Was it really necessary to reboot Batman?

[milost]

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I agree.Especially,since they did it so poorly.That's like Batman Begins.They likely will never do the origin better,better to just give some flashbacks this time.

The only origin that I really think should've been retold was The Hulk.After the crapfest Hulk was,I really wish they would've just told it again,instead of just giving us the flashback intro.It didn't hurt the film,but since Hulk is my favorite character,I just wanted to see them do right by him.

Most people have heard the origin of Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. I'm pretty sure my dog knows the story of how Superman came to earth, the only problem is that he can't talk...unless you give him a pork chop.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I would pay heavily to read a copy of Schumacher's followup; esp. the one where they envisioned Brad Dourif as the Scarecrow.

Oh, why can't they just be available on the internet? it would have been interesting to see what they had in mind.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Terminator didn't kill anyone, neither did Batman.

Come on now, of course Batman killed people in the movies

1. He blows up Axis, with all those thugs inside of it.
2. He guns down more thugs in the Batwing.
3. Tries to shoot Joker.
4. Throws Ray Charles down from the belltower.
5. Punches Joker so that he falls off the roof, but he survives.
6. Makes the Joker fall to his death by tying his foot to a gargoyle.
7. Blows up the fat guy in Returns.
8. "I'm won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

I'm not counting the guy he fried in Returns, The Penguin, Two-Face in Forever, the ninjas in Begins, Two-Face in The Dark Knight etc. In some cases you don't really see anybody die (like the burning man) or the deaths are just accidents (Penguin, and Two-Face in both Forever and The Dark Knight).

Or we could just rationalize it. The Axis thugs are probably lying in hospital beds by the end of the first movie, heavily bandaged. Ray Charles landed on his feet (sprained his ankle, though), the bullets were made of rubber, The Joker switched places with his Jokerbot the first time he fell down, so he didn't really die when he fell from the helicopter. The fat guy landed in the water, ripped the bomb off as fast as possible and threw it away.

And he was actually about to save Ra's. But suddenly he remembered his back problems. If you watch closely, you can tell what's going on inside his mind: "My doctor told me not to lift anything heavy for a while, how do I get out of this one?"

 

[milost]

Tricking your enemy with a swarm of rapid, biting bats and a barrage of missiles isn't an accident.

Throwing a handful of coins and causing your enemy to fall to their death isn't an accident, especially when he's on a small enclosure 100s of feet in the air.

When you flip a hot rod into a barrel full of flammable explosives in a wooden monestary, what exactly do you expect to happen?

You're driving in a tunnel 100 mph, straight into an incoming truck that is going almost as fast. That's no accident.

Growling and bucking a mad man like a bronco to his death isn't an accident when the psychopath is holding his itchy trigger finger to a child's head. (I love Gordon's letter in TDKR "the Batman didn't kill Harvey Dent, he saved my boy", okay Gordon, how exactly did Dent perish then?)

What do you think will happen when you unleash a barrage of gun fire and missiles at a truck with a bomb inside of it?








Batman is a ****ing killer and sometimes a no good murderer but sometimes, it has to be done. Atleast the body count he rounds up aren't made up of innocent bystanders and it's just "bad guys". It's just like James Bond except . . . well, Batman doesn't have a license and is a straight up vigilante who is committing a crime even when he isn't "accidentally" sending a person to their death.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Tricking your enemy with a swarm of rapid, biting bats and a barrage of missiles isn't an accident.

The way see it, The Penguin caused his on death

Throwing a handful of coins and causing your enemy to fall to their death isn't an accident, especially when he's on a small enclosure 100s of feet in the air.

Nah, Batman was just generous. "Here, Harvey. Buy yourself a beer or two! Oops, sorry Harvey...(splat). Heh... Can I have my coins back now?"

When you flip a hot rod into a barrel full of flammable explosives in a wooden monestary, what exactly do you expect to happen?

But didn't the ninjas show up later in the movie? I don't believe they died. Still, it is bad writing.

You're driving in a tunnel 100 mph, straight into an incoming truck that is going almost as fast. That's no accident.

