The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 3

[Brain Damage]

Agreed.

That trend is through Nolan.

Um. I'm pretty sure Nolan didn't invent crappy exposition.

 

[regwec]

He didn't. But, he did develop a kind of thematic-emotional exposition, which supplements plot-exposition. Every character in the trilogy is a commentator on what is happening, and what themes are involved.

 

[Brain Damage]

He didn't. But, he did develop a kind of thematic-emotional exposition, which supplements plot-exposition. Every character in the trilogy is a commentator on what is happening, and what themes are involved.

True to an extent. I think sometimes it's just as bad as some people make it out to be, but sometimes not as bad. The worst example I can think of is Alfred who became the emotional exposition character in TDKR (and the plot one, too).

One of my favorites bits in TDK is when Bruce asks Alfred how they stopped the bandit in Burma and he replies "We burned the forest down."

Nice little bit of subtext that I wish we got more of.

 

[The Shape]

Superior posting, theShape. I think it is probably the only viable approach, in a 'team up' movie and with a detailed origin story only recently told.

Agreed. I mean, that's not to say that Nolan's approach was not valid. After the Burton and Schumacher films, it was only natural to give us the all-cards-on-the-table approach to Batman. By the time Batman Begins was coming around, we deserved to see a good Batman origin story on screen. It was long overdue, and that peak "behind the scenes" we were given was certainly rewarding.

But as I said, B89 only showed us what we truly needed to see, and I'm confident the filmmakers will be smart enough to return to that concept with this new cross-over.

 

[The Shape]

I'll write what you typed on my pillow, theshape
To never forget where is this awesomeness

There is nothing I could say about that. It's just an awesome post Shape.

Thanks, gents. Glad to see some of you agree.

 

[shauner111]

Nolan's way was needed after the Burton-Shumacher approach. It was wonderful. Now that it's over, they need to somewhat return to the way Batman was introduced on film with the first Burton movie. But in a new modern style.

 

[Cain]

That's basically what theShape already said.

I agree with it too. Like if there is a Batman movie where the plot could use a flashback to say Batman training with Tsunemoto in Japan to further strengthen it then by all means put those flashbacks in there. But I don't think they should be exposing things for the sake of exposing them. Use flashbacks when appropriate and that way there are no set limitations to what makes up Batman's past anyway like there was with the Nolan movies. You leave it vastly open enough for anybody to add to it with any future movies.

 

[shauner111]

Yup, im just agreeing with it.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Michael Keaton turned down the role of The Joker in TDKR:

Keaton was originally approached to be the voice of THE JOKER in my TDKR, but passed.

https://***********/DrakeFilmscore/status/358699310566748161

 

[milost]

Why the Joker and not Batman? That seems odd.


The irony is, they got Robocop (Peter Weller) to do Batman's voice and Batman (Michael Keaton will be playing a Steve Jobs like main villain in Robocop.


I think Gary Oldman is in there somewhere too. They were mentioning how many scenes Oldman and Keaton have together.

 

[Two-Face]

Yep they should've offered Keaton to voice Batman. Weller does excellent job though.

 

[BatLobster]

Damn, that's interesting. I'd love to see Keaton involved in any sort of Batman project. But Weller was definitely an awesome choice for TDKReturns Batman.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

i think Keaton was the best, but he did his thing nearly 25 years ago. Don't want him again as he would be expected to return to his greatness and it would inevitably taint what he has done as Batman!

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Although it might have been fun to hear him do a version of The Joker.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Comics N' Toons, your signature is hilarious.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Comics N' Toons, your signature is hilarious.

it is meant to be very serious. That is how I feel. I am a Burtonite in a world of people who love and worship Nolan and Ledger and crap all over the decent Schumacher films (FOREVER at least). It just seems to me that Burton captured my favorite comics period of the 70's and 80's. No one else has attempted that.

 

[shauner111]

Returns didn't capture anything other than Burton's fetishes with the gothic and macabre. It was Edward Scissorhands/Nightmare Before Christmas featuring a handful of Batman characters that were all changed drastically to fit Tim's weirdo-verse. Not that there aren't things in that movie I enjoy. Because there are. But it's nowhere near the first movie.

Batman 89 feels like a Batman movie. Batman Forever does too, to an extent. Batman & Robin feels like a spoof and Returns is just not a Batman movie, at all. It's good for what it is. But it's no Batman movie.

Keaton was fantastic. But there are many things Bale did better. And vice versa of course.

There hasn't been the perfect Batman. Conroy was the perfect Batman of animation. We have yet to see that in live-action. Even if I feel Bale is the greatest Wayne there ever was.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm not trying to fuel the flames of a "Burtonite/Nolanite" war, but I think it's more than fair to say the the Nolan films were FAR more influenced by the 70s comics than Burton's. In fact, I've never heard anyone say that Burton's films had a strong 70s influence.

 

[Kane52630]

I'm on the side of each Batman film corresponds to a particular era/time of Batman in the comics with their own spin.

 

[shauner111]

I'm not trying to fuel the flames of a "Burtonite/Nolanite" war, but I think it's more than fair to say the the Nolan films were FAR more influenced by the 70s comics than Burton's. In fact, I've never heard anyone say that Burton's films had a strong 70s influence.

Exactly.

I'm on the side of each Batman film corresponds to a particular era/time of Batman in the comics with their own spin.

I feel the same, but Returns never felt like a era was being represented. It always just felt like Tim Burton-land.

 

[C. Lee]

I'm on the side of each Batman film corresponds to a particular era/time of Batman in the comics with their own spin.

That's why I personally love to watch Clooney's BATMAN & ROBIN....I watched Adam West's BATMAN series on it's original run in the 60's. The Batman comics I read back then were not a "brooding bat-knight who never smiled"....Clooney's movie was a perfect homage to the books and show of my youth.

 

[regwec]

The 60s show and the Silver Age in general had better wrought characters with sharper satire than Batman and Robin. I don't think you can excuse B&R by assessing it as a spoof, because as a spoof it is appalling.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Returns didn't capture anything other than Burton's fetishes with the gothic and macabre. It was Edward Scissorhands/Nightmare Before Christmas featuring a handful of Batman characters that were all changed drastically to fit Tim's weirdo-verse. Not that there aren't things in that movie I enjoy. Because there are. But it's nowhere near the first movie.

Returns is just not a Batman movie, at all. It's good for what it is. But it's no Batman movie.

Don't be ridiculous...

It's a BATMAN movie.

It may not be one you like or agree with but it is a Batman movie.

WB had Burton money and said make another BATMAN movie. His creative choices are perfectly valid. As valid as anything Dozier, Schumacher, Timm/Dini and Nolan crafted.

 

[C. Lee]

I don't think you can excuse B&R by assessing it as a spoof,

Actually......I....can. Because that is how I see it. I did not say that you or others had to see it my way.

because as a spoof it is appalling.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that it is a hilarious movie.

 

[regwec]

C Lee, obviously I accept that we have different opinions. That's why I said "I don't think..."