The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[circa81]

You have to remember, Gotham city is not just corrupt in it's elected officials and police, but the every people are as well. Gotham is supposed to be a city with very few decent people. Hence Nicholson's line, "decent people shouldn't live here. They'd be happier somewhere else."

 

[The Joker]

I always assumed that just meant the high crime rate making the city so unpleasant, like with that family who were mugged in the alley in the beginning. We didn't see any corrupt officials or every people, and the only Cop who seemed to be on the take was Eckhart.

Gordon said at the end that his Police force rounded up all of the Joker's men and thus the reign of crime was over.

 

[nogap87]

Both Jokers have their problems as far as plotting goes.

I can't see no reason why Joker wasn't shot the moment he showed up at the parade just like I can't see TDK Joker getting away with his shenanigans in a post 9/11 world.

 

[GothamAlleys]

But lets not forget we're talking about 80s movie here. Plots werent as intricate and detailed as they are today. Back in the days people cared for the interesting story and escapism, as oppose to today when people always question the authencity of the events and when everyone dissects every single detail of the plot with "how come? why? In real life..."

 

[ALP]

Which was a stupid explanation for dozens of people running to a man who had just been killing them by poisoning their own products. He made TV commercials about it and laughed at them for it. Greed was a really poor excuse for so many people to foolishly stick their heads in the lion's mouth like that.

C. Lee summed it up perfectly. Nobody with a lick of sense would do that.

Indeed, it is stupid. I just think you guys are looking at it too literally. Tim Burton has addressed this type of thing. How did an inventor actually make a mechanical boy with scissors for hands? How did Selina learn acrobatics after being brought back to life by cats? Tim Burton's answer... "It's a fairy tale."

Tim Burton's movies all completely unravel when you take them straightforward seriously.

I really dont think theres any overexaggeration with the crowd going to the parade. Its greed, I think even in real life, whoever would be on the street throwing bills people would be trumping each other to grab em

There's huge overexaggeration in the entire film. Some people are saying it's ridiculously stupid that people would show up to the parade but let's get to the actual source: It's ridiculously stupid that a mass murderer would even be able to throw a parade in downtown Gotham! The cops would have immediately arrested him if this were real life...but that's the thing. This isn't real life.

It's stupidly unbelievable that Lau could be held in custody after a vigilante extradited him. It's stupidly unbelievable that a bus can crash into a bank on a busy street in broad daylight and nobody even notices.

It's called "plot induced stupidity".

Not quite. In real life the bounty hunter Dog Chapman went to Mexico and illegally captured the multi-millionaire Andrew Luster who was wanted in America for multiple rape charges.

 

[El Payaso]

Which was a stupid explanation for dozens of people running to a man who had just been killing them by poisoning their own products.

But... but... the character said it was greed. Or do you believe only what characters say in movies you like?

He made TV commercials about it and laughed at them for it. Greed was a really poor excuse for so many people to foolishly stick their heads in the lion's mouth like that.

Yeah, it's like in real world people knew cigarrettes can kill them, give them lung cancer and impotence, and yet they would buy them. That's just stupid, it never happens.

C. Lee summed it up perfectly. Nobody with a lick of sense would do that.

Yeah. What a relief we live in a world where people are nothing but sensible, reasonable, sane, level-headed, non-self-destructive beings.

American Psycho satirized the era much better.

And yet there are other movies that dare to do it. Go figure. I mean, we will never have a better love movie than Gone with the Wind, so why do people keep even trying?

Now if you're talking about honest city officials like Commissioner Gordon, the Mayor, and Harvey Dent making a public hero out of Batman at the end of Batman 1989 after he blatantly murdered many criminals, that is what you call plot induced stupidity.

Making a hero of a vigilante who conducts himself with behavior like that would be license to regular citizens believing it's ok to go and kill criminals if they think they deserve it.

Well, all they saw Batman doing was saving them. I cannot blame them. They didn't see Batman telling Joker he was going to kill him and they didn't see Batman bombing Axis.

Plus, Gotham authorities had little else to do; they couldn't stop the poisoning, the Joker and his henchmen. They were completely powerless to control crime. And Batman saved theirs and everyone's necks.

Even if they knew that Batman killed criminals, they had better call him a hero and an ally. I'd maybe call that the less of two evils.

