already evident?

As for Batman and Catwoman, that's when they were enemies. They didn't know who each other was. As Catwoman she beat him up and framed him.

Which makes the big masquerade ball reveal all the more important.

When you take your mask off in front of Schreck and ask someone to come and live with you, that takes some kind of trust. Unless Bruce is into inviting people into his home who he doesn't trust.

Bruce straight up says, "Let's just take him to the police, then go home together", not "come on girl, come and live with me forever, all my stuff is yours (mi casa es su casa). Selina implies that with her "fairy tale" speech, and that, while that would be a nice outcome (the road TDKR ultimately takes), such a fate isn't possible because she couldn't live with herself. Not Bruce.

He's reasoning with her and trying to protect her from herself moreso than he is trying to give her a new home. He's basically saying, let's be done with this guy, turn him in, and go back home where we left off (before this mess with Shrek and the Penguin). It's more about reforming her than it is "trusting her". He doesn't want to see her kill Shreck. He doesn't want to see her go to jail or possibly die because of this vengeance. He likes her. He's spent time getting to know her. He knows from the masquerade that she's conflicted and confused, that being the "evil" "Catwoman" isn't necessarily who she is. That's why he's opening up to her.

Like I said, that's a lot different then, "here Johnny Blake, all this Bat stuff is now yours . . . good luck". Especially when Bale Bruce has been tricked several times from letting his guard down, in multiple films!

That's why he was an idiot. Schreck was not small potatoes. He was a powerful businessman with a lot of clout on Gotham.

Yeah, Bruce is an idiot.

He saw Shreck's plot a mile away. He knew that the Penguin was a crime boss and that Shreck was using him as a pawn. Bruce thinks Shreck's energy plant is BS and calls him out on it. Bruce is up in Shreck's face at that meeting, not backing down. Bruce had Shreck's number from the get-go. Shreck wasn't even a concern or threat to Bruce in the film (nobody really was, save for the Penguin, whom Batman easily subdues).

What's Shreck going to do? Tell everyone that Bruce Wayne was Batman? Something that Shreck didn't even really believe (why are you dressed up as Batman)? What if Bruce doesn't give a ****? He's not afraid of Shreck and is never once seen being intimidated by him. Does that make him an idiot?

I think it's telling that Bruce/Batman acts like Shreck isn't even there when he's talking to Selina. He. Doesn't. Care. Shreck is small potatoes to him. He's small and insignificant. "Shut up, you're going to jail". He put him in his place at the meeting, he no doubt put him in his place there. Batman's interest in that scene isn't even his own identity but reaching out to Selina. Bruce doesn't care.

That's not the point. Bruce didn't predict Schreck would be initially skeptical that Bruce is Batman.

Because he's not concerned with Shreck. He had his number throughout the entire film, and now, as Batman, has him right where he wants him.

Is this even an issue with Shreck or important if,

A. Bruce doesn't care if Shreck knows (which he clearly doesn't)
B. Shreck is finished (what's he going to do now?)

Batman didn't have to rip his mask off and invite her to live with him in order to stop her from killing Schreck. He's Batman. He can physically stop her and then have his cosy little chat with her about what she's doing later.

This was all just needless drama to make the scene dramatic.

We could say that about literally every Batman film, including Dark Knight's ending. The Dark Knight's ending with Batman taking the blame is needless drama to make the film more dramatic (i.e. Batman taking on Dent's crime). I don't personally think that but I've seen that been thrown around before. It could have gone a different way.

Surely from Batman 1989 to TDKR, there are other, more logical scenarios that could play out? Right?

Not only is it dramatic though, it makes sense. Throughout the film, Selina HATES Batman, but digs Bruce Wayne. If Bruce is trying to reach her, does it really make sense to do so as Batman? It's pretty ballsy of Bruce to just tear that sucker off (essentially his identity) and open himself up to Selina in front of Shreck. Selina is clearly shaken by him doing this and almost gives this up (again, crying). But nope, she won't do it because that sort of mushy, happy ending isn't possible with the path and thought process she's now on. She wants Shreck's blood and that's more important to her than anything else.

My problem with the scene is the damn racoon eye make up flub, not the fact that Bruce is opening himself up to Selina trying to sway her. Let's say he punched her out or cuffed her while he put away Shreck. Who's to say Batman is going to be able to reason with her and that she'd actually listen? Hell, Catwoman isn't completely helpless. Batman goes in to make a move like that and it could be nasty for Batman. No, he was trying to reason with her and Shreck wasn't even an issue to Bruce. I'd say that shows off Batman's cojones than it does make him look like an idiot.

