# Rewatching the Batman movies



## Morrus (Oct 14, 2020)

This last couple of weeks I’ve rewatched the Burtonverse Batman movies

It’s pretty much what I remember. Same pattern as most movie series — Alien, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. Starts strong then descends into farce.

Batman (1989). Still a great film. The atmosphere, the way Gotham has character, the supporting characters, Jack. It has flaws, but it’s a great film.

Batman Returns. Very different in look and feel to Batman, but still good.

Batman Forever. Not as much of a departure as I remember. Mainly it’s set design and vehicles. Brooding is exchanged for camp. Val Kilmer is doing a decent Keaton impersonation. The villains are a pair of annoying cackling clowns trying to out-cackle each other. Not a good film, but not as awful as....

Batman & Robin. My goodness. There isn’t a single good thing to say about this film. Camp dialled up another notch. It’s utterly awful.

What did you guys think?


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 14, 2020)

I'm going off memory but I think I'd give the same general review. The Keaton movies were amazing and I've watched both multiple times. I can't quite remember Kilmer but do recall that his batman movie was still good but I missed Keaton. Clooney batman seemed to be channelling the old Adam West series. It was kind of fun in an over the top kind of way but I would still rank it the worst.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

At the time I enjoyed the first, but lost interest as they went on. And the last? It left me feeling that Schumacher was trying for the camp of the '60s TV series but rather than putting in actual effort, just phoned it in. Or didn't have the skill. Or was just incompetent. Nipples? REALLY?


----------



## Khelon Testudo (Oct 14, 2020)

It's a shame. Clooney could have been a great Batman with the right director/script.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

Khelon Testudo said:


> It's a shame. Clooney could have been a great Batman with the right director/script.



He certainly could have been a great Bruce Wayne. Not sure about Batman.


----------



## Retreater (Oct 14, 2020)

It's funny that I've never considered Batman Forever and Batman & Robin as part of the Burtonverse Batman series. Different actors, different writers, directors. I consider them as much the same franchise as Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man 2 with Jamie Foxx. 
I guess I don't even think about BF and B&R.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 14, 2020)

Pretty much as you say. The only thing I didn't like about the Keaton/Burton Batman is the way he dropped bombs out of the Batmobile and BLEW UP all the criminals in the early part. Oh, and I don't really like Joker being the guy who killed Bruce's Parents (too convenient/forced) but these are nitpicks. I remember going in thinking that Keaton would never make a good Batman, and I was utterly wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 14, 2020)

Retreater said:


> It's funny that I've never considered Batman Forever and Batman & Robin as part of the Burtonverse Batman series. Different actors, different writers, directors. I consider them as much the same franchise as Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man 2 with Jamie Foxx.
> I guess I don't even think about BF and B&R.



Alfred and Commissioner Gordon provide the through-line. Plus some lines/references. They’re definitely the same series.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2020)

Batman was pretty good. Nicholson's hamming worked for the Joker and Keaton was surprisingly good. I think people hadn't quite cottoned on to how good an actor he really was at the time.

Batman Returns had some good parts - the chemistry between Batman and Catwoman was good. This marks the first of the movies with TOO MANY VILLAINS. Danny DeVito was put in a really terrible rendition of the Penguin.

Batman Forever would have been better with just one villain - Riddler. Tommy Lee Jones was wasted as Two-Face. I don't recall any positive thing his character added to the movie.

And Batman and Robin? I couldn't even sit through it, it was *so* bad.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 14, 2020)

I kind of like Batman and Robin. It is not merely a bad movie; it's a spectacularly bad movie. "So bad it's good" is obviously a highly subjective but I think the key is being something outlandishly awful that fails in myriad, baffling ways in rapid enough succession to be entertaining. I wouldn't say I recommend it per se, but so far as bad super hero movies go it's the only one where I can savor the badness rather than just getting bored. 

The flaw with being able to enjoy it ironically is that it is attached to a series that I otherwise unironically enjoyed but a series that does, nevertheless, evolve fairly directly into this piece of crap. All the movies benefit if you don't think of Batman and Robin as being attached to the rest of the series and don't watch them in tandem with each other. End your series rewatch as a trilogy, and then some lazy afternoon several months or years later get some friends together to make fun of Batman and Robin.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> ...and then some lazy afternoon several months or years later get some friends together to make fun of Batman and Robin.



