The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[Thebumwhowalks]

Aye, and I think there is a cover to an early Detective Comics where you see a gun holster on his belt( one where he is leaping down onto two gangsters in a open top car.)
So, i wasn't sure if there had actually been a couple of stories i hadn't read where he actually carried and used a gun.

 

[circa81]

Age doesn't make one wise.

What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.

Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.

What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.

I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.

totally agree, are you my alternate personality? Really though, While Batman 89 is by far my favorite live action movie Batman movie, Forever is second to me for the same reasons you stated. I love Batman, not for how tough he is or how mysterious he is, but by his psychological complexity and his sense that he does what he does because it's the only way he can live with his trauma. He's a tragic character, who just happens to be a "superhero".

 

[GothamAlleys]

The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?

Eh. Batman didnt kill only in his first year. He occasionally killed in every decade and every incarnation and continuous to kill in comics to this day. There are tons of examples and in Mignola's story Sanctum its confirmed hes actually considered a murderer

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

Well... getting a wife helps.

Its not for me. I like changing partners every few weeks and I dont like commitments

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Eh. Batman didnt kill only in his first year. He occasionally killed in every decade and every incarnation and continuous to kill in comics to this day. There are tons of examples and in Mignola's story Sanctum its confirmed hes actually considered a murderer

They introduced the 'no kills' character trait after that first year or whatever it was, ie he was a superhero who did not want to kill criminals, it was against his morals.
Of course, over the course of decades of stories, you are going to have incidents where he may kill in self defence or in defence of others whose lives are *directly* in danger, or by accident, etc...but the character was changed to fit that credo.

Its not for me. I like changing partners every few weeks and I dont like commitments

haha, seems like we have a real swinger in here, and I don't know what that Alan Parker movie has got to do with anything.

 

[GothamAlleys]

They introduced the 'no kills' character trait after that first year or whatever it was, ie he was a superhero who did not want to kill criminals, it was against his morals.
Of course, over the course of decades of stories, you are going to have incidents where he may kill in self defence or in defence of others whose lives are *directly* in danger, or by accident, etc...but the character was changed to fit that credo.

Not really. I mean sure, plenty of kills were either in self defense or accidental, but there were and still are many straight up kills - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

As for the gun, he also used it many times throughout the years. probably most famous instance would be Year Two

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Not really. I mean sure, plenty of kills were either in self defense or accidental, but there were and still are many straight up kills - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

As for the gun, he also used it many times throughout the years. probably most famous instance would be Year Two

ok, i will look at that link in a wee while to see what you are talking about, but I dare say there is nothing in there to compare to the cold blooded murder of the crooks at axis chemicals in 89.


and as for the gun use in Year Two, he only used it to disarm criminals, never to kill, if you recall, he could not even bring himself to kill Joe Chill with it.

edit: ok, i looked, and just about all of them are in self defence or accidental.
You have one 'murder' from that Brave and the Bold, where he 'knocks an unconcious guy into a river'(as they describe it), but we don't know if he survived or what, maybe the water woke him up.

there was also some story quoted there that says he forces Joe Chill to kill himself...I'd need to see the context of that story to judge...and I never read the 10 nights of the Beast, so I don't know if he left the KGBeast there to die of starvation ultimately.
But aye, those are the only three examples i could see that may not fit in with the criteria of self defence/accidental, and they are scare anamolies to say the least.

Y'know, apart from the very early stories that we were already talking about(and the incident in All Star B&R, which takes place in that early time in a different continuity)

 

[GothamAlleys]

What about pushing a statue on the entire crowd? Or knocking a guy out to make him drive into a pole and kill himself? Or throwing a grenade into a guy in Batman #271? There are more instances like that, and remember those are just few examples, these arent ALL the instances.

As for the gun, I never said he used it to kill in Modern Age (he did in the first year of his existence tho), but he did use guns in fight

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

What about pushing a statue on the entire crowd? Or knocking a guy out to make him drive into a pole and kill himself? Or throwing a grenade into a guy in Batman #271? There are more instances like that, and remember those are just few examples, these arent ALL the instances.