I don't want to say this is your issue with it, but I'm going to assume the reason you dislike the idea is because Shreck could potentially tell the cops? In which case, so what? Why does that matter if Bruce doesn't care? In Dark Knight, Bruce was just about to spill the beans at Dent's press conference. If Dent didn't miraculously intervene in time, Bruce's identity would have been ****ed. Does that make him an idiot? Nope. Besides, it's a non-issue considering Shreck ended up getting fried.

Looking at it as a wager, what does Returns Bruce have to lose here vs. what Rises Bruce have to lose as far as trust goes?

In Returns, if Selina went with Bruce, she might have had a better, more virtuous life maybe at the expense of Wayne's identity as Batman (if Shreck even spilled the beans).

Rises? From what little we know of Blake, he could be a psychopath for all we know? Look what happened with Ducard, or Dent especially (whom we knew more about as far as plot and story goes)? Bruce is literally giving someone else Batman here, not giving it up. Look what happened to the microwave emitter, or the clean energy bomb or the freaking Batmobiles when they were left in the wrong hands. Now the whole mantle of Batman? It's not just that though. I'd like to think Blake is a goodhearted and good nature individual. He wouldn't become the next "Ra's Al Ghul" or "Two-Face" or "Talia". With that though, how is Bruce so sure that Blake is a suitable candidate. From what Batman saw, he couldn't even handle himself in tight situations (if Batman didn't somehow arrive in time to save him after he saved Gordon and Co. Blake would have been dead). What makes Bruce think that a GPS, some luggage, and the entire Batcave is enough?

It's barely set up, and once it is, the film is over. You've agreed how lame the writing is in regards to the character of John Blake (among others), is that really the same as Selina and Bruce in Returns? I don't think so. What time has Keaton Batman been betrayed/tricked? Certainly not as many times as Bale Batman. What does Keaton Batman have to lose if he doesn't care what Shreck knows? I don't think it's the same.

A more apt comparison would be the relationship between Returns Selina and Bruce vs. say, TDKR Bruce and Tate or TDKR Bruce and Selina. I'd say Talia and Selina certainly hurt Bruce more by almost killing him (and the city) than Catwoman ever did to Bruce in Returns. At worst, Catwoman participated in a scheme to frame Batman (her idea), at best, she felt bad about it and was clearly conflicted ("you didn't have to scare her", "I'm not sure who I am anymore") with her actions.

In the stupidest possible way.



Now you have. It was an under written, unbelievable scenario. As unbelievable and silly as the Blake scenario.

Man, I don't even like Batman Returns as much as I'd say, Dark Knight or Batman '89 but I gotta say, that's harsh. I thought you dug Batman Returns? If you think that aspect was under written and unbelievable, what do you like about the film?


Blake just popping out of no where saying, "yo Bruce, I know who you are" without the audience's investment in Blake at that point is silly, unbelievable and underwritten. We don't even get to know this character as much as we should. Right off the bat, he's questioning things, questioning Gordon, knowing all this knowledge despite us ever engaging with this character. Selina? We see her life as a secretary for a good long set of sequences before we even see Bruce or Batman! They're setting her up as this meek, lowly secretary with major self esteem issues (but an underlying, self conscious power). She meets Batman after he saves her, but he couldn't be bothered by her. She mentions this. We see her inner struggles, her apartment, she's EXTREMELY developed as a character (same with Penguin). Then she has her traumatic incident, and she's pissed. That old, naive persona is broken and she gets mad. She hates men (doesn't matter, Batman, Shreck, Penguin, etc.) and becomes a stronger entity that wants to kill Shreck . . . then she meets Bruce. She digs that he's intrigued with her and there's potential there. They get to know each other a bit more and find they're kindred spirits. In fact, he

"Makes me feel the way I hope I really am" (her words to Alfred before exiting in the same way Bruce Wayne does)

Bruce makes her at odds with herself. Bruce knows it, she knows it. They find out each others alteregos and before they can sit down and talk about it, Penguin literally crashes the party. No time for it. Batman tracks Penguin down and foils him. Catwoman is still thirsty for vengeance. Then we have our ending where the two of them collide with Shreck in between them, the catalyst for all this. Not sure what you wanted to happen, but I can personally say, what went down was totally appropriate for the story that was unfolding. Bruce is trying to reach her, he rips off his mask in order to do so. Selina almost listens, but then thinks that by going with him, she'd go back to the way she was, that meek, naive self. She feels scorned, refuses him and claws his face and goes after Shreck.

