Batman Continues - Page 2

I have no witty comeback, except the truth: You're a fucking moron who seems incapable of understanding film discussion.

Easy easy easy. Did I hurt your feelings or something? Seems that term is being thrown around a lot lately. "Fucking Moron". Real, um, ADULT of ya. Thanks for your contributions!

Dude, I gave my opinion, and you did absolutely nothing but give me shit for it. That's not discussion, that's being a cunt, and that's why CHUD suffers so much these days, because it's full of it.

Here's the deal: I am a HUGE fan of Chris Nolan, and have been since MEMENTO. I own all of his movies, and I think he's a shining talent, and is one of the best directors around.

That said, I don't think he gets Batman, and I think BATMAN BEGINS proves it. That's not a fact, that's what I think. It doesn't mean I think he's incapable of making a movie, far from it, that's just you reaching, which again, doesn't help. Hell, if he makes a great second Bat-flick, I'll hold my hand up and say he does get him. That's all I said.

This is an only very slightly tweaked version of the 'you can't criticise unless you can do better' fallacy.

I'd suggest you think a bit harder about why you keep seeing the term 'fucking moron' popping up.

Quote me where I am giving you shit. I wasn't pointing my finger at YOU, 'cause if I DID, I WOULD HAVE. I am pissed that there is an alarming amount of negativity here on these boards, and it is getting worse every DAY. In the last three months, I have seen just about every thread dissolve into a shit-fest.

You called me "A Fucking Moron", because for all intents and purposes, I disagreed with ya.

No, it's because you're a fucking moron.

Go troll somewhere else, bitch.

First you were obnoxious and sarcastic. Then you called me a Talkbacker, and then you did your reach where you intimated that I spend all day talking about how Nolan is incapable of making a film.

That isn't discussion. That's giving me shit.

Go find somewhere else to be a snippy little retard, douche.

Incredible. Brad, you are the benchmark for coolness here.

Nolan should be fired for putting that totally gay opera scene in.

Again, that wasn't directed at you at all. I am truly sorry if I came across as doing so. That was NOT my intention. As you can see with Mr. Millettes quotes of the day, I may have been referring to the uneducated here.

Lets just be happy that guy Carrie Ann-Moss wasn't cast as Batman....ok guyz? M I rite?

Other than internet casting speculation has there been any indication that a sequel is in the works, or will soon be?

Batman Begins didn't succeed as well WB would have hoped, right? Is it possible that they're waiting to see how well Superman Returns does before they decide which superhero franchise to put their money behind?

From what I have read on various websites, Nolan and his brother turned in a draft that Warners was quite pumped about, and they are merely waiting for Nolan to free up some time to begin pre-production.

I think they are waiting for Superman Returns to come out before they begin real work on Wonder Woman. even then, I just can't get too excited for Wonder Woman, seeing as how Hollywood has missed the target on a lot of bankable characters like Elektra, Catwoman and even Lara Croft.

Batman Begins didn't succeed as well WB would have hoped, right? Is it possible that they're waiting to see how well Superman Returns does before they decide which superhero franchise to put their money behind?

It proved to be one of the bigger hits of last summer, but in contrast w/ its budget, it really only broke even so I can see why the WB hasn't exactly fast-tracked a sequel.
I don't know if anyone else can relate, but when I went on opening day, I noticed a grand total of *O* kids in attendance. Am I wrong to assume that the muted world of Batman can never really compete w/ the bombastic primary colors of Spider-Man and the like?

I scored a premiere pass from JoBlo.com and saw it with my wife, and yeah, there weren't too many kids then (obviously), but I took my eldest son, my little brother and parents two nights later, and there were quite a few kids in attendance.

There were also a lot of 60+'ers too, which brings me to this fond memory.

During the Tumbler chase on the Gotham Rooftops, there was a lady who looked like Estelle Getty gone bad, right in front of me. As the scene progressed, she was actually bouncing up and down in her chair, clapping her hands.

That was pretty cool.

As far as I'm aware, BB did better than expected, according to that tentpole of movie journalism PREMIERE. It didn't follow the (now) typical rule of having a huge opening weekend with a quick death. It actually went strong in the long haul and made money due to good word of mouth.