I cannot see what panels you are referring to in the case of the statue being pushed, or 'ko-ing a guy to make him drive into a pole and kill himself'(which from your description sounds like a case of death by misadventure, a casualty that arises in the process of defending himself or others, ie he may have punched the guy, but maybe did not intend for him to drive into a pole and kill himself.)
and I cannot read the speech bubbles in the case of Batman 271, which is described above it as a case of 'when the enemy is too dangerous to be kept alive, Batman does what's necessary.', so i don't know the context to judge for myself.

in any case...these are anamolies, they hold up the rule through being the scarce exceptions that they are, and I'm not even sure if they are solid examples of murder.

As for the gun, I never said he used it to kill in Modern Age (he did in the first year of his existence tho), but he did use guns in fight

aye, i was just wondering about whether he had ever carried and used a gun in the early comics, as i have not read all of them, and recalled a couple of times where he had a gun holster on his utility belt.

 

[CConn]

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage.

Yeah, it's real frustrating when you keep losing arguments.

Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

Thanks, but as shocking as this may be, you're not the only person in the world who has read a Batman comic before 1990.

I've read at least a dozen issues from each decade. I know how Batman was in the 40s, the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and, of course, 00s. And I actually have a great appreciation for most of those interpretations.

 

[Ponyboy]

ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

And I don't hate the first Burton movie. I can see why people like it, what mainly does it for most people is the visuals and the score. I was just very disappointed back then. Because I felt that Keaton looked wrong and behaved totally odd. I was raised on the swinging Moench Batman who had four women at one (Nocturna, Julia Remarque, Vicki Vale, Catwoman).

But I still consider Batman Returns an insult and betrayal.

Schumacher got it partially right, especially when it comes to Batman / Bruce Wayne. The neon and the camp was of course too much, but not that odd when you compare it to a 50s or 60s comic.

How the **** can anyone support a feeling?

No, it doesn't really need to be direct from the source material, that would be odd, since Batman is not a single novel.

I prefer the book. Like the Burton Batman the movie mainly looks good. I still like the movie, too. But well, Batman is an icon, so I expect him to be rooted in the source material. But this old "adaption" versus "interpretation" is found in every forum. It's boring, I just feel that Burton didn't get Batman.

Keaton was AsBats (Asperger-Bats), not the real Batman. Fine performance for a different character, but wrong for Batman. Next time he should wear a cow mask to bring new light into Batman's psychology.

I'd rather see the real Batman on screen, especially since it's was his first big exposure to the worldwide audience since the 60s. And thus he gave the people wrong ideas about the characters and we got those crappy 90s Batman comics.

Burton could have written an elseworld book instead.

Radioactive Secretary-Turned-Martial-Arts-Catwoman, Black-Goo-spitting-Penguin-being-buried-by-a-bunch-of-penguins, Rocket Penguins, Penguin-Controlling-The-batmobile-while-riding-a-giant-duck, Poodle-Catches-The-Batarang, I-Save-A-Baby-And-They'll-Want-Me-For-Mayor, Bruce-Wayne-is-sitting-and-suddenly-giant-batsignals-flash-which-would expose his identity in no time...

Seriously. It's so campy and it cannot be meant to be serious. Batman Returns is a campfest like the Adam West show, but the latter one was at least better written.

Nolan's movies are not so dark IMO. And crappy action scenes.. gimme a break.. Burton's were even worse. The best action scenes are actually in the Schumacher movies (what probably no one wants to admit...)

It had potential. Like Batman 89. But at some point both movies failed. What a waste. Thank god for Nolan's Batman Begins who had the dignity to approach the material by taking it seriously and not turning it into another fairly tale-camp party.

BTW, many comic book creators didn't even like the Burton movies, don't kid yourself. The list includes Frank Miller, John Byrne, Paul Dini, Neal Adams and many more.