Sad, somber ending. Roll curtains. I've never seen anyone have a problem with this until now and I've got to say, I'm a bit taken back, surprised. I've always thought the film was a bit odd and quirky. I agree when people say that Batman doesn't have enough to do in this film or that the Mayoral prospect plot with Penguin is stupid and ludicrous. But Selina? Selina and Bruce? That ending? I thought it was gold.

Batman doesn't take his mask off in front of villains to save the soul of a some crazy woman he hardly knows, and he doesn't leave his mantle to noble Cops he barely knows either.

Yeah, because Selina is just some crazy woman to him? I guess it doesn't matter if Batman/Bruce is infatuated by her and wants to save her from going down a dark path (which originally killed her in the script).

Point is both Blake and Selina are presented as characters who are the "same" as Bruce, and he made an idiot of himself with both of them, only more so with Selina. The only difference here is that Keaton and Pfeiffer's scenes were more enjoyable to watch because Selina was a far more interesting character than Blake, and far better acted by Pfeiffer. That's why the horrid writing often gets over looked..

Then maybe I'm blinded by this quality that you mentioned, I dunno.

Then again, maybe I'm not. Batman/Bruce is never really strikes me as an "idiot" in Batman or Batman Returns. If we're saying he's an idiot for ripping his mask off in front of Shreck (whom he doesn't care about other than apprehending him), then,

- Bruce is an idiot for bedding Vicki Vale, essentially one night standing her and wanting nothing to do with her again. He should have known that she'd be pissed and slowly enter his life as a stalker.

- Bruce is an idiot for telling some random psychologist (that has the hots for him and someone he DOESN'T know) that he's Batman.

- Bruce is an idiot for naively thinking that Rachel, his childhood friend (that is clearly interested in District Attorney's) would, spend her life with him

- Bruce is an idiot for being tricked, once again, by an Al Ghul. He not only has a one night stand with someone he barely knows, but he hands over a super bomb to her while his conscious and intuition was warning him to drown the damn thing.

- Bruce is an idiot for hooking up with a cat burglar that defiled his mother's pearls, kicked his cane away, was in cohorts with the villains which caused him to lose pretty much everything . . . and trapped him in a situation where he could have died and left the city to burn to the ground.


Even in Mask of the Phantasm or Batman 66' he lets the likes of Andrea Andrea Beaumont dictate his every move.And that's just love interests. That's not including shouting at the top of his lungs "I'M BATMAN" at the circus in Forever. EVERYTHING he does in Batman and Robin. Trusting Harvey Dent to the extend he did. Underestimating the Joker, THEN underestimating Bane when past experience should have warned him.

If we want to get really cynical, every cinematic Batman in general is an idiot.

They're the exact same. Unless you're trying to sell me the notion that Batman couldn't have stopped Selina and then tried to reason with her, instead of ripping his mask off and inviting her to shack up with him.

Well, she did prove several times that she could go toe to toe with Batman (like every Catwoman basically). She could clearly defend herself with that whip and those claws.

I mean, didn't she stand between Shreck and Batman defensively, almost gesturing to Batman not to come near her? Unless you seem to think that Batman could just handle her because, well, he's Batman. If that's the case, that's not just a disservice to the character of Catwoman, but then we have to think about things like, "why didn't Batman just stop the Joker before the Axis raid"? "Why did Bruce allow Nygma to read his mind at the party?" "Why didn't Batman just throw a batarang at Dent's hand or gun, or use his LoS skills to subdue Dent instead of noisily knocking him off a ledge"?

An obviously unbalanced woman who blew up a department store, beat him up, teamed with Penguin to frame him, and now was trying to kill her boss.

Why did she blow the department store though? Because of Shreck. She's out to ruin him, that's a motive. She fights Batman? Why, because he was going to bring her down up on that roof (he pursued her).

Bruce asks why she was gunning for Shreck and Selina explains. Then she breaks down, because, again, she's conflicted. She's not a completely evil, wretch that's killing people left and right. She was a good person that was a victim that suffered an extreme injustice and traumatic experience. Shreck intended to kill her and she wouldn't even harm a fly.

