As dark and flawed as they are, I'd still take the Burton pair over the Schumacher pair in a heartbeat.
The Big Picture: Batman Revisited, Part 2
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry, but I really liked Burton's Penguin character. Yes he's darker than some comic book adaptations but that works really well in the environment. Saying that Burton's version of the Penguin "isn't a Penguin" is quite condescending and spiteful. Seems as though if it's not formed in your personal ideal of the Joker it's instantaneously bad?
I mean, Heath Ledger's version was just as dark, just in a slightly different way.
Secondly, Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman is my favourite silver screen version of the character. I always thought her costume rocked and was very fitting. Lot better than this [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-93x60hWa_WM/TjuwMwEirGI/AAAAAAAABYA/thwW8SRiYqo/s1600/official-anne-hathaways-catwoman-batman-movie-dark-knight-rises-costume.jpg] by any means.
I mean, Heath Ledger's version was just as dark, just in a slightly different way.
Secondly, Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman is my favourite silver screen version of the character. I always thought her costume rocked and was very fitting. Lot better than this [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-93x60hWa_WM/TjuwMwEirGI/AAAAAAAABYA/thwW8SRiYqo/s1600/official-anne-hathaways-catwoman-batman-movie-dark-knight-rises-costume.jpg] by any means.
God, think if people didn't make changes to the villains what would we be stuck with.MonkeyPunch said:
I have to agree with monkey punch, I love danny devito as the penguin.
I personally like Batman Returns, it is my favorite Batman movie. It may not be perfect, but, God it's so much fun.
MPAA ratings are based strictly on superficial content, not subtext. If there's no blood or dismemberment of human beings, and no actual nudity or sex, and none of George Carlin's "seven words", and no illegal drug use, you'll thoroughly avoid an "R" rating, no matter how suggestive the material is. (Also, look back at things like "Goonies", "Adventures in Babysitting", "Gremlins", "The Outsiders", "Labyrinth"--80s films aimed ostensibly at children and teens that would probably have to be severely trimmed today.)iceykitsune said:
Complained at the violence and sexual innuedos?
Maybe its just because I was never shielded from the world by my mum and wrapped up in the old wool of cotton, but.....
What violence? Batman has a few slap fights with a bunch of blokes dressed as clowns, thats hardly violent. At least not in my world at that time. The sexual innuendos I also didn't get, mostly owing to the fact I was only 5 at the time and just happy to see another Batman movie.
The bloke getting set alight and burned to death by the Jokers hand buzzer in the first movie was far more violent than the colourful gymnastic men in Returns
Maybe its just because I was never shielded from the world by my mum and wrapped up in the old wool of cotton, but.....
What violence? Batman has a few slap fights with a bunch of blokes dressed as clowns, thats hardly violent. At least not in my world at that time. The sexual innuendos I also didn't get, mostly owing to the fact I was only 5 at the time and just happy to see another Batman movie.
The bloke getting set alight and burned to death by the Jokers hand buzzer in the first movie was far more violent than the colourful gymnastic men in Returns
Returns is not my favorite Batman movie, but it certainly is a lot of fun and I still enjoy it to this very day, I definitely enjoyed the offbeat, dark and grim tone of Returns and that classic Burton style.
Not my favorite, but I like it. I hate Forever and Batman & Robin with a burning passion, let's see what Movie Bob has to say about them.
Not my favorite, but I like it. I hate Forever and Batman & Robin with a burning passion, let's see what Movie Bob has to say about them.
Bob, you madman! You're going into Schumacher territory!
I also just remembered I've seen every Batman movie in the Burton/Schumacher quadrilogy except Returns. I'll have to try tracking it down one of these days.
I also just remembered I've seen every Batman movie in the Burton/Schumacher quadrilogy except Returns. I'll have to try tracking it down one of these days.
I LOVE Batman Returns. I even felt it has the strongest Batman moments out of ANY of the films. The dance scene with Bruce and Selina, ironically the only two NOT in costume at a costume ball, dancing and realizing each others' identities, and how their both so upset and shocked and yet, damn it, they want it to work... only for it to fall apart... it's so great.
Also, yeah. I agree. The Penguin in this film is a monster and a different version than the comics... but that's a GOOD thing. You could levy the exact same "complaint" about Heath Ledger's Joker being a far cry from the comic version, turned into a new monster for the film, and it still works. Only, ONLY thing I hated was the missile-penguins.
So cute. I can't take them seriously.
But I do find it funny how parents flipped out over Batman Returns, while the modern The Dark Knight I feel is far more adult, violent, and emotionally scarring. Thematically, it's even more disturbing than Returns is and it is far more cynical and despondent than Batman Returns was.
