Batman: The films, the tv-shows, the animation. - Page 5

This post made me LOL pretty hard, and while I agree to an extent, I actually like this about the movie. It feels like some weird nightmare you're drifting in and out of. Who hasn't had a nightmare about a clown sitting in a chair in a dark, empty room? I know I have! BATMAN actually gets my vote for the most atmospheric movie ever made.

Also, you could rewrite your post a little to bash THE DARK KNIGHT, a movie that some of you may be intrigued to learn that I hate! That shit looks like it was filmed on the same Toronto soundstage where they shoot CASTLE every week.

Honestly, everything that came out in the summer of '89 looked like shit. It's like everyone in Hollywood got together and decided that would be the summer of national glaucoma awareness so they lit everything poorly and used a dirty aquarium as a lens filter.

What I love about the way Keaton portrays Batman in Returns, and what I pointed out earlier about Kilmer's portrayal in Forever, is that he's a SUPERHERO. Batman in the first movie is an urban legend, and in Begins and Dark Knight he's known but mysterious and feared.

The inherent goofiness of Batman walking around Gotham's streets with Commissioner Gordon in these middle movies is what I love about TAS and Arkham Asylum; a Batman that personally escorts the Joker into Arkham, and has a repoir with Police Officers rather than ignoring or screaming at them.

It's a fine line, but Keaton pulled it off.

HAHAHAHAHAH phil that is awesome man. even funnier becuase that is literally the black population of burtons gotham

Well one things ALL versions of Batman have in common is that Gotham's police force is absolutely useless. Why do they even bother having one if all it takes to overpower them is some clowns riding motorbikes?

I remember the first few minutes of B&R in the theater, and the damage that just kept totaling up in the space of those few minutes. One thing that sticks out is Batman and Robin on the road and Batman getting a live video message from Gordon.

Gordon: Batman...there's a new villain in town, he's called Mr. Freeze.

Batman: Mr. Freeze, huh?

I still can't really find the words to describe exactly what I was feeling in that moment. It was a weird thing watching a film and realizing that you can indeed wash $100 million down the fucking drain.

A Walken 2Face would have been quite an experience.
This post made my day. Especially the "Demoted!"

They should've sent a poet...

Someone up above mentioned that in an earlier draft of Batman Returns Shreck and Penguin turn out to be brothers. Although that would have provided a bit of symmetry, it would have ruined the far more provocative class warfare that separates Shreck from Bruce Wayne.

I love how on more than one occasion Shreck refers to Bruce as a blue blood and trust fund baby. It says a lot about his character that he's a self-made man. Also, I do appreciate that he truly loves his son, hinting at more than a mustache twirling villain in his Grinchy heart. A very well realized character, especially as handled by Christopher Walken.

On another front, the movie has also been criticized for Bruce's lack of screentime. Although I think he gets the right amount, and as many have pointed out the villains actually work as reflections of Bruce and Batman, he did suffer at the script stage. I believe the early inclusion of Robin would have provided more of a story arc for Bruce:

Apparently Robin, as originally envisioned, would have been a boy mechanic that Batman stumbles upon once the Batmobile would have been sabotaged. I imagine his introduction at around the hour mark, the halfway point, would have felt forced, especially if he were to show up in costume by the end of the movie. Perhaps if he had been the one monitoring the Penguin situation back at the batcave...but then Alfred would have nothing to do.

All in all, I'm glad he was left out, as his inclusion would have taken away from the mirroring that the villains provide. What does Robin represent? Bruce's shattered childhood, but that's the Penguin here. Perhaps Robin would have been a glimmer of hope at the end, but I prefer the ambiguous, melancholy ending we got instead.