True

Growling and bucking a mad man like a bronco to his death isn't an accident when the psychopath is holding his itchy trigger finger to a child's head. (I love Gordon's letter in TDKR "the Batman didn't kill Harvey Dent, he saved my boy", okay Gordon, how exactly did Dent perish then?)

We didn't see everything. Maybe Dent shot himself in the head before he hit the ground

What do you think will happen when you unleash a barrage of gun fire and missiles at a truck with a bomb inside of it?

Yeah, that was stupid

t:

 

[goh78]

I haven't read through this entire post but, I will just say, no film franchise has ever A.) needed a reboot more, and B.) benefited from a reboot more.

 

[Human Torch]

I mean,some excuses can be made in some cases.In most of TDK trilogy,any "deaths" were an act of desperation.In Batman 89,he's a premeditated murderer,pure and simple.That's not what I want to see in a Batman movie.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

yes it was necessary to reboot batman after batman & robin, but it was NOT necessary to reboot batman after that.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It had machine guns, why wouldn't it have bombs? Cuts in the film make it seem like it's a few seconds, who knows the time frame of it, it certainly wasn't three. If you look, it drives in, has to go threw the gate (passing a thug who . . . . runs at it shooting, then follows), then drive through the loading docks where it shoots through the garage door. It quickly passes 10 - 12 thugs who are on catwalks. The next and final shot has it in a different location, shielding up. What does the next cut show? All those thugs that he passed up are shown running towards it. That takes some time. They all have enough time to catch up and literally surround it. So no, it doesn't drive in and drop a bomb at their feet, that's what it was programmed to do from the get go once it shielded up (which it did before the thugs came into the room it parked at). Batman didn't force them to surround it and fire at it continuously. Their loss. Crime doesn't pay.

Then there's the fact that Batman could have killed Eddie, Nick, 4-5 mobsters, Jack Napier, Joker goons, the Joker himself at the museum, and Bob the goon if he wanted to before the third act. Yet he never did. He even goes as far as grappling a thug at Axis so he doesn't fall to his death over that rail. Coulda just let him fall to his death. So no, not a merciless killer.

And if learning that the Joker killed his parents made him a little blood thirsty for Joker and his men in the final act, can't say I blame him. This guy took his parents away, the gloves are off now. In the few instances the character has come across his parent's killer he always seeks vengeance or retribution. Who wouldn't? Happened in Begins with Chill too (whom Bruce would have killed if the hit lady didn't catch him) and in the comics with Moxon and Chill. Some issues even depict Batman unmasking himself and putting a gun to Chill's head or causing Moxon to run into oncoming traffic instead of just cuffing him. But yeah, Keaton Batman kills nonetheless. And it just wasn't the Golden Age Finger/Kane Bats that killed either. In the 75 years of the characters history he's killed in comics, graphic novels and films purposely and accidentally.

The guys at Axis saw this car shooting and they stayed.

And killing the Joker's guys from the Batwing was to save people from being poisoned. Kind of what Nolan's Batman did when he shot at Talia's truck, making it fall and she died as a consequence.


************************************

I mean,some excuses can be made in some cases.In most of TDK trilogy,any "deaths" were an act of desperation.In Batman 89,he's a premeditated murderer,pure and simple.That's not what I want to see in a Batman movie.

On the other hand, while Nolan's Batman let his enemy die in that monorail, Burton's Batman was compassionate enough to try and save Jack Napier when he was about to die instead of smirking and leave.

 

[milost]

And killing the Joker's guys from the Batwing was to save people from being poisoned. Kind of what Nolan's Batman did when he shot at Talia's truck, making it fall and she died as a consequence.

To be fair, Batman got rid of the Smylex before he mowed them down. However, the thugs were shooting at the crowd from and around the float.




As for Nolan's Batman saying his kills were out of "desperation" is nonsense. Even though I don't mind it (I actually really like it) what he does to Ra's is downright sadistic. His cold delivery, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", his steely look, Ra's al Ghul's shocked expression. Batman's antics and plans WERE premeditated.

Killing is killing. Both Kilmer and Bale Batman characters are hypocritical with their "rules". Atleast with Keaton Batman he never claimed to be a saint. He never said "no guns, no killing" while having guns mounted all over his vehicles. He never preached that vengeance is a bad thing to his protoge while killing off said protoge's enemy. There was no misinterpretation of morals and ideals with the character. He eradicated crime, plain and simple. He didn't even kill or maim all the bads he came across in the first two hours of the film.