I'll also throw this in. Yes, Batman kills badguys in this movie... and I'm okay with that. It was once stated that Burton's films had the feel of the original comics (while Joel Schumachuer's had the tone of the 50s and 60s) and Nolan's films are the modern Batman. But, as Bob Kane pointed out, Batman did a LOT of killing in the original comics. I mean, yes, Batman has a no-kill-code now, but not when he started. In fact, in his first issue, he flat out tosses a mafia boss into a vat of acid and then says it's a fitting end for his kind.
The ONLY reason Batman ever got a no-kill-code, according to Bob Kane, was because he realized that killing off popular villains was hurting the comic. If Batman did not kill the Joker, the Joker could come back again and again. If he killed off all the enemies he could, Batman would not have a rogue's gallery. That's the only reason. Thus his no-kill code was added in the 40's to justify popular villains not being killed off.
Also, yeah. I agree. The Penguin in this film is a monster and a different version than the comics... but that's a GOOD thing. You could levy the exact same "complaint" about Heath Ledger's Joker being a far cry from the comic version, turned into a new monster for the film, and it still works. Only, ONLY thing I hated was the missile-penguins.
So cute. I can't take them seriously.But I do find it funny how parents flipped out over Batman Returns, while the modern The Dark Knight I feel is far more adult, violent, and emotionally scarring. Thematically, it's even more disturbing than Returns is and it is far more cynical and despondent than Batman Returns was.
I'll also throw this in. Yes, Batman kills badguys in this movie... and I'm okay with that. It was once stated that Burton's films had the feel of the original comics (while Joel Schumachuer's had the tone of the 50s and 60s) and Nolan's films are the modern Batman. But, as Bob Kane pointed out, Batman did a LOT of killing in the original comics. I mean, yes, Batman has a no-kill-code now, but not when he started. In fact, in his first issue, he flat out tosses a mafia boss into a vat of acid and then says it's a fitting end for his kind.
The ONLY reason Batman ever got a no-kill-code, according to Bob Kane, was because he realized that killing off popular villains was hurting the comic. If Batman did not kill the Joker, the Joker could come back again and again. If he killed off all the enemies he could, Batman would not have a rogue's gallery. That's the only reason. Thus his no-kill code was added in the 40's to justify popular villains not being killed off.
Good grief, Bob. Decades of comic book lore to draw from means that every film-maker will select different interpretations of characters, possibly even ones that you don't enjoy. Deal with it.
I liked the Burton Batman films, mostly for their dark wackiness than for any sense the plot fails to make.
I liked the Burton Batman films, mostly for their dark wackiness than for any sense the plot fails to make.
Yes, I think it has to do with marketing again. Maybe I missed something, but Batman Begins and Dark Knight didn't seem to nearly have the push that Batman and Batman Returns did. Those toys were everywhere. They had Batman selling everything, like thisTrishbot said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPU6rQ-PBao
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaWAFlIuUGo
Meanwhile, the marketing for the new Batmans seemed to skew much more adults and treated the movies more like what they were - for teenagers / adults, not small children. Just take one look at Heath Ledger's Joker or Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow and it's obvious it's not intended for young audiences.
I liked DeVito's Penguin only because the Penguin has always been one of my least favorite Batman villains. He works best these days as a crime boss with silly weapons. Making him a truly degenerate sub-human gave the character acres more personality.
I would have perferred Catwoman as less crazy, even if any S&M fetish I have is entirely her fault because of this movie.
I would have perferred Catwoman as less crazy, even if any S&M fetish I have is entirely her fault because of this movie.
This reminds me: I think the Penguin (or the Riddler) could have made perfect additions to Nolan's version of Batman's rogues' gallery. They're both villains that could be easily synthesized into his realistic Gotham without losing what made them what they are and they would both have something important to contrast in Batman.
At the end of the day, all of Batman's problems in Nolan's Gotham have eventually been solved by punching. Muggers are evil? Punch. Ras is evil? Punch. Joker's evil? Punch off building. Harvey's evil? Punch off different building. They give the indication that, eventually, if Batman punches enough people, Gotham will be fixed forever.
But the Penguin- at least in non-Burton media- is more of a white-collar criminal. Get elected Mayor, corrupt people, seek and abuse power and wealth. Batman has never had to deal with anything like that in Nolan's Gotham before. Nolan could easily do up the Penguin as sort of an evil opposite of Bruce Wayne, a wealthy, charismatic, and entirely amoral magnate secretly manipulating the criminal underbelly to take and hold wealth and power in Gotham from a seat of impunity. This would give WORLD'S GRAETIST DATECTIF a chance to actually do some detective work, present a devious enemy that Batman could also fight as Bruce Wayne- who hasn't done much of anything these past couple movies- and remains fairly in line with his old, campy, '60's incarnation.
Importantly, all these movies seem to hinge on asking how far Batman is really willing to go to fight for Gotham- by challenging him to give ever more of himself. But the Penguin's brand of villainy is one dependent on an endemic collapse of morality in Gotham. He requires a broken, corrupt system to exist at all. Even more important than asking, "What happens when you can't just suplex the evil out of Gotham?" the Penguin could present the question, "What does Batman do when he realizes Gotham is evil to its core?"