If WB can find a way not to spend 200 million on a movie they might be happier with their box-office results.

Any ideas on how to trim costs for the sequel? I'd say its a safe bet it'll cost slightly more. Last I checked, they stuck to the budget and there were no production over-runs. Where did all the money go? Is there any place we can find out who got paid what?

I haven't seen or heard much about where the budget went. I would love to see a budget breakdown from this thing.

If they are dead set on spending 200 million....then they just need one hell of a global marketing plan. Counting on a movie to make 400 million at the box-office is a bit optimistic.

How much do they suck in from DVD sales? and then from the Double Dip DVD sales? Then the Blu-Ray Double Dip...

I posted once here before about how companies make all of their investments back via DVD sales if a movie fails at the boxoffice, and someone was quick to point out that they don't consider it at all when budgeting a movie.

I believe the fact that Batman Begins set some DVD sale records on its initial first day release may make a difference though.

Good point. It was financially successful enough to warrant a sequel. I think the disconnect for viewers is shown by what we are posting here..."Where the fuck did they put the 200,000,000 in this thing?"

I'm hoping the sequel will have a catchy score, coherent fights, and not try as hard to make things seem grounded and real. It's a superhero in tights after all. Let's see a little more comic book pizzazz.

Careful, that way lies "Batman and Robin." Seeing someone's comment about not seeing too many kids in the theaters for BB makes me wonder if some studio exec (or worse, several of 'em) didn't ask similar questions after Batman Returns. I can see how in exec-think the pursuit of kids (and their toy and burger deal tie-ins) led to neon lights and ice skating fights. It is a problem with Batman that if you stay true to character you don't have much sun-n-fun. (which is not to say that I don't agree that they could use more coherent fights and a little less explanation of the military applications behind every bat-gadget)

Of course then there is the recent superhero franchise that you'd think is built for fun-and-quips crimefighting but spent most of the last movie trying to be as serious and dour as it could be, to great applause no less.

A lot of sets are still left over from the first film, so they can be reused to save some green.

It was the special interest groups that mainly objected to the grotesque nature of Batman Returns, there was a small furor over it, and since the film did considerably less business than the original, obviously softening the follow-up proved to be a smart move, fiscally.

I'm not talking Batman and Robin flamboyance, but the Burton films. They were dark and serious, and yet had a healthy amount of comic book style.

Not that I'm suggesting Nolan copy Burton, just give the film a little more comic book flavor. For example the Batmobile. Get rid of the generic Hummer and give us something a little batty.

The look of the batmobile is the only thing better about the Burton films. Man do they get a pass these days. The way some people reacted to BATMAN BEGINS as if it punched their mother's in the face I can only imagine what it would have been like had an utter turd like BATMAN RETURNS been released today.

While BATMAN BEGINS was far from perfect and elements of it bug the crap out of me, too... let's have some perspective.

(I'm leaving the Schumacher flicks out of this as their suckitude is beyond documented)

Not the only thing. Also the score, Nicholson, Walken, and some of the sets. I do agree though that in some respects those films haven't aged as well as they might. Tha action is certainly a bit basic by modern standards.

I'll still take the action in the '89 version over anything in BEGINS. I never had a problem with how Burton staged the sequences in that one.

I have to disagree with you, Carl. I think Burton's Bat flicks got the style and noir of the moody, glum Batman universe down pretty well. Burton's knack for towering set designs really gave those films the comic book feel that I love about the Batman license. Burton's attempt at examining the villians' more psychological and anti-social aspects also made his films that much more introspective. Hell, if it wasn't for the success of BATMAN in '89, we wouldn't have gotten the amazing Batman: TAS, which obviously took many of its tonal influences from that film.

I'll give you the scores, but that's only because Elfman's main theme is actually pretty good. But someone like James Newton Howard would run circles around that stuff today.

Nicholson. Nah. His scene-chewing ham it up routine as the Joker got old to me years ago. He's only slightly more menacing than Ceasar Romero.