 

[milost]

As much as I loathe TDKR's ending, it wasn't as stupid as that.

If you think that end in Returns is stupid, then how do you even like Returns? I mean, you seem to think Rises ending and reasoning is better. Why aren't you more lenient and forgiving towards Rises? I'm just curious. I remember seeing you praise Returns in the past (which I never really saw eye to eye with considering I think Dark Knight and '89 blow it out of the water), but with this criticism, what's there to like about it? The Penguin?


Returns and Rises have similarities (a lot of them), but they're like exact opposites. Even though I hate Rises, I think it's interesting how Returns takes the sad and somber road (Batman/Bruce ain't happy, he's not getting the girl and he'll be alone with this Batman thing for the rest of time) while Rises takes the happy, cheerful road of (Bruce is happy, he got the girl, there's gonna be another Batman and his butler got his wish! Everyone wins!).

 

[The Joker]

milost, I don't have the inclination to reply to all of that. No offense, it's not you or the quality of your reply, I just don't care enough to repeat myself after doing it several times already with Count Orlok.

I will answer your last question though. I love Returns, warts and all. Yes it's got some stupid writing blurbs in it, like Bruce unmasking himself in front of a powerful villain tycoon for a crazy villainess he barely knows a couple of days, but the good overall outweighs the bad. The saving grace to that terrible scene is that Catwoman rejects Bruce, and Schreck dies. So there was at least damage control that Bruce didn't shack up with a looney, and Schreck didn't go and blab Bruce Wayne was Batman, and have the media and everyone else watching Bruce Wayne like a hawk.

Unlike in the situations with Dent, where he at least made Dent prove himself by giving him Lau and getting the results in court putting half the city's crims away, or putting his trust in Miranda Tate out of desperation to stop Daggett whom he knew factually was a bad guy from getting his paws on W.E., there was mitigating circumstances there. There was no such situation with Selina, which is another reason why it's hard to overlook it and makes Bruce an even bigger idiot.

 

[milost]

No offense taken.

Though, after talking about BTAS Batman and craziness in the other thread, you do know that there probably wouldn't be any diagnosis of mental illness with Catwoman's actions in Batman Returns, right? She doesn't really exhibit anything that's could be label her as a "loon". If you haven't read it, check out Batman And Psychology by Travis Langley. He's a psychologist that basically surmises that Batman technically wouldn't be "crazy" (though it's pretty general and doesn't go into different interpretations like say, Frank Miller Batman). He breaks down what villains are crazy and such. He "diagnoses" them basically. Interestingly enough, Returns Catwoman gets off scotch free (as well as other Catwoman interpretations). She's not actually crazy, just a disgruntled Shreck employee with justifiable actions (even with the bird antics). None of the Jokers are really nuts either, and have a "super sanity".

And I actually don't even think Bruce is an idiot in TDK with Dent. I mentioned that, but I don't really believe it. Dent messed up, not Batman or Gordon. They couldn't have predicted Dent's actions. My argument was really that, Bale Bruce had experienced so much betrayal, that he should have really been super reluctant to trust anyone, especially after being in "hermit mode" for years. Keaton Wayne? He was always on top of his game. Returns? He was the only one that saw the Penguin's scheme for what it really was, as much as he initially wanted to believe it was true (his parents, I hope he finds them). I do think Wayne is an "idiot" in TDKR though. Every bad thing that happens in that movie is a direct result of Wayne's decisions (or lack of decisions). The fact that he allowed himself to be put into such a situation (building a bomb, unknowingly playing into the villains' scheme, didn't drown it when his gut told him too) is pretty idiotic. He's lucky the villains were more idiotic than he was in the end (giving Bruce, and the city, several opportunities to foil them).

I still don't see how Bruce in Returns is an idiot for trying to save Selina, but whatever. Maybe blinded by his infatuation with her, but still. To each his own I guess.

 

[CountOrlok]

milost, I don't have the inclination to reply to all of that. No offense, it's not you or the quality of your reply, I just don't care enough to repeat myself after doing it several times already with Count Orlok.

That's because milost totally annihilated your argument. Much better than I ever could.

 

[The Joker]

That's because milost totally annihilated your argument. Much better than I ever could.

Don't act so arrogant and condescending. He didn't annihilate anything. I meant what I said. I am jaded repeating myself at this point after several go arounds with you, and another round with milost.