There's been no fanboy rage from me at least... I'm trying to prove my point to you that Burton's adaptation is valid and is just a version of Batman (as is Nolans and Schumachers). But you, once again, didn't back up a single thing you said with a valid argument, or even a half-hearted (convincing) opinion.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I cannot see what panels you are referring to in the case of the statue being pushed, or 'ko-ing a guy to make him drive into a pole and kill himself

in any case...these are anamolies, they hold up the rule through being the scarce exceptions that they are, and I'm not even sure if they are solid examples of murder.

Yes, theyre rare and occasional, but theyre there. Batman does kill occasionally in each incarnation, just like he occasionally kills in Burtons movies

 

[C. Lee]

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...

Thank you....you are too too kind. That you actually give me your permission to have my own opinion...I'm just overwhelmed by your kindness.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Yes, theyre rare and occasional, but theyre there. Batman does kill occasionally in each incarnation, just like he occasionally kills in Burtons movies

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations, but anyway, as i said, they are still not as bad as the stuff in BM89.
There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.

 

[El Payaso]

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics.

Yeah, leaving someone in a moving vehicle to his own demise with a sarcastic remark before leaving. That's more like Batman Begins. t:

There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.

When people are gassing your city to death. Yes, that's where you don't wait.

 

[CConn]

Those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations.

I have to raise issue with this. And it's not with you in particular, but hearing people say it, and it irks me every time...

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I have to raise issue with this. And it's not with you in particular, but hearing people say it, and it irks me every time...

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.

I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again. I was saying that basically i didn't think it was the best creative choice to make.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

and this is in reply to El Payaso as well...they basically had Batman acting like any other 80s action hero, machine gunning down the doors and blowing up all the bad guys with explosives. When what the movies could really have used at that point was a different kind of action hero, like the more prevalent interpretation of Batman.
It was so annoying to go to the movies and see Batman reduced to the standard movie action hero trope in that regard.

and also, i do think there were alternatives to blowing them all up.
I don't even recall how he found out they were at Axis Chemicals, how far in advance he knew their base of operations was there, but there were other options than the standard 80s action hero approach.

 

[GothamAlleys]

No, none of those examples are like how he kills in Burton's movie. And those two you highlighted above are from the very early comics. I thought you were talking about modern interpretations, but anyway, as i said, they are still not as bad as the stuff in BM89.
There are no examples of him just cold bloodely killing a whole gang of crooks, where there were other options availiable.

That borders with nitpicking: "yeah, he did that but..". Its either yes or no, and Batman did occasionally killed. Also, he still does, I think blowing up a building with hundreds of enemies is as cruel as shooting thugs with machine gun (which he did as well).

And it was to save the city asap when situation was hot. The Axis Chemicals was blown up to prevent the attack on the city and eliminate the threat of Joker. The Ray Charles thug was in self defense as well, done in a way that Batman did a lot of times (the leg lock)

The only straight up cruel kills were in Returns


Btw, I dont see why going back to genesis of the character is considered wrong. Worked perfectly in Batman. Worked for Joker in TDK. And those earliest stories were fantastic (most of them)

 

[CConn]

I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

and this is in reply to El Payaso as well...they basically had Batman acting like any other 80s action hero, machine gunning down the doors and blowing up all the bad guys with explosives. When what the movies could really have used at that point was a different kind of action hero, like the more prevalent interpretation of Batman.
It was so annoying to go to the movies and see Batman reduced to the standard movie action hero trope in that regard.

and also, i do think there were alternatives to blowing them all up.
I don't even recall how he found out they were at Axis Chemicals, how far in advance he knew their base of operations was there, but there were other options than the standard 80s action hero approach.

Like I said, I'm not even specifically talking about you - as you do argue how similar the kind of killing is to the comics...and that makes sense - I just mean in general.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I already said what my opinion on that was, so won't go over it again. I was saying that basically i didn't think it was the best creative choice to make.