And since Gotham people didn't see Batman killing I doubt they would go and kill themselves.

Now, regular citizens believing it's ok to go and kill criminals if they think they deserve it....... doesn't that sound more like what a heroic Batman inspired regular citizens to do in... The Dark Knight? Holy. Everyone knew of Batman's one rule and yet the copycats did exactly what they knew Batman doesn't do: stupid.

You've said that already. It doesn't change that it still came off as really ridiculous. Even for a comic book movie.

No, what he says is exactly what you need to decide to understand (because I know you can understand it). You're here not getting why something wasn't done in a different style. Let's apply that to everything.

Just saying they were greedy because they believed the man who was on TV laughing at them about poisoning their products one minute, and then believing him when he says he's not a killer the next, is a weak basis for a plot like that.

Yeah, like when people know about a politician being a hack, and yet they vote for him: Sometimes even more than once. Bad writing! People are not like that. Ever.

Now, people having to decide whether blowing up a boat full of criminals or dying...... and thinking it twice... that's a stretch.

I really dont think theres any overexaggeration with the crowd going to the parade. Its greed, I think even in real life, whoever would be on the street throwing bills people would be trumping each other to grab em

In real life, people keep deciding for self-destructing choices if that makes them a little richer than they are or give them cheap pelasure. Is it ridiculous? It is. Is it true? It is.

I've still yet to see any evidence that any of this was intended as satire. RoboCop = satire. Idiocracy = satire. Brazil = satire. The intent is all very clear without being "spoonfed" as someone so charmingly put it. As far as I know, the notion that those elements in Batman are meant to be satirical social commentary is right out of left field in Batcademia (LOL!), and right now sounds like some overly-defensive retroactive justification for weak plotting, combined with some thinly-veiled fanboy tit-for-tat. In good faith -both for the purposes of discussion and my own genuine edification as a Batfan- I did ask for a source for the satire theory, but only got some sort of snarky nonsense in return.

What's a evidence of satire exactly? And how come "as far as you know" it is only a fans theory? It's an opinion - an opinion shared by some reviewers - and it makes complete sense.

Where's the evidence of Robocop being a satire? I mean, obviousness aside, it can be just a fans' whimsical theory, where's the actual evidence of this? Where's the source?

I always assumed that just meant the high crime rate making the city so unpleasant, like with that family who were mugged in the alley in the beginning. We didn't see any corrupt officials or every people, and the only Cop who seemed to be on the take was Eckhart.

Yeah, the movie should have shown us every single example of a corrupt cop to make the point: Showing one was not realistic enough and therefore we cannot infere anything from it. How could we? At least give us a long monologue explaining the point so we can get it.

Gordon said at the end that his Police force rounded up all of the Joker's men and thus the reign of crime was over.

Well, at THAT point, what else was to be done? Even corrupt authorities know where to stop. They had better look competent for once in their lifetime.

Both Jokers have their problems as far as plotting goes.

I can't see no reason why Joker wasn't shot the moment he showed up at the parade just like I can't see TDK Joker getting away with his shenanigans in a post 9/11 world.

Man, that was just an example. The whole city was escaping in two ferris, the whole police force was there and Joker managed to fill the boats with dynamite. Many cops were guarding Harvey Dent, but a man in make up can get to him alone. Oh, le Jesus, let's bash tah movie.

But lets not forget we're talking about 80s movie here. Plots werent as intricate and detailed as they are today. Back in the days people cared for the interesting story and escapism, as oppose to today when people always question the authencity of the events and when everyone dissects every single detail of the plot with "how come? why? In real life..."

Are you nuts? We must dissect every detail as long as they weren't done in other style. Why on Earth weren't they done in a differents tyle? That question must be answered. We must scrutinize in every detail of a movie which thread is somewhere else.

well, in regards to whether BF was a decent film, i'd give it a 5/10

What is this BF film you're talking about in this thread?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Which was a stupid explanation for dozens of people running to a man who had just been killing them by poisoning their own products. He made TV commercials about it and laughed at them for it. Greed was a really poor excuse for so many people to foolishly stick their heads in the lion's mouth like that.

C. Lee summed it up perfectly. Nobody with a lick of sense would do that.

"People love a story of a redemption"?

I agree on this one, still about it

 

[Godzilla2014]

And yet there are other movies that dare to do it. Go figure. I mean, we will never have a better love movie than Gone with the Wind, so why do people keep even trying?

