The Official Batman Returns Thread - Part 2

[The Joker]

Which umbrella did you guys like the best?


Flamethrower

Hypno-Umbrella

Umbrella-Copter

Machine gun

Cute Umbrella

Knife

 

[AnneFan]

I like them all for different reasons, but the hypno umbrella rocks from a visual standpoint.

 

[Brain Damage]

Plus, it gives me a splitting headache.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Umbrella Copter was just hilarious, so thats my pick. "Sorry, gotta fly!"

 

[Mister Meddle]

The cute umbrella. Just because of this line.

"Ughhh ***** I picked the cute one".

 

[Brain Damage]

I'm gonna play advocate for the flamethrower umbrella simply because how casually it is used and after all, ITS A ****ING FLAMETHROWER.

 

[CConn]

I'd like to hear you explain this actually, not from an argumentive standpoint, but from a curious one.
I think Nolan's films all have a slightly different look and feel to them. Due in part to the fact that he works more on story vs style, rather than say, David Fincher who has a very similar look to most of his films.
But, if you can point out the similarities in style between Nolan's films, then please do, I'd like to be able to notice them

Well, excuse me if my descriptions are a bit crude, as I'm not academically well-versed in film production, but from what I've noticed...

I guess I can tell the most by the cinematography and editing in Nolan's films. Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige all have this very tight, almost claustrophobic feel to them visually. The way in which the shots are framed is very similar; they're very precise. Pfister really seems to prefer extreme close-ups and wide shots that really only showcase a fragment of the overall scenery.

For instance:

Spoiler

Or:

It's a type of cinematography that really focuses entirely on the actors in a scene. Whereas some directors and cinematographers are big on sweeping landscapes or really exploring the film's world visually, from Insomnia through The Prestige, Nolan's films seem, to me, entirely focused on the performances, and everything else takes a backseat to the actors and what they're doing.

Now, in The Dark Knight and Inception, that approach changed a good deal. The cinematography did have a much more expanded scope in those films and in a lot of scenes showcased the scenery just as much as the actors. Personally, I think it was a great improvement on Pfister's part, as BB, etc. always felt a bit TOO claustrophobic to me. But as I think the screenshots above show, Pfister still maintains certain amount of his traits through all of his films. The framing is still quite similar on most "character-driven" scenes.

For instance:

Spoiler

 

[CConn]

Outside of that, however, I think he's maintained similar color palettes throughout his last few films. All of his films seem to bounce back and forth between the cool blues and greys of ice and winter, and then more earthy browns and tans of indoor shots and other locals. I definitely think there's more of a similarity between The Prestige and Batman Begins, in this sense, then there is between, say, The Dark Knight, and Insomnia. But that, obviously, is simply due to those films being made so closely together, and Nolan evolving as a film maker.

These all seem like very similar color palettes to me:

Spoiler

Or:

But like I said, I'm no expert on cinematography. And even less so on editing. So I really can't say how accurate what I'm describing is. However, I can definitely say I see a great similarity between most of Nolan's movies. And have always been able to spot a movie of his at first glance purely due to how it looks.

 

[Brain Damage]

One of the best posts I've read on this forum in quite a while.
Thank you CConn!

 

[CapedCrusader14]

God I love their cinematography. So beautiful.

 

[CConn]

I totally did not notice that. I know a lot of people say Keaton didn't have a whole lot to do but I thought he played a decent part and did well with what he was given.

I will say this, having watched the movie just the other day, I couldn't help but notice that every scene Keaton was it, left me wanting more.

Having read a few of GothamAlley's articles, I decided to watch it and really try to pick out Keaton's performance and the subtle meanings behind all of his mannerisms, dialogue, etc. And they're all there. And they're superbly acted. So much so, I was almost disappointed every time they cut away from Keaton to progress Penguin's plot.

I don't think - in and of itself - Batman had too little screentime - it was simply that Keaton did SO much with what little he did have, it just left you needing to see more.

Honestly, I'm kinda curious just how good BR would've been if it had an expanded running time of 2 1/2 - 3 hours. Where Burton really could've had more time to delve deeper into Batman's psyche, and the whole Bruce/Selina relationship.

 

[Micromind]

Im a supporter of Hathaway... but I just don't think they can top this. (And yes I might be a bit biased, so sue me! t

Agreed.

Love that umbrella.

I like BR, it's like a dark fairy tale. t:

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

So I was reading Jett's review of this film on BOF and I just couldn't get over it...

It is a piece of cinema in which Tim Burton did his thing in Gotham City. From where I sit, Tim Burton arrogantly discarded the Batman mythos, Batman fans, and the wishes of Warner Brothers (although they brought this on themselves – but that is another story) to make BATMAN “his way.”

Never does this film offer anything a Batman fan can feel good or proud about. There is nothing about this Batman that makes you want to cheer. Not once does this director offer something onscreen that says, “This is for you, Bat-fans.” Then again, perhaps he does – the proverbial middle finger.