Walken was good in RETURNS but did play himself, as always. I'll give you Walken though, but would say Tom Wilkinson's performance as Falcone should more than balance that out.

The sets? No way. That is one of the worst aspects of the Burton films, imho. Especially in RETURNS where it appears as if the entire city of Gotham could fit in your basement.

It looked like a city that I would want to play in. Sounds like fun to me.

Aside from the obvious fact that the financial success of the '89 Batman film spawned the far superior TAS I respectfully disagree. Burton's vision of Batman is so much more "TIM BURTON's Batman" than it is anything even remotely like the books. I mean, read "Year One" or "The Killing Joke" and then watch those movies. Not even close. Hell... go ahead pick up some random issues of the Jim Starlin/Jim Aparo Batman comics that were running around the same time the first film was made. It's still an almost total miss. They are your typical Tim Burton flicks (complete with overstylization and freak carnival atmosphere) that just happened to feature Batman and some identifiable villains. Bottom line, they look, feel and sound like Tim Burton movies, not BATMAN movies.

While Nolan did A LOT wrong, he still hit closer than Burton ever did.

I loved the sets in the original. The way Gotham looked like this decaying metropolis. But I don't know what happened when it came time to design Gotham for RETURNS.

Actually I do, the guy who did the art direction for BATMAN threw himself out a window before RETURNS.

You're right. It was Anton Furst. And for the record I DO like the Production Design of the first film quite a bit. And that's still the best batmobile yet.

Absolutely. I have no idea why, even if they were trying to brighten BATMAN FOREVER up a bit, they decided to fuck up such a sweet Batmobile.

I never stated that Burton's flicks were accurate portrayals of the Batman license. I think he got the tone right in terms of environment, though. But I like both films for their comic book feel and the fluidity in how he matches up Bats with his villains. Both films were still obviously inspired by the Batman universe, and even though Burton's sensibilities are still out there in full embrace (which isn't a bad thing for me), I think his films work as entertaining escapism and carving their own niche in the Batman legend.

Batman: TAS is Batman at its best, and no live-action film will ever live up to it.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I have pretty much given up hope of WB ever putting out a "real" BATMAN movie.

I'd like to see Howard try. His score for Begins was crap. Silly not to use at least Elfman's main theme.

A matter of taste. I still love it.

Wilkinson's a good actor, but he comes off more as a real gangster than an eccentric comic book villain. No memorable flourishes like Nicholson or Walken.

Sure they were a bit limited in scope, but they had much more character than anything in the bland-looking Begins.

It was well staged, and I liked how Keaton casually dispatches some of his opponents, but the choregraphy is rather simple. Batman Forever has much more complex fights.


Probably true. Maybe we'll get another animated film at some point.

The "tag team" score for BATMAN BEGINS was obviously a bad idea. Get a solid 5-star film composer onboard early and let him go to town.

This is an increasingly alarming trend these days... filmmakers waiting until the last minute to alter a score and/or bringing someone new onboard. Peter Jackson did it with KING KONG and hell, even John Williams is falling victim to it (Lucas butchered Williams' scores for AOTC (big time) and ROTS).

Actually, it's always the hardcore Batman fans who ignore the fact that the character has thrived through different interpretations. The ones who cling to the "dark" angle, and try to ignore the fact that Batman's most successful incarnation involved Adam West and comedy guest stars.

And that's just as valid - and a lot more fun - than yet the dour, dreary Batman that we're stuck with today.

That's the problem with Batman in a nutshell. He's a Golden Age character. The guidelines of the character were set in place in an era when all the hero needed to do was hate criminals and punch them in the jaw. There's precious little drama inherent in the character. That's why they've had to keep coming up with peripheral cast members - Batgirl, Batwoman, Azrael, Huntress, sundry Robins - to give him some human dimension. And yet by surrounding him with a "bat-family", you automatically undermine the purpose of the character - a lone crimefighter.

You mention him having to lead a dual life for good. So what? He's an orphaned millionaire. He lives alone in a massive mansion, with a butler who knows his secret and helps to keep it. As shown in Batman Begins, if he needs to lie in bed all day to recuperate, he can. If he needs a new gadget or device, he buys it.