Brief reassessment of Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. She's only bad when she has to speak with authority, which is massively problematic with a character who is supposed to be a highly competent, assistant district attorney. Otherwise, when called upon to be compassionate, and to humanize professional stick-in-the-mud, Bruce Wayne, she works. Two things that I think are in her favor is that there is a definite warmth to her, and working concurrently with that warmth, is I believe, her physical height, which prevents her from looking totally meek next to Bale. Notice how he never overpowers her in the frame, even when he's Batman look at how they never have a scene where he's standing eye-to-eye with her. He's always imposing from a distance. Coincidence or did her height play a role in that? That's an interesting question to me. As I mentioned, when she's got to put on her poker face, it all falls apart and for that specific element of the character, she seems woefully miscast. I say seems, because I've seen her be good and different in films in stuff like The Gift and Thank You For Smoking. I'm not saying she's amazing, but she is competent, and reasonably versatile, which leads me to believe that Nolan didn't so much miscast her as misdirect her and the character isn't appropriately fitted/adjusted to Holmes' strengths.    

A friend of mine in a position to know says her performance was actually quite realistic for a District Attorney. For myself, I must at least praise Holmes for shooting the last scene of the film on what was evidently a very cold day.

Or that the character just didn't have much to do beyond "conscience/damsel".

 

Or that with all the interesting girlfriends Bruce has had in the comics, there was no need to invent another one.

I'm of the *opinion* that she was specifically built to be a casualty in the sequel, which is probably why they didn't choose anyone from the comics. Also, if you look at how she was used, she's a fairly utilitarian character. She's Bruce's childhood friend, so she helps move his character forward, and she's the assistant DA, which allows her to be involved in the mechanics of the plot and not just stand around being this unnecessary thing taking up space. Based on the story they wanted to tell, I can understand why characters like Vicki Vale, Julie Madison, Silver St. Cloud, or Vesper Fairchild wouldn't work. You just can't extract Rachel Dawes from either BB or TDK.

Over at Comics Alliance, noted Batmanologist Chris Sims and his sidekick David Uzumeri have been taking a fresh look at the Batman films of the 90's in their "Remedial Batmanology" series of reviews.  To see Burton dismantled mercilessly and Shumacher rehabilitated, read here.  (Links to entries in the series prior to Batman & Robin appear at the end of the article.)

 

I stopped reading after this This movie isn't just the best of the four we've watched, it's a legitimate hoot.

No, it really isn't. These are people trying to go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain.

 

I don't buy the argument that "Batman & Robin" is forgivable if you look at it as being like a movie adaptation of the '60s series. We got a movie adaptation of that with "Batman: The Movie" in 1966 and after watching some episodes of the 60s series again recently, I can confidently say both are infinitely better than "Batman & Robin". And I'm not saying that just to be ironic or take a cheap shot. There was some genuine creativity and cleverness put into the '60s series, especially in the dialog and performances of characters like The Penguin, The Riddler, and Catwoman.  

 

Even Mr. Freeze (at least in his first appearance being played by George Sanders) was much more interesting than Arnold's Mr. Freeze. He was actually a relatively serious character with a similar back story to Two-Face as he's hell bent on getting revenge against Batman for accidentally causing his physical impairment. The director and writer of "Batman & Robin" had the advantage of being able to work with the amazingly poignant new Mr. Freeze back story from "Batman: The Animated Series", and they still assassinated the character.

 

On the '60s series, Batman and Robin were of course terribly irritating most of the time (especially Robin), but even they had their fair share of funny lines and moments. The "Batman & Robin" movie was a combination of two of the worst kinds of movies - an action movie that isn't exciting, and a comedy that isn't funny. Its action sequences are overblown and its jokes/one-liners/puns are just lame. Uma Thurman brings some charisma to her role that makes some of her scenes bearable, but really it's mostly just a waste of a lot of talent and money.