I'd laugh my ass off at the fanboy rage if a Batman movie ended like Chinatown.
(Penguin is escorted to safety by police)
Alfred:Forget it, Bruce. It's Gotham.
At the end of the day, all of Batman's problems in Nolan's Gotham have eventually been solved by punching. Muggers are evil? Punch. Ras is evil? Punch. Joker's evil? Punch off building. Harvey's evil? Punch off different building. They give the indication that, eventually, if Batman punches enough people, Gotham will be fixed forever.
But the Penguin- at least in non-Burton media- is more of a white-collar criminal. Get elected Mayor, corrupt people, seek and abuse power and wealth. Batman has never had to deal with anything like that in Nolan's Gotham before. Nolan could easily do up the Penguin as sort of an evil opposite of Bruce Wayne, a wealthy, charismatic, and entirely amoral magnate secretly manipulating the criminal underbelly to take and hold wealth and power in Gotham from a seat of impunity. This would give WORLD'S GRAETIST DATECTIF a chance to actually do some detective work, present a devious enemy that Batman could also fight as Bruce Wayne- who hasn't done much of anything these past couple movies- and remains fairly in line with his old, campy, '60's incarnation.
Importantly, all these movies seem to hinge on asking how far Batman is really willing to go to fight for Gotham- by challenging him to give ever more of himself. But the Penguin's brand of villainy is one dependent on an endemic collapse of morality in Gotham. He requires a broken, corrupt system to exist at all. Even more important than asking, "What happens when you can't just suplex the evil out of Gotham?" the Penguin could present the question, "What does Batman do when he realizes Gotham is evil to its core?"
I'd laugh my ass off at the fanboy rage if a Batman movie ended like Chinatown.
(Penguin is escorted to safety by police)
Alfred:Forget it, Bruce. It's Gotham.
I saw this film as a child after seeing the first one. Let me tell you, I was not ready for it haha. The scene where the penguin bites off a dudes nose freaked the living shit out of my little child like psyche. However Catwoman was and still is the yardstick by which I measure sexy femme fetales.
The parts at the end when the Penguin is leaking black blood out of his mouth and nose and when Max Schreck gets electrocuted by Catwoman also scared little me quite a lot. Despite this, it introduced me to the darker side of human nature and was one of the earliest examples of my exposure to the 'adult' world. In my mind, this movie is a classic Christmas movie that I watch every year along side the Gremlins and Die Hard.
The parts at the end when the Penguin is leaking black blood out of his mouth and nose and when Max Schreck gets electrocuted by Catwoman also scared little me quite a lot. Despite this, it introduced me to the darker side of human nature and was one of the earliest examples of my exposure to the 'adult' world. In my mind, this movie is a classic Christmas movie that I watch every year along side the Gremlins and Die Hard.
Michelle Pfeiffer > Anne Hathaway
that is all..^^
and if you bring up Halle Berry I will murder you.
that is all..^^
and if you bring up Halle Berry I will murder you.
Which was just okay, and not the horror everyone makes it to be. 0.oNorix596 said:
You know, I wonder if Bob recognizes that he gets a lot less responses to his videos after his BS views on the fans of ME3 were expressed. I suspect he does not care.
BTW Michelle Pfiefer? Super sexy in that movie. Does that mean I am revealing dark secrets about my sexuality? Maybe....
BTW Michelle Pfiefer? Super sexy in that movie. Does that mean I am revealing dark secrets about my sexuality? Maybe....
I've gotta ask, Bob, because I'm curious. If not the thick rubber suit that looks like some solidly defensible pseudo armor for the Caped Crusader, then what? The cloth suit of the Adam West Batman? Guns, knives, fire, dogs, darts, shrapnel, glass, small explosions, banging into walls, pipes, and cars--these are all things Batman is more or less required to deal with. All of these kind of start to take their toll on an unprotected body, and the rate he deals with them, that toll would pile up quite fast. Do you have an alternative preference that would actually make sense?
I'm gonna have to echo the: "it's not like the comics! WHAAAAAAAAA!!" thing.
I also don't look at Catwoman in that movie as a simple "they explained her by just making her crazy, thumbs down." In fairness, her conformity to a meek gender role is shown as a factor in leading to her freakout and something vehemently rejected in her rebirth; and as I see it, the resulting character and how it operates in the narrative holds up quite well on-balance to feminist values, at least comparatively speaking.
I also don't look at Catwoman in that movie as a simple "they explained her by just making her crazy, thumbs down." In fairness, her conformity to a meek gender role is shown as a factor in leading to her freakout and something vehemently rejected in her rebirth; and as I see it, the resulting character and how it operates in the narrative holds up quite well on-balance to feminist values, at least comparatively speaking.