But still, I don't think there was anything in those comics that was like what they had him do in BM 89.

Yes there was

When talking about comic accuracy, we cannot exclude old comics, or comics we don't like...they're all equally valid interpretations of the character.

Technically, the dark and serious Batman of '39 is just as valid as the bright as campy Batman of the '60s, or the current version of the character.

Now, obviously, that doesn't affect quality in the least...but almost no one should be going around saying something is inaccurate to Batman...just because it's not from their preferred era of Batman comics.

Bravo!

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

eh, i never said I had a problem with him flipping the Joker thug in the church, to me, that comes under self defence.
I also never said I had a problem with him shooting at the parade, in actual fact, I don't recall him hitting any of the crooks, the firing on joker *must* have been a warning shot, otherwise it was a dumb (film)shot.
Anyway, I already said that I don't really have a problem with Batman using deadly force in self defence, or in the *immediate* defence of other people when their lives are in danger, which is what the parade scene comes under imo. That is the same as a cop doing his job, it's not cold blooded murder.

All i have been talking about is the 80s action movie scene with the blowing up of the crooks in cold blood in Axis Chemicals, and you have shown me nothing that corresponds to an action like that from the books.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I just did above

That borders with nitpicking: "yeah, he did that but..". Its either yes or no, and Batman did occasionally killed. Also, he still does, I think blowing up a building with hundreds of enemies is as cruel as shooting thugs with machine gun (which he did as well).

And it was to save the city asap when situation was hot. The Axis Chemicals was blown up to prevent the attack on the city and eliminate the threat of Joker. The Ray Charles thug was in self defense as well, done in a way that Batman did a lot of times (the leg lock)

The only straight up cruel kills were in Returns


Btw, I dont see why going back to genesis of the character is considered wrong. Worked perfectly in Batman. Worked for Joker in TDK. And those earliest stories were fantastic (most of them)

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't consider the Axis Chemicals scenario to be an immediate threat where he had no other options. I have considered the possibility before when it was raised, but I have to say there were plenty of other options.

I don't know what the context of that scene is that you posted(also, i never noticed that post before), so maybe if I did, I would agree that it fell into the category of no-other-choice-immediate-defence-of-innocents scenario. Unlike the Axis Chemicals scenario.

Batman and the cops could have easily surrounded and swooped down on the factory in plenty of time to stop anything getting out.
He even said his next move was the parade, it wasn't like he was about to set off a bomb or anything.

 

[CConn]

Hm. As a fair and impartial observer in this discussion, I think I'm going to have to give GothamAlleys the point and the win.

He's made it pretty clear that Batman has killed to a pretty thorough extent in the comics. Anything beyond that is mainly semantical.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Thanks. As a quick response to Bum's post - the masses were being targeted the very same night. there was n time to act since it was the very same night of the attack. As far as Police - Batman never rarely tips to the police, he knows he can do it faster and better. He knows police fails sometimes and this is why he exists - to do something police cant. Actually his comic book backstory even touches upon it ; Chill is never found by the police in the comic book continuity, so because of that it plants the thought in his head that police is not enough

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Hm. As a fair and impartial observer in this discussion, I think I'm going to have to give GothamAlleys the point and the win.

He's made it pretty clear that Batman has killed to a pretty thorough extent in the comics. Anything beyond that is mainly semantical.

Semantics?! No, not when it comes to the taking of life.
If it's done in the same vein as a police officer, in self defence, or in the *immediate* defence of another's life, then that is not murder.
If he's just swooping in to blow up a bunch of crooks, when there are other options availiable, then that is just cold blooded murder.

edit: and i see no evidence of that type of action in anything he has presented, I don't even know what he is talking about in that last post, the scene at Axis chemicals, or the the context of the scene from the comic he posted.
Because, if he doesn't know the context of the evidence he posted, then it's irrelevant, he/they've just posted up an image of a bat-wing blowing something up, with no context as to the situation.