I agree with this, in that I think where that Remedial Batmantology (which should be more thorough - where are the serials?!?) is the product of two bright guys who make good points, but are thuddingly literal-minded. Those first two Burton movies are really what most comic movies should aspire - a focus on iconography and set pieces over the linear logic these two crave so badly. Of course Batman and Batman Returns don't hold up to super specific scrutiny - they're more about setting a mood and a tone, with the character's wacko characteristics and psychoses driving the plot (though I do think I agree in saying that approach sullies Danny DeVito's otherwise-great work as Penguin by being far too inconsistent).

 

Meanwhile, those Schumacher films don't work precisely because of what you said. You can view the Burton films as arch, demented comedies, and they have moments that are actually really quite funny, coming from an honest, twisted place. The Schumacher films just turn everything into a vaudeville gag, hoping to gain extra credit points just by winking. It's a disastrous miscalculation, and with age and distance from these movies, I can see what Schumacher and (THAT ASSHOLE) Akiva Goldsman were going for, but they are woefully underequipped. Particularly Goldsman. That asshole.

What bothers me about the Burton films is that Bruce and Batman never have an arc. He's the exact same character at the end of Returns as he is at the beginning of Batman. Things happen to him (he discovers, and then kills, his parents' murderer; he falls in love twice), but he never learns a lesson or evolves.

 

At least Forever takes a stab at reconciling the murdering psycho from the first two films with the newly super-heroic version, and B&R has Bruce accepting Robin as an equal (and some bullshit about family).

 

Burton's Batman is also highly indifferent to the people he's saving. The Burton films are highly cynical in their portrayal of the yuppies of Gotham. Why does Batman fight for these people? They're selfish, idiotic, and vapid. It could be that he's only out for vengeance, but then why give the police the Batsignal?

 

The Schumacher films at least portray a heroic Batman. Simultaneously, they also subvert the audience expectations of what's expected out of a Batman story, superheroes in general, and a movie based on a comic book. Grant Morrison's JLA started in 1997, the same year as B&R. Although Morrison has done a much better job in the last fourteen years of respecting Batman's entire publishing history and making the sci-fi/camp eras work, B&R at least takes a stab at reversing the grim & gritty portrayal of superheroes, and Batman specifically, that was started by The Dark Knight Returns.

 

In the end I don't think the first four Batman movies are really all that good, but as I get older I have more fun with the latter two. I say skip 'em all and rewatch the Nolan films, or better yet the Animated Series.

I have a bit of a soft spot for "Batman Forever". I have to admit it's mostly because it came out right at the time when my childhood Batman fanaticism was at a boiling point (having just finished three seasons of "Batman: The Animated Series" from 1992 to 1995). Still, even from a more mature, objective point of view, I think it's not as completely worthless as "Batman & Robin". As an adult, I don't have much use for it beyond as nostalgia, but I can at least grant that its heart was in the right place (at times). It just had shoddy execution. Joel Schumacher's aesthetic choices didn't help, either. 

 

Some elements of it are completely bungled (i.e. Two-Face), but at least they try to give some real poignancy to the death of Dick Grayson's parents. It also explores Bruce's past more than the previous two movies, as Bruce struggles with feelings over his parents' deaths through flashbacks. It's a movie with a vague ambition to get deeper into Bruce's psyche, but "vague" is the key word because the hack writer just couldn't go very deep. Also (again, this is something that was more true when I was child), I have some appreciation for the fact that it made Batman find some joy in being a superhero. I really didn't care for the character in "Batman Returns" as I saw it in theatres as a child. He seemed to have a lot less personality. About the only thing I liked in "Batman Returns" (and still the only thing I like in it) was Catwoman.

At this point, and once again after 35 years, the Adam West show is my favorite. Got burned out on Burton's kink and Nolan's seriousness. The series is a LOT of fun. The first season especially isn't just for kids. Frank Gorshin is the MVP, though Adam West doesn't get enough credit - there's a scene where he has to talk to himself on the phone as both Batman and Bruce Wayne that is just stellar.