Alcohol *might* dull the pain.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Alcohol *might* dull the pain.




For god's sake don't watch it sober!


----------



## Retreater (Oct 14, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> For god's sake don't watch it sober!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Batman was pretty good. Nicholson's hamming worked for the Joker and Keaton was surprisingly good. I think people hadn't quite cottoned on to how good an actor he really was at the time.
> 
> Batman Returns had some good parts - the chemistry between Batman and Catwoman was good. This marks the first of the movies with TOO MANY VILLAINS. Danny DeVito was put in a really terrible rendition of the Penguin.



Man I couldn’t disagree more about Batman Returns. It’s Penguin is inspired. I’d go so far as to say it’s slightly better than Batman. Slightly.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 14, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Batman was pretty good. Nicholson's hamming worked for the Joker and Keaton was surprisingly good. I think people hadn't quite cottoned on to how good an actor he really was at the time.
> 
> Batman Returns had some good parts - the chemistry between Batman and Catwoman was good. This marks the first of the movies with TOO MANY VILLAINS. Danny DeVito was put in a really terrible rendition of the Penguin.
> 
> ...



I thought Danny DeVito was amazing as the Penguin.


----------



## payn (Oct 14, 2020)

"Everybody freeeeeeze!"


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 14, 2020)

.


----------



## Orius (Oct 14, 2020)

> What did you guys think?




I'm wondering why you punished yourself by watching Batman and Robin.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 14, 2020)

Tim Burton wanted Jack Nicholson for the Joker, but he wanted too much money or just wasnt interested.  For what ever reason, he only took the part after WB was going to cast Robin Williams, who genuinely wanted the part.  Fast forward 5 or so years same story with Batman Forever.  They wanted Jim Carey for the Riddler but considered Robin Williams only until Jim Carrey took the part.  Now honestly I dont know the particulars or the ins and outs of how Hollywood works but things Ive read about it over the years seems like Robin Williams got screwed, was used as a pawn and in my opinion would have filled both those roles way better than Nicholson or Carey.  I watched the 1989 Batman a few years back, it didnt really hold up and Jack Nicholsons performance was too over the top and over rated IMO.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 14, 2020)

.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 14, 2020)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> One reason might be that Jack decide to take ALOT less in base base, but take a percentage of the box office instead.  WB quickly accepted, not knowing how big Batman did become, and how big a paycheque they had to give Nicholson in the end.



Think youre right.  Devito tried to get the same deal and WB only gave him a portion of the merchandising iirc.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 14, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Tim Burton wanted Jack Nicholson for the Joker, but he wanted too much money or just wasnt interested. For what ever reason, he only took the part after WB was going to cast Robin Williams, who genuinely wanted the part. Fast forward 5 or so years same story with Batman Forever. They wanted Jim Carey for the Riddler but considered Robin Williams only until Jim Carrey took the part. Now honestly I dont know the particulars or the ins and outs of how Hollywood works but things Ive read about it over the years seems like Robin Williams got screwed, was used as a pawn and in my opinion would have filled both those roles way better than Nicholson or Carey. I watched the 1989 Batman a few years back, it didnt really hold up and Jack Nicholsons performance was too over the top and over rated IMO.



Had they used him, Robin Williams would have been great as the clock king. Williams had some great roles which were more serious and I think he would have been great in the role. Of the two villains you mention he was considered for, I think he'd work best as the riddler than the joker.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 14, 2020)

cbwjm said:


> Had they used him, Robin Williams would have been great as the clock king. Williams had some great roles which were more serious and I think he would have been great in the role. Of the two villains you mention he was considered for, I think he'd work best as the riddler than the joker.



Agree he'd probably have made a better Riddler but then again he had some good chops as a dramatic actor as well and could have gone all One-Hour Photo if cast as the Joker.  

Think I read somewhere a few weeks ago Bill Murray was approached at one point for the Joker in '89.  Its fun to think how that wouldve turned out but alas the closest we got was Quick Change.