I stand by everything that I said, and it's all completely true and valid. I'll happily go another round with you though any time just to put your smug attitude in it's place. I can't stand sad little stirrers like you. You're right on one thing though. Milost is better at articulating his point of view better than you are. And more humble and polite about, too.

Maybe it's just sour grapes with you because in reality I "annihilated" your argument, so you had to get in your sad little dig. Pathetic.

 

[CountOrlok]

Don't act so arrogant and condescending. He didn't annihilate anything. I meant what I said. I am jaded repeating myself at this point after several go arounds with you, and another round with milost.

I stand by everything that I said, and it's all completely true and valid. I'll happily go another round with you though any time just to put your smug attitude in it's place. I can't stand sad little stirrers like you. You're right on one thing though. Milost is better at articulating his point of view better than you are. And more humble and polite about, too.

Maybe it's just sour grapes with you because in reality I "annihilated" your argument, so you had to get in your sad little dig. Pathetic.

I apologise if I came across that way. I just thought that milost gave a very good argument. I'm not trying to be smug, arrogant or condescending. But again, I apologise if I came across like that. I'm not here to stir anything, just to discuss topics of mutual interest.

You did make some interesting points, and I enjoy debating with you, and you seem to be a very knowledgeable and intelligent person.

 

[The Joker]

I apologise if I came across that way. I just thought that milost gave a very good argument. I'm not trying to be smug, arrogant or condescending. But again, I apologise if I came across like that. I'm not here to stir anything, just to discuss topics of mutual interest.

You did make some interesting points, and I enjoy debating with you, and you seem to be a very knowledgeable and intelligent person.

Fair enough. Now I feel like a dick for being so harsh to you. Sorry for that. It's just you came across like you were gloating in a smug way. But if you say you were not then I'm willing to take you at your word.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

 

[milost]

I apologise if I came across that way. I just thought that milost gave a very good argument. I'm not trying to be smug, arrogant or condescending. But again, I apologise if I came across like that. I'm not here to stir anything, just to discuss topics of mutual interest.

You did make some interesting points, and I enjoy debating with you, and you seem to be a very knowledgeable and intelligent person.

Fair enough. Now I feel like a dick for being so harsh to you. Sorry for that. It's just you came across like you were gloating in a smug way. But if you say you were not then I'm willing to take you at your word.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Milost, I almost died choked!

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I hate the one-note dark, brooding, humorless thing that Batman becomes when the idea that "he's supposed to be dark" gets out of hand.

Yeah, I have stopped reading the new Batman comics. It's not because I'm "afraid" of violent material, but it just becomes stupid. Batman is a jerk, The Joker cuts off his face, children die etc. It's not adult at all. I wrote stories like that as a teenager. It's embarassing when you find out that the comic book creators are men in their 40's.

I don't think Batman films needs to be 18. You can still have a great Batman film and don't Frank Millerverse it. TDK is considered one of the best films as it told the story in a 12A/PG-13 fashion.

I agree. A Batman movie shouldn't be rated higher than pg-13. Watch Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. That movie is dark and serious without gore and nudity...he's called Batman, not Splatman

 

[Two-Face]

Oh i love MOTP, It's one of my favourite Batman film. i hope for a bluray soecial edition one day.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Yeah, I have stopped reading the new Batman comics. It's not because I'm "afraid" of violent material, but it just becomes stupid. Batman is a jerk, The Joker cuts off his face, children die etc. It's not adult at all. I wrote stories like that as a teenager. It's embarassing when you find out that the comic book creators are men in their 40's.



I agree. A Batman movie shouldn't be rated higher than pg-13. Watch Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. That movie is dark and serious without gore and nudity...he's called Batman, not Splatman

I agree with everything here. Modern comics, especially the New52, are absolutely plagued with the most immature attempts at trying to be 'mature,' to the point they are just bloody, schlocky, juvenile gimmicks. Harley Quin killing kids with a bomb in video game consoles? Joker wearing his own face that was cut off? Mr.Freeze a creepy perv? Mad Hatter a serial rapist?

But it was bad before that too. Every few years there would be a big crossover Batarc dedicated to bringing Bruce back to Earth and not making him such a manipulative tool who was not even really a hero at this point. And every time it didn't stick, be it No Man's Land, Murderer/Fugitive, the abominable War Games, etc.