Bartleby_Scriven, Noah has an...Arc!  I...Love, the Tim Burton Batman Films, and do not want to see the character change.  The 2 Joel Shumacher films are...Horrible!  Alongside, Superman 3 and 4, they are some of the worst superhero films ever produced.  Batman Begins is the...Best Batman film with The Dark Knight a close second.  That could change next year with...Dark Knight Rises.  The best thing Nolan has done is...Bruce Wayne as a Ninja!  I love that side of Nolan's Batman, and hope there are more Ninja for Batman to fight in the next film!

 

Phil, I do enjoy the 60's Batman, but I definitely prefer Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Batman, Batman Returns, The Animated series, as well as Batman's role in Justice League Unlimited.  Although, for my money, Julie Newmar, is still my...Favorite Catwoman!

 

 

Having to no arc can be a problem depending on your POV, but I think it sort of works fine for Burton and Keaton's interpretation. The guy in those first two films fights chiefly for himself because it feeds a psychological need, Nolan's Batman is very similar, but there's at least some recognizably human, emotional conflict there. I've heard Keaton talk about a deleted scene where they show Wayne going into a trance-like state to transition into his Batman identity and that gives a strong indication as to how they viewed the character. He's insane. Their Batman doesn't change, as a matter of fact, he insulates himself from change by inventing such a bizarre coping mechanism.

 

I can see that, but that's boring to me.

 

He's crazy. Yeah, okay? Burton can't decide if his films take place in some semblance of reality (boring scenes of Harvey Dent bickering with the mayor, Cobblepot-for-Mayor headquarters) or a gothic wonderland.

 

In the former this Wayne makes no sense because he's a rich, creepy recluse that everyone would suspect. His craziness could be fascinating, but in the world Burton creates (of German expressionist cathedrals; greedy, idiotic Gothamite consumers; and evil circuses) he's not actually crazy.

 

This Batman is the natural reaction to Burton's magical realism, so any of his quirks are immediately foreshadowed by the weirdness around him. He's boring, with only a few moments of introspection (the "you may be right" scene with Penguin).

 

Burton's world lacks commentary. Things just happen.

 

I can understand a preference for some who might prefer Batman Forever over the Burton films but anyone who honestly prefers Batman & Robin might have a slight mental handicap for bright colors.

B&R has better villains and a better Bruce Wayne, but that's about it.

 

Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones are trying to outdo Jack Nicholson and each other, and it's horrible. Ah-Nuld and Uma at least try something different, and are obviously having a lot of fun.

 

Kilmer's Wayne comes across as so impotent, although I do like his brainstorming sessions about the riddles with Alfred. Unfortunately, while Clooney's Wayne is full of swagger, warmth and presence, his Batman is a non-entity with very little to do.

 

Although I'm trying very hard to find the positives in B&R, I can't understand how it ever got made. In 1997, it wasn't the movie we needed...but it was the movie we deserved.

I shudder at the faint memory of what would be Batman Triumphant, the fifth in the Burton/Schumacher series. Everyone has their own favorite story about what was rumored (Harley Quinn, Nicholson cameo-ing as Joker in hallucinations) but my favorite was the straight-faced NY Post assertion that Howard Stern was "locked in" to be the Scarecrow. Granted, the Post is a ridiculous newspaper, but we're talking a third Schumacher Batman movie.

 

I still remember being a Batman fan who grew up with the Adam West version, and had enjoyed the first three movies. And then my best friend and I sat in the theater for opening day of Batman and Robin, mouths agape, wondering, "WHAT IN THE HELL IS THIS."

I was always curious how Triumphant would have turned out. Sort of like being curious about what would happen if you put a miniature poodle in a microwave.

 

It would most likely be horrific but who knows, maybe something good could come out of it. Maybe.

Clooney was a terrible Batman and a bad, bobble-headed Bruce Wayne. It wasn't that he didn't have anything to do: he had plenty to do and he did it badly. Kilmer was better. Keaton was better. Adam West was better. Kurt Russell (who was rumored to be considered for BATMAN TRIUMPHANT) was better without ever having played the part. Alec Baldwin was better if you pretend that his take on THE SHADOW is really him playing Batman. Clooney is AWFUL. He's no one's Batman.