----------



## ccs (Oct 14, 2020)

Same general order.
'89 & Returns - i like these almost equally, though with just a slight edge to Returns.  They share 1st place in this series for me.
+: Keaton, Burton, Elfman, the look, the music/score, the car.
Original movie poster for '89 - Batsymbol & the date.  Done, sold.
The opening sequence of '89 where it traces the symbol to the Elfman theme.
The opening action sequence of Returns.
-: Batman's body count in both.  Killing off the main villains.
* And, like everyone else on the planet, when it was learned who was cast as BW/Batman my response was "Keaton?  Really??"
At that point I'd only seen him in two or three things.  And even though one of those was Beetlejuice I'd not have thought of him dressed in the bat suit.
But good choice.
Other than Adam West he's my favorite live-action Batman to date.

Forever - eh, its ok.  Not as good as Keaton's outings, but....
+: other than the two main villains I liked most of it well enough.  Or didn't dislike it.
I even sort of like the car..
-: the villains.  Neither of these guys are {my} favorites from the comics, but i can see using them in a movie.  Jones & Carey were utterly wasted in these roles however.

Batman & Robin.....
+: the coolest thing about this movie was its intital teaser/trailer.  The one where you see a snowy Gotham & the camera slowly pulls back to reveal Mr. Freeze holding a Gotham snow globe.
-: Of all the merchandising for this one (and there was alot)?  They never sold the damned Gotham snow globe. 
- -: Gah!  What the #&$#* did they do to the car??


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 14, 2020)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> *Batman (1989)*
> And Batman's code of not killing, when in the film Batman's body count was high, including The Joker at the end of the film.



I suggest doing a google search for times batman has killed.....the oldest body would be from Batman #1, 1940 where he hung a guy from his batplane....and it just goes from there on and off....it's more of a "most of the time" code lol


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> I suggest doing a google search for times batman has killed.....the oldest body would be from Batman #1, 1940 where he hung a guy from his batplane....and it just goes from there on and off....it's more of a "most of the time" code lol



Yes, the Batman thing definitely goes back and forth over the more than 80 years he's appeared in comics. Hell, he used guns in the wartime movie serials, runs cars off the road, etc..

Superman is far more rigid in his "no kill" rules, though he has also gone off the rails on rare occasions. That's one of the reasons I so dislike "Man of Steel"; it goes with the exception, rather than the rule.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Oct 14, 2020)

I absolutely love the 60s Batman series and I feel Adam West is hugely underrated as an actor overall, and the show is gloriously clever.

So my absolute favorite part of Batman & Robin was when Robin said "Holy Rusted Metal, Batman!" then awkwardly trying to explain the phrase so it made sense in context. I thought that bit was brilliant.

Also, and this goes throughout the Burton films as well, there are a surprising number of nods to the 60s show in the movies.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 14, 2020)

Ath-kethin said:


> So my absolute favorite part of Batman & Robin was when Robin said "Holy Rusted Metal, Batman!"




I havent seen it in quite awhile but I think that was in Batman Forever actually.  Only reason I remember, or at least Im pretty sure, was because the 89' Batman and Forever were the only two I saw in the theater; or all the way through for that matter.  I dont think Ive ever saw all of Returns or Batman and Robin, just bits and pieces over the years.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Oct 14, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> I havent seen it in quite awhile but I think that was in Batman Forever actually.  Only reason I remember, or at least Im pretty sure, was because the 89' Batman and Forever were the only two I saw in the theater; or all the way through for that matter.  I dont think Ive ever saw all of Returns or Batman and Robin, just bits and pieces over the years.



You could be right. It's been ages since I've seen any of them, too, but I've always associate that bit with Batman & Robin.

Edit: verified, you are correct.  Oops!


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 14, 2020)

Ath-kethin said:


> You could be right. It's been ages since I've seen any of them, too, but I've always associate that bit with Batman & Robin.
> 
> Edit: verified, you are correct.  Oops!



