Was Batman a killer in Burton Bat movies?

[Bathead]

His point was Schumacher was on the right direction. Please.

No, it wasn't. He said Schumacher was going in the right direction BY HAVING BATMAN NOT BEING A KILLER. Not the whole movie, just that one aspect of it. Big difference.

 

[Cobblepot]

"I'm not going to kill you, I want you do me a favour"

Jack falling into the chemicals was an accident, he didn't drop him otherwise why would he even have tried to catch him in the first place?

The Clocktower guy was a genuine threat for him, that's why he acted in self defense. This Batman isn't the same Kung Fu all knowing pretty much immortal Batman we know from the comics.

Batman wasn't planning on killing the Joker, the Joker was never a real threat to him on the cathedral. He wanted to prevent Joker from getting away by attaching him to the gargoyle, how would he know that it would come loose?

Okay, he blew of Acis Chemicals. But he couldn't do anything else he needed to get rid of that chemical ASAP, well he could have let Gordon call in a SWAT team but then we wouldn't have a kick-ass explossion with the Batmobile coming out of the fire. I also believe that this Batmobile scene stands as a symbol for Batman's ressurection, he's back and this time he's not taking any crap...

It's all left for the viewer pretty much, we can have an endless discussion about it which would eventially be pointless.

In a nutshell yes, he killed. All for showbizz!

 

[El Payaso]

No, it wasn't. He said Schumacher was going in the right direction BY HAVING BATMAN NOT BEING A KILLER. Not the whole movie, just that one aspect of it. Big difference.

Then, it's way better to say that having a non killing Batman is the right direction and leave Schumacher out of this because... Schumacher films direction is so wrong that bringing them now to support your case is a poor favour to that very case. I can say that if a non killing Batman implies having bat-nipples, bat-butt shots and neon Gotham - as it happened in Schumacher's movies - it says little in favour of the non killing Batman.

Now, if you're done Prof. Semantics so i don't have to post things 3 times.

 

[Bathead]

I won't bother anymore either, except to say, you're STILL not getting it, Capt. Mistaken Inference. Saying tht Schumacher got the non-killing aspect right says absolutely NOTHING about approving Butt-shots and nipples. It's not semantics, it's reading comprehension.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[Bathead]

Decent analysis. If what you say had indeed been the direction Burton might have taken, that would have made me very happy. Batman killing was one of the things I had trouble with in Burton's movies, but Bats' redemption as you describe it, would have changed that.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[newwaveboy87]

It was also Burton's idea that Bruce "get over" the death of his parents at the end of his third film. Burton was the producer of "BF" so I assume that's why the redemption theme and Bruce getting cured made it to the story. I once read an interview before the release of "BR" where Burton said that if Bruce had gotten therapy, he wouldn't be doing what he's doing every night. The whole therapy thing is in "BF".

for the last time - Burton was producer on BF IN NAME ONLY.
Schumaker only put his name on as a producer because Burton helped to get him the job. that's it. that's the extent to which Burton's involvement went with BF.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[newwaveboy87]

a lot of his other ideas and themes were thrown, the general storyline was kept yes. but there wasn't enough of his actual material included to give him much credit.

Schumaker did take a lot of it, dumb it down, and change around some of the ideas.

Two-Face was going to be in it, yes. Therapy was a possibility, but i doubt if Burton did it he'd have kept that. either Scarecrow or Riddler was going to be the second villian. there was also a rumor that all three were going to be involved with Crane being the head doctor at Arkham. Robin was going to be a black kid, there could've been a Joker cameo...see...too much was taken out and thrown around to actually say Burton had a significant involvement with the production. he was also fired pretty early in the production.

 

[ab38416]

edit.

 

[newwaveboy87]

don't trust IMdB, that's user updated and prone to be full of crap. much like WikiPedia.

Two-Face was supposed to be in Batman Returns, but got changed to Max Schrek. Robin was supposed to be in the first and second film but always got cut. Riddler was going to be Robin Williams, or Johnny Depp depending on where you hear it from, with a question mark burned into his forehead. and Scarecrow was going to be Johnny Depp, depending on who you believe.

most of this can be found on IMdB, but a lot of it i've found through Burton sites which hold some value. not IMdB.

you should learn here and now not to trust it too mucn.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, Robin was supposed to be in 1.