The only Batman that had these principals and stuck to his codes and honor is the Animated Series Batman. He hated guns, never had them in his arsenal and didn't kill, PERIOD. He even saved his enemies from deaths that wouldn't even be his doing. There was no wishy washy grey area or muddled ethics, he did what he said.

 

[Human Torch]

The guys at Axis saw this car shooting and they stayed.

:

So it's alright to murder in cold blood if the victims are complete idiots?

 

[Senator Pleasury]

To be fair, Batman got rid of the Smylex before he mowed them down. However, the thugs were shooting at the crowd from and around the float.



As for Nolan's Batman saying his kills were out of "desperation" is nonsense. Even though I don't mind it (I actually really like it) what he does to Ra's is downright sadistic. His cold delivery, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", his steely look, Ra's al Ghul's shocked expression. Batman's antics and plans WERE premeditated.

Killing is killing. Both Kilmer and Bale Batman characters are hypocritical with their "rules". Atleast with Keaton Batman he never claimed to be a saint. He never said "no guns, no killing" while having guns mounted all over his vehicles. He never preached that vengeance is a bad thing to his protoge while killing off said protoge's enemy. There was no misinterpretation of morals and ideals with the character. He eradicated crime, plain and simple. He didn't even kill or maim all the bads he came across in the first two hours of the film.

The only Batman that had these principals and stuck to his codes and honor is the Animated Series Batman. He hated guns, never had them in his arsenal and didn't kill, PERIOD. He even saved his enemies from deaths that wouldn't even be his doing. There was no wishy washy grey area or muddled ethics, he did what he said.

Agreed again.



***************************

So it's alright to murder in cold blood if the victims are complete idiots?

No, but it's his mission to eradicate complete murderers.

 

[Human Torch]

No, but it's his mission to eradicate complete murderers.

Not by becoming a murderer himself.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I don't know if Batman can be called a cold blooded murderer in the first Burton movie. Even more light-hearted heroes like Zorro and Robin Hood kills people when it's necessary.

I'm currently watching season 2 of Disney's Zorro again. Sometimes he shoots his enemies or finishes them of with his blade (It doesn't happen very often). But in my eyes, that doesn't make him any less of a hero. It's self defense, or to protect innocent lives.

I see the same thing in the first Batman movie. Batman isn't The Punisher in a batsuit (I hate The Punisher), he's more like one of the classic heroes (Zorro, Robin Hood etc), a hero who rarely kills enemies, but will do it if there's no other way. He's a bit more cruel in Batman Returns, but not even close to being one of those boring and stupid Punisher-types. The scene where he blows the fat guy up wouldn't have bothered me as much if he didn't smile. As for the devil-guy... There's snow all around him...

I don't believe we've ever had a Batman movie where he doesn't kill villains. Maybe Batman and Robin?t:

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Not by becoming a murderer himself.

Yes. Batman saved Gotham by killing Talia.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Who made that, and why?

How is it even possible to think of "X-Men" while watching that show? wow, there's so many crazy people out there

 

[Human Torch]

Yes. Batman saved Gotham by killing Talia.

Again.Two different scenarios.

One: Batman killing out of desperation to stop a bomb from destroying an entire city.(And we don't even know that it was his intention to kill the driver,just stop the truck at all costs)

Two: Killing a factory of 20 or 30 goons,lackeys,Lab workers & hanger's on because of a personal vendetta against the Joker.(That was an ill conceived change of canon to begin with)

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Again.Two different scenarios.

One: Batman killing out of desperation to stop a bomb from destroying an entire city.(And we don't even know that it was his intention to kill the driver,just stop the truck at all costs)

Two: Killing a factory of 20 or 30 goons,lackeys,Lab workers & hanger's on because of a personal vendetta against the Joker.(That was an ill conceived change of canon to begin with)

I don't view it as a personal vendetta. He was still Batman after The Joker died, and he also said in the letter that he would protect Gotham.