That part was funny because it came out of nowhere.  I remember me and my friends laughing about that for quite awhile afterwards.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 14, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Yes, the Batman thing definitely goes back and forth over the more than 80 years he's appeared in comics. Hell, he used guns in the wartime movie serials, runs cars off the road, etc..
> 
> Superman is far more rigid in his "no kill" rules, though he has also gone off the rails on rare occasions. That's one of the reasons I so dislike "Man of Steel"; it goes with the exception, rather than the rule.




The thing that made me realize that they'd really missed who Superman is in Man of Steel was the scene where he steals clothes off a line.  

Him killing Zod to save everyone around him? That I can see- a regrettable necessity to prevent massive loss of life. 

Him stealing clothing for the sake of convenience? Oof.


----------



## ART! (Oct 14, 2020)

Khelon Testudo said:


> It's a shame. Clooney could have been a great Batman with the right director/script.






Ryujin said:


> He certainly could have been a great Bruce Wayne. Not sure about Batman.




If the history of Batman movies has proved anything, it's that _anyone_ can play Batman. The trick is making _Bruce Wayne_ interesting. I guess it's because the mask and suit do so much to create the Bat-persona, but you need the motivation and drive in the Bruce portrayal for it to make any sense.

For me, Michael Keaton remains the most interesting Bruce Wayne performance - he's a weird, complicated, intense dude.

This might be my favorite moment from _any_ Batman movie (from _Batman Returns_):


Like, how long was he sitting there...brooding...waiting...alone...for _the signal_? He has nothing else. It's a neat take on the character.

I kind of despise DeVito's Penguin in _Batman Returns_. It's _very_ Burton-esque, but doesn't work for me in this Bat-universe, and seems like only half-way to where Burton would like to take it, or to where the film/setting/studio will let him take it. Plus, it distracts from the Selina and Bruce/Selina stuff, which is the best stuff in the movie for me. I really wanted Catwoman to be the only villain, and focus on those tragedies.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 14, 2020)




----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

ART! said:


> If the history of Batman movies has proved anything, it's that _anyone_ can play Batman. The trick is making _Bruce Wayne_ interesting. I guess it's because the mask and suit do so much to create the Bat-persona, but you need the motivation and drive in the Bruce portrayal for it to make any sense.
> 
> For me, Michael Keaton remains the most interesting Bruce Wayne performance - he's a weird, complicated, intense dude.
> 
> ...



I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman _must_ be divergent characters. For all of the growling, Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan understood this. Keaton understood it, with his crazy-eyed looks. 

Clooney is Clooney, with or without the mask. Clooney can be Bruce Wayne because, throw a few more billion dollars at him, and he is Bruce Wayne. He doesn't really do well at stepping outside of his own skin though, so he can't be Batman. It's like Will Smith playing Deadshot. He puts on all of the high tech gear, costume, and a dozen firearms, and becomes.... Will Smith. (Robbie put him to shame in that dog of a movie)


----------



## ART! (Oct 14, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman _must_ be divergent characters. For all of the growling, Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan understood this. Keaton understood it, with his crazy-eyed looks.
> 
> Clooney is Clooney, with or without the mask. Clooney can be Bruce Wayne because, throw a few more billion dollars at him, and he is Bruce Wayne. He doesn't really do well at stepping outside of his own skin though, so he can't be Batman. It's like Will Smith playing Deadshot. He puts on all of the high tech gear, costume, and a dozen firearms, and becomes.... Will Smith. (Robbie put him to shame in that dog of a movie)



I see your point, but I will counter that Clooney's take on the character is in the spirit of the movie he's in, and thereby closer to Adam West's - and so the two persona's _aren't_ different. I think that's intentional, although it's a little clouded by - as you observe - Clooney is always Clooney. But then all the other costumed characters in the movie are the same way - single personas in and out fo costume - so...I don't know!


----------



## Morrus (Oct 14, 2020)

Joel Schumacher said that each movie was a different Batman era. Batman & Robin was Adam West 60s era Batman.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman _must_ be divergent characters.




Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.