My point was that American Psycho works better as a satire of the 1980s culture, because it is a satire of 1980s culture from start to finish, while Batman is only such for a single scene.

 

[El Payaso]

My point was that American Psycho works better as a satire of the 1980s culture, because it is a satire of 1980s culture from start to finish, while Batman is only such for a single scene.

My point is that you'll always find someone else who did better. That shouldn't diminish anyone else's efforts. That said, you could make an entire movie about something and it might not be necessarily better than just one scene from another movie about the same subject. Not that this is the case naturally.

 

[ALP]

My point was that American Psycho works better as a satire of the 1980s culture, because it is a satire of 1980s culture from start to finish, while Batman is only such for a single scene.

The Joker is loud, boisterous, and flamboyant. It could be argued he's one big over the top satire on corruption.

 

[CConn]

Not to mention, it's totally different to make a satire almost a decade after the 80s happened, it's another thing to subtly critique the very people who are bankrolling, and watching, your movie.

Batman did the latter.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Not to mention, it's totally different to make a satire almost a decade after the 80s happened, it's another thing to subtly critique the very people who are bankrolling, and watching, your movie.

Batman did the latter.

Head on attack?

 

[The Morningstar]

Not to mention, it's totally different to make a satire almost a decade after the 80s happened, it's another thing to subtly critique the very people who are bankrolling, and watching, your movie.

Batman did the latter.

Well said. Batman 89 was taking the piss out of the very people who were paying money to watch it. And I bet most of them didn't even realise it.

 

[Fudgie]

Yeah, it's like in real world people knew cigarrettes can kill them, give them lung cancer and impotence, and yet they would buy them. That's just stupid, it never happens.

You can't really compare a serial killer poisoning people to death to cigarettes which are legal and people can smoke in moderation all of their lives and never die from them. That's why it's lame and doesn't make any proper sense. Imagine Osama Bin Laden promised free money to New York. Nobody would trust him. Especially if he said he wasn't a killer. Burton just makes his characters really dumb. It's not satire it's just poor writing.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Again, I can bet no matter who would, if anyone would start throwing bills in the middle of a NYC street people would nearly kill themselves to get it. Thats life, thats reality

 

[El Payaso]

You can't really compare a serial killer poisoning people to death to cigarettes which are legal and people can smoke in moderation all of their lives and never die from them.

Apparently I did.

That's why it's lame and doesn't make any proper sense.

Yeah, because I made that comparison 25 years after the movie.

Imagine Osama Bin Laden promised free money to New York. Nobody would trust him. Especially if he said he wasn't a killer. Burton just makes his characters really dumb. It's not satire it's just poor writing.

And there you go critizising my example and giving one that's nothing but ridiculous. Joker organizing a show, having a terrbile reputation and having people all around him was more like Americans voting G. W. Bush for a second term.

People from Gotham heard Joker was the 'bad guy' according to Batman, who also was a misterious figure that - as the movie explains - is still unclear as to whether he's friend or foe. Gotham authorities also said that Joker was a killer. And people from Gotham distrust Gotham authorities.

Now, Burton was trying to show how stupid people act when there's a big show around offering things for free, even if the reputation of the one running the show is awful. And he goes and makes people act stupid. Go figure.

 

[The Morningstar]

So... you could say it's also taking the piss out of idiots who support terrible political figures?

Like Sarah Palin and her supporters.

 

[Fudgie]

Apparently I did.

That's why it's an invalid comparison. Comparing a serial killer killing people with poison products to cigarettes.

Yeah, because I made that comparison 25 years after the movie.

It would be silly 25 years ago too.

And there you go critizising my example and giving one that's nothing but ridiculous. Joker organizing a show, having a terrbile reputation and having people all around him was more like Americans voting G. W. Bush for a second term.

People from Gotham heard Joker was the 'bad guy' according to Batman, who also was a misterious figure that - as the movie explains - is still unclear as to whether he's friend or foe. Gotham authorities also said that Joker was a killer. And people from Gotham distrust Gotham authorities.

Now, Burton was trying to show how stupid people act when there's a big show around offering things for free, even if the reputation of the one running the show is awful. And he goes and makes people act stupid. Go figure.