Maybe I'm looking at things too personally (TEAM CLOONEY) but the guy really did what he could with the material. He also had the warmest relationship with Alfred compared to the other Batmen, and has apologies repeatedly for doing the movie. Plus, the dude was shooting in that ridiculous heavy suit four days a week, then flying over to shoot ER every weekend. That's some dedication.

The "Clooney Head-Bob", as awful as it is, was actually pretty hip in 96-97. It was kinda the male equivalent of "The Rachel". Blame Schumacher for not having reigning that sh*t in.

What made the casting of Keaton so brilliant is that he's a nerdy, slim wiry looking guy, not like Batman at all. For me that's half of what made Keaton so good in the role: you don't look at his jaw and instantly see he's Batman. The Batsuit made him into someone else (Kevin Smith made the comment that the suit sold him on Keaton "hell I could have worn the suit and I'd be Batman!") The other half is his take on the character, which was great.

 

I thing Keaton's Wayne/Batman is boring by comparison to those around him. But I read that as he's a normal guy twisted by events and the environment around him. He's what Gotham made him.

 

Not every movie, comic, or story in general needs to have an arc. How many Batman comics actually have an arc (I mean over the 60+ year history of the character)? I 'd guess the majority of Batman comics have plots but no spiritual or emotional change in Batman. How could they? The series would have ended after only a few years.

 

I think you are missing the pleasures of the serial entertainment. Batman is still being published because writers are still coming up with interesting villains and stories. I actually wish the film makers would stop "peeling the onion" on the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman and just show him doing his thing.

 

That said, I enjoy Nolan's take on the character (with a few quibbles: his Batman is more Meathead than World's Greatest Detective) and how he melds plot and themes together. Joker's apparently random acts do have a deeper meaning (see upthread for some great discussion) and we do see Wayne/Bats evolve or at least react/adapt to the world around him....a world he's helped create!

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. But he is the worst Batman ever by a solid country mile. Whatever is required to play the character, he doesn't have it. He even admits it. Frequently.

Sebastian OB, I suppose those are the...The Facts Of Life, that George Clooney, was not that...Super, as a hero!

Wait until the end. That's all I'll say.

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/296735/jimmy-kimmel-live-this-week-in-unnecessary-censorship

Haha, I love the way you typed that...allows me to perfectly imagine what you looked and felt like watching the movie. This also reminds me of my reaction. I watched the movie, all of 14 years old, so innocent and devoid of cynicism that I don't think I was even really capable of hating movies yet. This may be the first move I saw in theatres that left me so gobsmacked, I really had to grasp at straws to put a positive spin on it. I distinctly remember not being able to come up with anything but, "Well, Uma Thurman was pretty hot, I guess".

 

I used to think I hated Arnold's Mr. Freeze just because of how beautifully written and acted the character was on "Batman: The Animated Series". Watching the '60s Batman series again recently, I realized that even then the character was vastly superior. '60s Freeze had the most basic super villain back story ever (he holds a grudge against Batman for accidentally causing an accident that gave him super powers) and was played by several different actors, but he was still cooler than the big screen Mr. Freeze.

 

George Sanders was pretty damn fun in the character's '60s debut, bringing a classy vibe to the role with his aristocratic accent and courtly, urbane demeanor (great to see an Oscar winner playing such an absurd character straight). He also got to play with some novel gimmicks like the half sub zero, half heated room (with a neat-o red light and blue light effect) and some surprisingly convincing freeze gun effects for a '60s show. 30 years before "Batman & Robin", this Mr. Freeze was superior both superficially and in terms of personality/performance. His costume was basically just a radiation suit, but it was way better than Arnold's ungainly behemoth of a costume.