And the '60s TV show was very divergent from the comic books. We're all allowed to have opinions


----------



## billd91 (Oct 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.




Whether or not he's right or Ryujin is right depends on which Batman you're going for. 1960s Batman fits Adam West's ideal more than Batman in the 1930s when they played up more contrasts between Bruce Wayne the playboy industrialist and Batman. A lot would depend on how much you *want* the two to diverge in the impressions they give to the viewer/witnesses, how important protecting his secret identity is, how much you want the persona of Batman to be menacing or obsessive as emphasized to various degrees in Batman since the 1970s.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> And the '60s TV show was very divergent from the comic books. We're all allowed to have opinions




Sure, we are all allowed to have opinions, but he _MUST_ be one thing. Right. Got it.

It is more accurate to say that the modern comic books are divergent from both the TV show and other comics.  Batman... has not always been serious stuff.  Dark, broody, of-questionable-mental-health-Batman is not the only Batman.






						Classic Cover of the Week: DETECTIVE COMICS #241 ("The Rainbow Batman!")
					






					www.dcuniverse.com
				






Spoiler: Some pre-TV show Batman art as examples....


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Sure, we are all allowed to have opinions, but he _MUST_ be one thing. Right. Got it.
> 
> It is more accurate to say that the modern comic books are divergent from both the TV show and other comics.  Batman... has not always been serious stuff.  Dark, broody, of-questionable-mental-health-Batman is not the only Batman.
> 
> ...




Sure, there's been detective Batman, vigilante Batman, patriotic Batman, and "Punisher" Batman. Despite your examples, however, there has really only been one consistently silly Batman and he was silly for adults, not kids. The covers don't really give away the story.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 15, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Sure, there's been detective Batman, vigilante Batman, patriotic Batman, and "Punisher" Batman. Despite your examples, however, there has really only been one consistently silly Batman and he was silly for adults, not kids. The covers don't really give away the story.




Dude.  Batmite.  BAT-_MITE_.

Fine, whatever.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  Feel free to claim that everyone else has to make room for your opinion, but you may dismiss others. That's just great.  Have fun with that.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 15, 2020)

Umbran said:


> It is more accurate to say that the modern comic books are divergent from both the TV show and other comics.




Given the relative spans of time, it's really not. The campier aspects of the Batman comic reside in the 1950s and 1960s. They returned to darker, more adult roots in the 1970s and that's turning 50 now. The camp has become the minority and has been for about 30 years.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 15, 2020)

It's amazing how growing older changes your perspective on things.  When I was a child I loved the Adam West Batman series, by the time I was a teen I thought it as lame, and as I continued to grow older I came to appreciate West's version again for what it was.  There are lots of different versions of Batman and many of them are pretty good.  

I haven't watched the Batman movies from the 80s and 90s in recent years.  I remember the media blitz the preceded the 1989 movie though having seen billboards with the Batman logo on it throughout Dallas and on t-shirts, hats, cups, and other objects months before I knew the movie was coming out and I don't think I had seen merchandising on that level since Return of the Jedi.  

But that 1989 movie was very influential and without it we likely never would have had the best version of Batman ever, that from Batman the Animated Series.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 15, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Dude.  Batmite.  BAT-_MITE_.
> 
> Fine, whatever.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  Feel free to claim that everyone else has to make room for your opinion, but you may dismiss others. That's just great.  Have fun with that.



"Consistently silly."

Bat-mite was a magical being like Mister Mxyzptlk and caused issues for Batman similar to the ones that Superman had to deal with, with Mister Mxyzptlk.


----------



## ccs (Oct 15, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Joel Schumacher said that each movie was a different Batman era. Batman & Robin was Adam West 60s era Batman.




Sure, I knew sitting there in the theater opening night what he aiming for.
Then & now my opinion is that he did a poor job of it.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 15, 2020)

ccs said:


> Sure, I knew sitting there in the theater opening night what he aiming for.
> Then & now my opinion is that he did a poor job of it.




Schumacher apologized for making a bad movie.  He said he felt pressured to create a toy commercial instead of a movie.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Schumacher apologized for making a bad movie.  He said he felt pressured to create a toy commercial instead of a movie.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> Yes, the Batman thing definitely goes back and forth over the more than 80 years he's appeared in comics. Hell, he used guns in the wartime movie serials, runs cars off the road, etc..
> 
> Superman is far more rigid in his "no kill" rules, though he has also gone off the rails on rare occasions. That's one of the reasons I so dislike "Man of Steel"; it goes with the exception, rather than the rule.