Compare that to Peter Parker, who has a supporting cast of characters who have a relationship with him rather than his mask, and whose life can't just stop if he cracks a rib, and you've automatically got conflict and drama.

That's why the Batman movies always end up being about the villains, rather than Batman himself. The only part of the Batman character that has any sort of true dramatic depth is the moment when he decides to dress up as a flying rodent to fight crime. You can point out all the comic arcs and cartoon shows you like - what works in those formats won't work automatically in a movie. The fact that kingcujo is seriously suggesting Robin as an example of an interesting Batman story shows just how limited the options are.

While comic fans and kids may be happy to watch Batman brood and batter his way through his rogue's gallery over and over again, on the page or on the TV, you need something more if you want to build a Spider-Man level movie franchise. And, hate to break it to you, but the Batman property just doesn't have that depth. Doesn't mean you can't write another story, it's just that the story will ultimately rely on the introduction of a new supervillain rather than anything to do with Bruce Wayne. In other words, the very things that sank the franchise in the past.

Face it, a serious and realistic Batman just isn't suited to the on-going movie treatment.

Batman Begins limped to $200m domestic. Just shy of $372m worldwide. About half that goes into the theaters, not the studio. The marketing spend was big. A lot of the licensed products ended up in the bargain bins. So it might have made money (depending on how the theater percentage was staggered and how many of the cast took backend deals) but it's not the sort of performance that kickstarts a franchise. Sequels generally cost more and make less, so it's no surprise that WB isn't racing into a follow-up. Studios don't spend that sort of money on a tentpole movie in the hopes of scraping into profit from the DVD in two years time.

Absolute agreement here. I can't believe some people complaining about the sets used in Begins. To me, that's the first time Gotham felt like a real city. Not having gothic architecture all over the place like in the '89 version....

Wow, great post Dan. Sadly, I think you may be right. As far as people for Bruce Wayne to have a relationship with, there's really only the "required" love interest who he reveals his true identity to in the third act.

The only other relationship I can think of for the movies to explore would be his friendship with Harvey Dent. Which could make a really good "origin" story for part 2 leading into Two-Face as a villian for Part 3. But I can't really think of any beyond those.....

But they still had the comic book Gothic look to them which gave them an edge. Nolan's Gotham was generic, and again, went way too far towards trying to be realistic, as opposed to the 1940s noir of the comic that Gotham has always seemed like (which parts of the first movie did well to emulate, but the animated series nailed). It didn't feel like Gotham, it felt like Chicago and London cobbled together to make Gothem.

But all of this is moot when they spend more time on deciding how to make the cowl than his parents' death.

One of the things I liked about BEGINS... and which the animated series did well, was Bruce's relationship with Alfred, and the way Alfred becomes a surrogate father.

A character that represents the vigilante aspect of justice is very suited to a film treatment. The resonances with today's debates on justice and terror ring like a bell. Equally the idea of one of the rich assuming the role of protector of the poor and weak from crime has lots of interesting class-war undertones. Bringing aboard acolytes and 'wards' and, deliberately or not, using them up is also fairly meaty. In terms of filmic storytelling, this is all great stuff. In terms of safe and dependable franchise building, perhaps not.

So Dan's right in that, as a straightforward character, there's almost nothing to Batman. But as an archetype he is infinitely re-interpretable to reflect and comment upon modern times. The point of characters like Batman is an emptiness that allows them to be easily changed for the purposes of the time and the storyteller.
Dan is also right in that fans will latch on to one particular interpretation and refuse to allow any other. Refusing to let him change means all that is left is a parade of new baddies.

Pat Mills wrote an absolutely scathing piss-take of Batman in the Marshall Law story, Kingdom of the Blind. In it, he created a violent vigilante millionaire superhero who waged a relentless war on crime not because he wanted to protect the city, but because he was psychotically paranoid that the unwashed masses were going to steal his riches.

He also had young sidekicks that he picked up from orphanages, and then consumed their pineal glands to stay young.

I am obviously a genius.

I wouldn't be your friend if you weren't.