 

[Shikamaru]

Sorry but I'm not too fond of a lot of your ideas. They're either ideas that I don't care for or ideas that wouldn't have worked in that continuity.

It was necessary from a business standpoint and creative standpoint for the reasons already stated. Plus, seeing as how I never really cared for the pre-Nolan franchise, I'm really happy they did reboot.

To help you out a bit and take some of the negative attention away from you, I'm going to share a controversial opinion as well: I never cared for the Burton continuity. I think Batman '89 and Batman Returns are two of the most overrated CBM's of all time (I didn't count Forever and B&R because they already get enough crap). I'm really not fond of the characterizations, premise, or tone. Batman was going around killing willy-nilly, something that already put me off. Bruce Wayne is too much of a recluse. Gordon was a joke. The Joker was the complete opposite of what I picture the Joker to be. Didn't care for the "twist" on Batman's origin. The actors for Penguin and Catwoman did a fine job with what they were told to do, but I didn't care for their characterizations either. The overall tone was way too kiddish for my taste (violence =/= dark or maturity). I always found it hilarious that Batman TAS was darker and more mature than all 4 Batman films at that time. In terms of looking at them as just stand-alone films, I thought '89 was ok - I adore the visuals/soundtrack and I think the film is enjoyable if in the right mood and want to kill some time - while I thought Returns was straight-up bad. And even though I think '89 is just ok, I still don't understand all the "ER MAH GERD THIS MOVIE IS FANTASTIC AND ONE OF THE BEST CBM'S!" reaction that it often gets.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Again.Two different scenarios.

One: Batman killing out of desperation to stop a bomb from destroying an entire city.(And we don't even know that it was his intention to kill the driver,just stop the truck at all costs)

Two: Killing a factory of 20 or 30 goons,lackeys,Lab workers & hanger's on because of a personal vendetta against the Joker.(That was an ill conceived change of canon to begin with)

No, those people were about to poison the city. They were getting ready to mass-poisoning the city in the parade Joker had announced on TV. Batman, of course, had to stop that before it happened, so he went to Axis and destroyed it. Sure, he was late for that so he had to fly over to the parade itself, but damn, he had to try and stop those murderers from killing everyone in Gotham.

Similar scenarios.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Sorry but I'm not too fond of a lot of your ideas. They're either ideas that I don't care for or ideas that wouldn't have worked in that continuity.

It was necessary from a business standpoint and creative standpoint for the reasons already stated. Plus, seeing as how I never really cared for the pre-Nolan franchise, I'm really happy they did reboot.

To help you out a bit and take some of the negative attention away from you, I'm going to share a controversial opinion as well: I never cared for the Burton continuity. I think Batman '89 and Batman Returns are two of the most overrated CBM's of all time (I didn't count Forever and B&R because they already get enough crap). I'm really not fond of the characterizations, premise, or tone. Batman was going around killing willy-nilly, something that already put me off. Bruce Wayne is too much of a recluse. Gordon was a joke. The Joker was the complete opposite of what I picture the Joker to be. Didn't care for the "twist" on Batman's origin. The actors for Penguin and Catwoman did a fine job with what they were told to do, but I didn't care for their characterizations either. The overall tone was way too kiddish for my taste (violence =/= dark or maturity). I always found it hilarious that Batman TAS was darker and more mature than all 4 Batman films at that time. In terms of looking at them as just stand-alone films, I thought '89 was ok - I adore the visuals/soundtrack and I think the film is enjoyable if in the right mood and want to kill some time - while I thought Returns was straight-up bad. And even though I think '89 is just ok, I still don't understand all the "ER MAH GERD THIS MOVIE IS FANTASTIC AND ONE OF THE BEST CBM'S!" reaction that it often gets.

I respect your opinion nothing to be sorry for.

I think there's something good about all the Batman movies, from Batman 1966 to The Dark Knight Rises. But I think Burton's first Batman movie was the best. I don't think any new Batman movie will top it...

I'm going to watch Batman & Robin again this saturday. It's been a while now, I look forward to it. I'm sure there's many good parts in it too...