I know, man. It _sucks _when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.


But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.

Of course, if Snyder really understood Superman, he'd have had him go to a diner and use his superpowers to beat up a trucker.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I know, man. It _sucks _when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.
> 
> 
> But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.
> ...



I see the Zod thing as a "he did it to himself." As to Rocky the trucker he punched Clark first, then got _spun_.

Snyder went dark.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> I see the Zod thing as a "he did it to himself." As to Rocky the trucker he punched Clark first, then got _spun_.
> 
> Snyder went dark.



He did it _to himself_? 

He crushed his own hand to pulp just to hear himself scream, and then threw himself down a pit, then collapsed a fortress on top of himself? 

That's an interpretation, I guess.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 16, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I know, man. It _sucks _when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.
> 
> 
> But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.




*Is* Zod dead? That's unknown to us. That's called "ambiguously dead" and that's a staple of comics. The villain gets into a situation or is put into a situation in which you can't imagine he can survive - and yet does the next time the writers need him.

With Man of Steel, there's no ambiguity and it's a harsh death.

That's a pretty big difference.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2020)

billd91 said:


> *Is* Zod dead? That's unknown to us. That's called "ambiguously dead" and that's a staple of comics. The villain gets into a situation or is put into a situation in which you can't imagine he can survive - and yet does the next time the writers need him.



I don't want to repeat myself but...

That's an interpretation, I guess.

So we've got "Zod killed himself" and "Zod isn't dead". Who's next?


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 16, 2020)

Morrus said:


> He did it _to himself_?
> 
> He crushed his own hand to pulp just to hear himself scream, and then threw himself down a pit, then collapsed a fortress on top of himself?
> 
> That's an interpretation, I guess.



It's a classic case of him being fooled into making himself irrelevant and then being removed from the scene. Dead? Alive? No longer a danger.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 16, 2020)

Yeah, Supes totally killed Zod.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Yeah, Supes totally killed Zod.



And tortured him first! It’s not a combat kill. It’s a torture and execution.


----------



## Orius (Oct 16, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Of course, if Snyder really understood Superman, he'd have had him go to a diner and use his superpowers to beat up a trucker.




My old man always thought that scene was funny, but I think it's one of Superman II's many faults.  Petty does not suit the Man of Steel.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 16, 2020)

so, I was googling how many times superman has killed and one of the headlines was "Manslaughter of Steel" lol









						Superman: 15 Times The Man Of Steel Killed Someone
					

Whether it was mind control, an alternate reality, or when his back was up against the wall, here are 15 times that Superman took a life.




					www.cbr.com
				












						15 Times Superman Killed His Enemies
					

Right up there with his flowing red cape, Superman is exemplified by his code to never kill. Only he does kill. Probably a lot more than you realized.




					screenrant.com


----------



## ccs (Oct 16, 2020)

MGibster said:


> Schumacher apologized for making a bad movie.  He said he felt pressured to create a toy commercial instead of a movie.




Then he should've also apologized for making a bad toy comercial while he was at it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2020)

I think the biggest problem with that Man of Steel "Kill" was that ... we didn't know enough about this Superman to know whether he would go so far or not. The emotional impact on him killing someone would be bigger if he had seen a movie or two where he went out of his way to not do it. 

The death of Zod is justified in that movie. He won't surrender, and he is just as strong and dangerous as Superman - he can't safely subdue him and give him to the authorities. The whole reason Superman doesn't kill generally is because he's... super. He is far beyond his enemies physically. But beating up and killing weaker people isn't exactly a hard thing to do in his situation, by usually going out of his way to avoid killing people, he is showing moral superiority. But against Zod, his only way to save people his to kill him.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 16, 2020)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The death of Zod is justified in that movie.



No, he's depowered. His torture and execution is not needed. I could almost get behind it if he didn't crush the man's hand with super strength first. Superman shouldn't be making people scream in agony


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2020)

Morrus said:


> No, he's depowered. His torture and execution is not needed. I could almost get behind it if he didn't crush the man's hand with super strength first. Superman shouldn't be making people scream in agony



I mean the new movie, not the old one. I suspect you're right about the old one.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 18, 2020)

I don't care to much about the details there's good Batman (1989, 1992, Darknight Trilogy etc) and bad batman (Batman and Robin).