I've just given up on reading most Batman comics at this point because of how over-the-top and obsessed with darkness they are - cops die by the dozens over each issue, Black Mask feeding loved one's eyeballs to people, the sheer misogyny present in comics - particularly with the treatment of Steph and Cass, and it's just too much.

So I answer yes to the question. One only has to look at the recent animated adaptations to see how, despite being darker and more violent and able to get away with more things than the DCAU, they are nevertheless far more immature. For me the perfect balance is BTAS. In BTAS Bruce was a great person, who would never let his allies down even if he was sometimes plagued by doubts or failures. More importantly he cared deeply about his enemies, and always supported their reform even if he remained suspicious. The show was pretty cynical at times, but it still had rays of light.

And BTBATB was just amazing in general, while still exploring some very mature content from time to time.

So yeah, lighten up. They're superhero stories - they are meant to be inspiring, and they are ultimately for children and youngsters, not people in their 20s who think an issue where Harley kills a bunch of kids and Batman kicks the girls out of his boy club is the height of maturity.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

So I answer yes to the question. One only has to look at the recent animated adaptations to see how, despite being darker and more violent and able to get away with more things than the DCAU, they are nevertheless far more immature. For me the perfect balance is BTAS. In BTAS Bruce was a great person, who would never let his allies down even if he was sometimes plagued by doubts or failures. More importantly he cared deeply about his enemies, and always supported their reform even if he remained suspicious. The show was pretty cynical at times, but it still had rays of light.

And BTBATB was just amazing in general, while still exploring some very mature content from time to time.

So yeah, lighten up. They're superhero stories - they are meant to be inspiring, and they are ultimately for children and youngsters, not people in their 20s who think an issue where Harley kills a bunch of kids and Batman kicks the girls out of his boy club is the height of maturity.

Awesome post

I agree, I think it's sad that superhero comics are far more violent than horror movies at this point. I'm not interested in reading about Bruce Wayne punching Dick Grayson in the face, Silver St. Cloud getting her throat cut or Robin impaled on a sword...and what the heck happened to Superman? I'm interested in stories where the hero acts like a hero. And I don't get the strange fetish comic book creators have for dead women and children in comics? They were usually spared in earlier comics, now it happens all the time.

I know some people say stuff like "oh yeah? But kids can read the all-ages comics that DC and Marvel make!", but my point is that regular superhero comics like Batman and Superman should be all-ages comics to begin with. We're talking about stories with men and women running around in colorful tights, with names like Captain Marvel and The Flash. Some of them can fly, shoot beams out of their eyes, lift cars etc. It's supposed to be fun, not depressing. Now every story is a badly written version of Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns. BTAS did it the right way, it was a show that both adults and their children could enjoy together. That's how the comics should be as well.

I didn't grow up with gory superhero comics, and that's a good thing. If I read my first Batman comic today as a kid, I wouldn't be interested in superheroes. And I don't think the characters are good role models, they're just superpowered versions of ourselves...

 

[Jason Kane]

awesome post

I agree, i think it's sad that superhero comics are far more violent than horror movies at this point. I'm not interested in reading about bruce wayne punching dick grayson in the face, silver st. Cloud getting her throat cut or robin impaled on a sword...and what the heck happened to superman? I'm interested in stories where the hero acts like a hero. And i don't get the strange fetish comic book creators have for dead women and children in comics? They were usually spared in earlier comics, now it happens all the time.

I know some people say stuff like "oh yeah? But kids can read the all-ages comics that dc and marvel make!", but my point is that regular superhero comics like batman and superman should be all-ages comics to begin with. We're talking about stories with men and women running around in colorful tights, with names like captain marvel and the flash. Some of them can fly, shoot beams out of their eyes, lift cars etc. It's supposed to be fun, not depressing. Now every story is a badly written version of watchmen or the dark knight returns. Btas did it the right way, it was a show that both adults and their children could enjoy together. That's how the comics should be as well.

I didn't grow up with gory superhero comics, and that's a good thing. If i read my first batman comic today as a kid, i wouldn't be interested in superheroes. And i don't think the characters are good role models, they're just superpowered versions of ourselves...

qft

 

[Comics N' Toons]

YES. I like when Batman first became The Dark Knight after the camp fad was over in 1969. Have him be dark, brooding and mysterious but don't make him have a stupid voice and don't make him overly dark/psychotic. RETURN HIM TO THE TONE OF THE 70's!

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

RETURN HIM TO THE TONE OF THE 70's!