 

[newwaveboy87]

i said that.
funny how he was also rumored to have been cast for B89 before he got cut too. he was going to be played by a white kid.

then when he got cast and cut from BR, he was going to be played by Marlon Waynes.

weird

 

[cryptic name]

don't trust IMdB, that's user updated and prone to be full of crap. much like WikiPedia.

Two-Face was supposed to be in Batman Returns, but got changed to Max Schrek. Robin was supposed to be in the first and second film but always got cut. Riddler was going to be Robin Williams, or Johnny Depp depending on where you hear it from, with a question mark burned into his forehead. and Scarecrow was going to be Johnny Depp, depending on who you believe.

most of this can be found on IMdB, but a lot of it i've found through Burton sites which hold some value. not IMdB.

you should learn here and now not to trust it too mucn.

the question mark was going to be shaved into the back of his head, not burned on his forehead.

 

[newwaveboy87]

that changes too.
i've heard just about every rumor you chould imagine about Burton's version of BF

 

[Sandman138]

Burton's Batman 3 was going to be about Batman's redemption. "Batman Forever" does cover this though. Batman was indeed a killer in the original film. He intentionally killed Joker and the thugs. In "Batman Returns", his bloodthirst had grown and he became more of an anti-hero. But some fans don't see the significance of the climax in that film. Batman refuses to kill Shreck and he tries to stop Selina from going down the same path as he did. At the masquerade ball, Bruce and Selina admit that they are tired of wearing masks. Batman later proves this when he tears his mask off, showing that he's losing his motivation to be Batman and he seeks redemption. But Selina rejects him and Bruce is left in a state of purgatory.

I doubt Burton would have made Batman kill anyone in his third film. It's quite clear that at the end of "Batman Returns", Bruce is no longer vengeful. In "Batman Forever", he tries to stop Robin from killing Two-Face and making the same mistake that he and Selina made. Unlike Selina, Robin listens to him and Batman is redeemed.

Exactly. He was a killer, but we were seeing him question what he was allowing himself to become.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[newwaveboy87]

i wouldn't say Bruce is "cured."
i'd say that he finally makes peace with all of his separate lives and finds a way to reunite himself into a whole.

saying he's "cured" almost seems to imply that some kind of drug was used.

but that could just be my personal preference.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Indeed. “Batman Returns” does a wonderful job of exploring Bruce Wayne's psyche through the subtle art of german expressionism. Each villain represents a facet of his personality. Penguin is the orphan outcast, Catwoman is the vengeful vigilante, and Shreck is the millionaire businessman. And each villain tries to work with one another in the beginning but they end up trying to kill each other. Selina and Shreck work together - Shreck tries to kill Selina - Selina kills Shreck in the end. Penguin and Shreck work together - Shreck manipulates and rejects Penguin - Penguin wants revenge on Shreck. Catwoman and Penguin work together - Catwoman rejects Penguin - Penguin tries to kill her and later Catwoman ends up inadvertently killing him by destroying the AC. All of this shows just how crazy Bruce is and how his personalities are trying to co-exist but they are having difficulty in doing so. At the end of “Batman Returns” and for most of “Batman Forever”, Bruce is in an identity crisis. Is he Batman or Bruce Wayne? Should he remain in the shadows or should he attempt to live a normal life? In “Batman Forever”, the Riddler becomes obsessed with this question and we find out whether Batman and Bruce can ever truly co-exist. It turns out that they can and Bruce is cured.

If your theroy is true about the three villians representing the three different aspects of Batman's character, then I find it very interesting that the movie ends and Catwoman is the only one left standing and that the evil vigliante kills both the businessman and the orphaned

 

[newwaveboy87]

both of Burton's Batman films explore the hero through his villians.
the basics of their storyline/plights reflect a twisted version of Batman's life, but they in and of themselves also represent separate things.

Catwoman is both a female version of Batman and a crazed feminist psycho-sexual.

 

[Apollo]

he killed if he had to

 

[Buttman]

he killed if he had to

Bull*****, he killed whenever he felt like it.

As for the above points about BR, thanks, you've really helped me to discover a hidden depth I'd never noticed before. Now.. to retell these theories on other boards pretending I came up with them, Bwahahaha.

 

[Bathead]

He killed if he had to?
Add my vote to the BS column. That shows a complete lack of imagination. Any writer director with a modicum of talent could have come up with better ways to deal with the situation rather than resorting to murder. Batman has been doing just that for almost 70 years in the comics.

 

[El Payaso]

he killed if he had to

Well, he did in B89, BR, BF and BB.