If you like a Batman who kills, a revived from death by cat-licks Catwoman, and a Penguin who sprews black goo from his mouth and lives in the sewers, this is the film for you.
Oh yeah, Batman yet again plays second fiddle to the villains, this time even more so.

So its OK for Nolan to do whatever he wants with the mythology, including removing a vital element of The Joker's character (perma-white)... and Jett hails him as a damn genius.

Why is it OK to have a Christopher Nolan Batman film that is truly his... but it wasn't OK to have a Tim Burton Batman film?

I mean, fine... If he doesn't like it, he doesn't like but why does he have to act like Burton deliberately set out to hurt him.

 

[Cain]

I can't stand Jett. I'm sorry but this has been the case for years. I appreciate what the guy has done with his site and all. He has some good writers there too but he himself is an idiot. It's not just because I disagree with a lot of his opinions either.

Again there are superior writers who's opinion I disagree with on that very site. However at least their opinions are well enlightened and not obviously covered in pure ignorance. There is research and enough objectivity in their writing to take it seriously. Jett is beyond subjective and the annoying thing is how he tries to present subjective opinions as factual ones.

 

[El Payaso]

So I was reading Jett's review of this film on BOF and I just couldn't get over it...


So its OK for Nolan to do whatever he wants with the mythology, including removing a vital element of The Joker's character (perma-white)... and Jett hails him as a damn genius.

Why is it OK to have a Christopher Nolan Batman film that is truly his... but it wasn't OK to have a Tim Burton Batman film?

I mean, fine... If he doesn't like it, he doesn't like but why does he have to act like Burton deliberately set out to hurt him.

Ah, yes. Jett. I used to post in that site years and years ago.

Well, Burton deliberately set out to hurt him because someone must be guilty for his aching heart. Simple as that.

 

[Lily Adler]

Ignorance is bliss, especially after reading these posts. I have never heard of that site or the reviewer.

 

[AnneFan]

Why is it OK to have a Christopher Nolan Batman film that is truly his... but it wasn't OK to have a Tim Burton Batman film?

I know, it's silly. He'll slip in a snide remark against BR whenever he can. The guy has probably done more damage than anyone else in terms of flaming the pointless Burton/Nolan thing. The site is called Batman on film, but it doesn't live up to that IMO. It's an atmosphere of "change your opinion to get in line with mine" - or "re-educate yourself".

 

[GothamAlleys]

I know, it's silly. He'll slip in a snide remark against BR whenever he can. The guy has probably done more damage than anyone else in terms of flaming the pointless Burton/Nolan thing. The site is called Batman on film, but it doesn't live up to that IMO. It's an atmosphere of "change your opinion to get in line with mine" - or "re-educate yourself".

I absolutely despise the website. Its the total opposite of unbiased press and its a flaming hatefest against anything thats not Nolan's movies. I always go "Jesus!" when I read all those interviews where theyre feeding the hate against older movies. Theyre sop hateful and spoonfeeding the superiority of their personal favorites. I believe the site and its members are partially responsible for giving Nolan fans a bad name

Not to mention they are embarassing themselves with ignorant comments. Batman doesnt kill ocasionally? Catwoman traumatized and "revived" by cats? Yes, it never happened, how could anything so un-Batman like be in a Batman movie

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

Forget Jett. I hope you guys are all signed up to this much more balanced and objective Batman movie site: http://www.batman-online.com/

 

[Mister Meddle]

Batmanmovieonline was a great website. Too bad that a lot of the content is down due to the website switch.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Batmanmovieonline was a great website. Too bad that a lot of the content is down due to the website switch.

Yeah I agree... as it stands its lost too much of its identity.

And the forum is somewhat lacking now, but hopefully it gets back on track.

 

[Mister Meddle]

Yeah I agree... as it stands its lost too much of its identity.

And the forum is somewhat lacking now, but hopefully it gets back on track.

Batnar is the one who runs the site right?

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Batnar is the one who runs the site right?

Batmanmovieonline? http://www.batman-online.com/forum/

No. Its ran by Paul goes by the username raleigh.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Jett is beyond subjective and the annoying thing is how he tries to present subjective opinions as factual ones.

This is the #1 reason why I dislike the site. #2 is that the way he writes reviews and articles is like an angry hater on a forum, nothing objective, intelligent or with formal construction. Only a hateful diatribe

And again, its that "my opinion is a fact! Youre delusional if you think otherwise!" attitude that I hate, nit the opinion itself (even if based on ignorant statements and wrong facts). For example I dont have an issue with Fudgie disliking older movies, but I have problems with others who state were all blind if we think or like something else than them, who are also trying to pass false informations as facts

Some of those BOF people are exactly what gives Nolan's Batman movies fans a bad rep of being juvenile and stubborn haters

But hey I got that site to thank for creating the blog. I wanted something completely opposite to it -written in an objective, polite and unbiased way, and stating nothing but proven facts supported by issue #,panels and quotes

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

He claims to be quite close to the Nolan camp and WB.

Good for him... but who appointed him the voice of bat fans?