People from Gotham didn't hear from Batman that Joker was the bad guy. They saw that for themselves. He publicly killed that mob guy and those Cops on City Hall. He went on TV with smilex corpses and told Gotham he's put it in all the products and they'll never know which ones he did it to. Then people starting dying and the Mayor and Dent were panicking to find the source of the poison. So unless Gotham thinks it's nice to poison people to death then they knew he's a bad guy. Batman didn't tell them anything. Then they believe Joker when he says he's not a killer after all of that.

It's all stupid and makes no sense at all.

 

[The Morningstar]

It makes no sense that Joker is even allowed to have a parade in the middle of Gotham. But he does. It's the hyper stylized tone of the movie that's used to get the message across. It's police corruption and peoples greed/desperation turned up to 11 for the purpose of satire.

If you think Burton and co weren't aware of the ridiculousness of those plot points and did then unintentionally... well, I don't know what else to say.

 

[babbage]

Hm, I missed this response earlier yesterday, probably because my concentration doesn't deal well with heavy fisking.

Where's the evidence of Robocop being a satire? I mean, obviousness aside, it can be just a fans' whimsical theory, where's the actual evidence of this? Where's the source?

Criterion Collection audio commentary, interviews with Verhoeven and Ed Neumeier, independent academic essays dissecting the subtext, etc. Just looking for anything comparable to something like that. Because at this point, it just seems some of you are mixing up a case of the author using stereotypes (big city people are greedy and dumb, for example) and comic book logic to move or pad out the plot, with a case of it's the author's intent of satirizing society and making critical commentary about society (then we have to get into a whole other discussion about whether the satire actually reveals anything meaningful about its subject, or if the satirical work falls flat).

You know, Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have many random NY characters who live up to the stereotype that NYers are rude and selfish, and that trope is actually a major part of the plot of GB2. I don't think it would be accurate to call Ghostbusters 1 and 2 satires, however.

 

[El Payaso]

That's why it's an invalid comparison. Comparing a serial killer killing people with poison products to cigarettes.

Yeah, because cigarrettes are not poisoning products that kill people. No sir. Invalid comparison.

People from Gotham didn't hear from Batman that Joker was the bad guy.

They did when they were told by the newspapers that Batman was the one telling them how to avoid poisoning from those products.

They saw that for themselves. He publicly killed that mob guy and those Cops on City Hall.

He killed a gangster? Oh, what Batman is accused to do too.

He went on TV with smilex corpses and told Gotham he's put it in all the products and they'll never know which ones he did it to. Then people starting dying and the Mayor and Dent were panicking to find the source of the poison. So unless Gotham thinks it's nice to poison people to death then they knew he's a bad guy.

And real people have heard on TV that cigarrettes can kill them. Publicly. I guess that's why the tobacco companies are all broke, because, unless people think it's nice to poison people to death then they knew tobacco companies are the bad guys. Impeccable.

Batman didn't tell them anything.

He did through newspapers. That's why he took Vicky to the batcave. Check the movie, it'll help.

Then they believe Joker when he says he's not a killer after all of that.

Huh? Another one of your personal conclusions. Nobody said they believed he was not a killer. They just thought, okay, so he poisoned beauty products that I don't use anyways (after all victims of the Joker were models and people who lived from their external beauty, which Joker himself said he was all against). But hey, since that's none of my business and since now he's giving money for free. It's not like he's going to put some make-up on me. I'll just go and grab those greenies.

It's all stupid and makes no sense at all.

It's all stupid when you don't get facts right, alright.

Hm, I missed this response earlier yesterday, probably because my concentration doesn't deal well with heavy fisking.



Criterion Collection audio commentary, interviews with Verhoeven and Ed Neumeier, independent academic essays dissecting the subtext, etc. Just looking for anything comparable to something like that. Because at this point, it just seems some of you are mixing up a case of the author using stereotypes (big city people are greedy and dumb, for example) and comic book logic to move or pad out the plot, with a case of it's the author's intent of satirizing society and making critical commentary about society (then we have to get into a whole other discussion about whether the satire actually reveals anything meaningful about its subject, or if the satirical work falls flat).

You know, Ghostbusters 1 and 2 have many random NY characters who live up to the stereotype that NYers are rude and selfish, and that trope is actually a major part of the plot of GB2. I don't think it would be accurate to call Ghostbusters 1 and 2 satires, however.