 

[Human Torch]

No, those people were about to poison the city. They were getting ready to mass-poisoning the city in the parade Joker had announced on TV. Batman, of course, had to stop that before it happened, so he went to Axis and destroyed it. Sure, he was late for that so he had to fly over to the parade itself, but damn, he had to try and stop those murderers from killing everyone in Gotham.

Similar scenarios.

Not at all similar scenarios.

Batman doesn't kill proactively.He's not supposed to kill at ALL,despite the lack of fidelity that rule gets in live action.One of dozens of things Burton got wrong.

 

[Human Torch]

Sorry but I'm not too fond of a lot of your ideas. They're either ideas that I don't care for or ideas that wouldn't have worked in that continuity.

It was necessary from a business standpoint and creative standpoint for the reasons already stated. Plus, seeing as how I never really cared for the pre-Nolan franchise, I'm really happy they did reboot.

To help you out a bit and take some of the negative attention away from you, I'm going to share a controversial opinion as well: I never cared for the Burton continuity. I think Batman '89 and Batman Returns are two of the most overrated CBM's of all time (I didn't count Forever and B&R because they already get enough crap). I'm really not fond of the characterizations, premise, or tone. Batman was going around killing willy-nilly, something that already put me off. Bruce Wayne is too much of a recluse. Gordon was a joke. The Joker was the complete opposite of what I picture the Joker to be. Didn't care for the "twist" on Batman's origin. The actors for Penguin and Catwoman did a fine job with what they were told to do, but I didn't care for their characterizations either. The overall tone was way too kiddish for my taste (violence =/= dark or maturity). I always found it hilarious that Batman TAS was darker and more mature than all 4 Batman films at that time. In terms of looking at them as just stand-alone films, I thought '89 was ok - I adore the visuals/soundtrack and I think the film is enjoyable if in the right mood and want to kill some time - while I thought Returns was straight-up bad. And even though I think '89 is just ok, I still don't understand all the "ER MAH GERD THIS MOVIE IS FANTASTIC AND ONE OF THE BEST CBM'S!" reaction that it often gets.

Absolute great post.

 

[milost]

Batman doesn't kill proactively.He's not supposed to kill at ALL,despite the lack of fidelity that rule gets in live action.One of dozens of things Burton got wrong.

Batman has killed proactively.

He's not supposed to kill? Who says so? DC comics? How is that "getting it wrong"? There's thousands of different interpretations of the character. I don't like how TDKR turned out, I don't think Batman would ever "quit", certainly not retire to Italy, but he DID. I saw him do it with my own eyes. Even though I might not like it doesn't mean it's "wrong" or some travesty that broke a rule. If I want to see a Batman that never quits, I'll read Dark Knight Returns or watch the animated series. If I want to see a Batman that never kills, I'll watch the animated series.

Batman was a deputized cop in the 60s, in the television show he worked with the police and wore a badge. Does the vigilante depiction of Keaton and Bale Bats mean the interpretations of Burton and Nolan were "wrong"?

People straight up overact when it comes to the whole "OMG, the Batman doesn't kill" when it comes to the films. It's like a cliched discussion that never goes away from the armchair experts on Batman (who probably don't even grasp the charter's numerous iterations). It's not just Burton or Nolan interpretations, but anyone that scoffs at the idea. Not every iteration of the character is the same. If these foundations are there,

- he's Bruce Wayne
- he's human
- he's wealthy
- his parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne were killed
- he's motivated by their deaths to fight crime
- he dresses up as a bat (cowl, mask, cape, gloves, belt, etc.) for effect to frighten criminals
- has an arsenal at his disposal (rope, batarang, Batmobile, etc.)


Then it's "right", it's Batman. 1930s he was Batman. 1940s he was Batman. 1950s he was Batman. 1960s he was Batman. 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, now. All Batman. I don't care if it's Schumacher or Bill Finger, Miller or Burton, Dini or O' Neil, Nolan or Kane, they're all Batman. Don't like that Burton's Batman kills on occasion? Too bad, it's "right", he's Batman. Don't like that Schumacher's carries a Batcredit card? Too bad, he's Batman. Nolan's quit? Too bad, he's Batman. Batman, Batman, Batman.

There is no "canon". The character is a modern myth with 75 years of history and will continue to change, there is no "right" way of depicting them.