Ok, so if other people say it, the it IS satire. That's what's needed.

So you missed the part where I said that Burton Batman movies have been called satire by other people. See? They ARE satire: other people said so.

Now, personally, I can tell when something is satire,. comedy, drama, etc by myself. But hey, that's El Payaso.

 

[babbage]

It's not good enough if it's fans just saying it. If some fans called Transformers 3 a satire, would it make it true?

1) It would be helpful if the actual creators of the movie intended it to be a satire. The only way we can know if that's true is if they mention it.

2) On the audience side, we need a better analysis done, something that more convincingly argues the claim that Batman 89 is a satire, rather than just proclaiming it so and backing up that up with vague storytelling choices. Pointing to some examples of the movie's stereotypical characters and characters with silly or simple motivations, and at best some broadly-drawn themes pulled from very obvious observations about society or human nature, does not a convincing argument make. It needs to be better than "People are really vain in Gotham; people are really vain in real life. Satire!" It'd be nice to get a meatier argument explaining specifically why it works as satire and why it fits the anatomy of a satire, QED. This is the kind of work that's been done before on RoboCop, since although it was always very obvious to audiences that the movie had an exaggerated and often comedic take on corporate America and the media of the 80s, the wit, depth and extent of the satire DID admittedly go over many people's heads.

So it'd just be nice if someone can provide 1 and/or 2, instead of just quoting every other sentence in this post, point-for-point, and pedantically writing a dismissive or digressive response to each while ignoring the actual point.

 

[El Payaso]

It's not good enough if it's fans just saying it. If some fans called Transformers 3 a satire, would it make it true?

1) It would be helpful if the actual creators of the movie intended it to be a satire. The only way we can know if that's true is if they mention it.

2) On the audience side, we need a better analysis done, something that more convincingly argues the claim that Batman 89 is a satire, rather than just proclaiming it so and backing up that up with vague storytelling choices. Pointing to some examples of the movie's stereotypical characters and characters with silly or simple motivations, and at best some broadly-drawn themes pulled from very obvious observations about society or human nature, does not a convincing argument make. It needs to be better than "People are really vain in Gotham; people are really vain in real life. Satire!" It'd be nice to get a meatier argument explaining specifically why it works as satire and why it fits the anatomy of a satire, QED. This is the kind of work that's been done before on RoboCop, since although it was always very obvious to audiences that the movie had an exaggerated and often comedic take on corporate America and the media of the 80s, the wit, depth and extent of the satire DID admittedly go over many people's heads.

So it'd just be nice if someone can provide 1 and/or 2, instead of just quoting every other sentence in this post, point-for-point, and pedantically writing a dismissive or digressive response to each while ignoring the actual point.

Yeah, if a movie makes me laugh it might be funny, but it's only a comedy if the director or some reviewer says so.

 

[The Morningstar]

That is utter nonsense. A lot of directors/creators like to leave things up to the audience. They let us decide for ourselves. They don't tell us their intentions because they believe, and rightly so, that it should be up to us to decide what is what.

Again i'll bring up Blade Runner. Ridley Scott has skirted over the issue of Deckard being a Replicant, for example. Sure he has said before that he believes Deckard is a Replicant. But he has also been more ambiguous about it. Then you have Harrison Ford who says he isn't a Replicant. It's nice to be left questioning things like this after watching a movie. That is where discussion and debate comes from.

Not being spoon fed the answers in some long winded dialogue or told the answers in an interview after the fact.

Pretty much all of Tim Burton's movies are satirical. Are you gonna tell me something like Mars Attacks isn't satire just because Burton didn't give an interview saying it's satire of the old pulpy sci fi B-movies of the 50s?

 

[babbage]

Yeah, if a movie makes me laugh it might be funny, but it's only a comedy if the director or some reviewer says so.

Yes, because that's not deliberately misconstruing what I meant. This is now like The Official Sarcastic and Evasive Non-answer Thread.

Pretty much all of Tim Burton's movies are satirical. Are you gonna tell me something like Mars Attacks isn't satire just because Burton didn't give an interview saying it's satire of the old pulpy sci fi B-movies of the 50s?

What makes Mars Attacks specifically a satire about the 50s, rather than simply (for lack of a better word) a comedic homage to corny 50s sci-fi? Honest question. I haven't seen that movie since the late 90s or something.