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2020)

I just showed the Keaton Batman to a friend of mine who had never seen it. She loved it. Keaton is great, but Jack really steals the show. The plot is a bit messy, but Nicholson is given so much freedom that he is a joy to watch. I wonder how many of his lines were improv. Also, the movie is gorgeous to look at, even if Gotham city seems to have only one set, and we are shown the Monarch Theater so many times. The music is still the definitive Batman theme for me, what a score! My favourite shot in the film is the Batwing flying up in front of the moon, it always makes me laugh. There are some very obvious miniatures during the end sequence but that's alright.

Watching these Burton films made me realize just how many scenes are repeated in the Nolan films.

*The Joker doesn't care about money*
In Tim Burton's Batman, we are shown the Joker throwing away money during the parade scene.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker burns a huge pile of money.

*The Joker sends out a television message to the people of Gotham*
In Burton's Batman, The Joker sends out a television message, challenging Batman to reveal his true face.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, The Joker does exactly the same. Threatening to kill more people unless Batman reveals himself.

*Love interest learns Bruce's identity through a familiar phrase*
In Burton's Batman Returns, Selina learns Bruce's secret identity through the phase: "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it." "But _a kiss can be even deadlier_ if you mean it."
In Nolan's Batman Begins, Rachel learns of Bruce's secret identity through the phrase: "It is not who I am underneath, _but what I do_ that defines me."

*The Batmobile transforms into other vehicle*
In Burton's Batman Returns, the batmobile discards most of it's body to transform into a small pod.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, a destroyed batmobile self destructs after ejecting the batpod.

*Joker falls to his death*
In Burton's Batman, the Joker fall to his death (twice).
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker falls to his death, but Batman catches him.

*The Joker walks into a mob meeting and kills a mobster*
In Burton's Batman, The Joker electrocutes a mobster with a handshake and takes over their operation.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, The Joker kills a mobster with his pencil trick, and persuates them to join him.

*Batman crashes during the final confrontation with the Joker*
In Burton's Batman, the Batwing misses every shot at the Joker and crashes after being shot down.
In Nolan's the Dark Knight, Batman chooses to miss the Joker and crashes the Batpod.

*I'm Batman!*
Quoted both in Burton's Batman, and in Nolan's Batman Begins, and both to a random thug.

*Batman takes his love interest to the Batcave*
In Burton's Batman, he takes Vicky to the Batcave in the Batmobile, after saving her from the Joker.
In Nolan's Batman Begins, he takes Rachel to the Batcave in the Batmobile to save her life.
(Also, both love interests receive an antidote to a toxin central to the plot)


----------



## ccs (Oct 18, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> Watching these Burton films made me realize just how many scenes are repeated in the Nolan films.
> 
> *The Joker doesn't care about money*
> In Tim Burton's Batman, we are shown the Joker throwing away money during the parade scene.
> In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker burns a huge pile of money.




True, they both have scenes involving $.
But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it.  He's SPENDING it.  He's baiting the trap.  He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible.  Wich in turn will draw out Batman.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2020)

ccs said:


> True, they both have scenes involving $.
> But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it.  He's SPENDING it.  He's baiting the trap.  He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible.  Wich in turn will draw out Batman.




The way I always read the parade scene, it is a bit of both. The Joker doesn't seem to care at all about the money that he is handing out, but he is of course using it to lure the unsuspecting public to their death, and to draw Batman out.

Similarly, in the Dark Knight, the Joker seems to be using his attack on Harvey Dent to draw Batman out. When Batman does show up, he doesn't seem the least bit surprised. Although arguably, Batman and commisioner Gordon are also using Harvey Dent to draw out the Joker.

Watching the Nolan Batman films, it feels like watching a bit of a remix of things we've seen before in the Burton Batman movies, although with a much more serious and grounded approach.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2020)

ccs said:


> True, they both have scenes involving $.
> But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it.  He's SPENDING it.  He's baiting the trap.  He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible.  Wich in turn will draw out Batman.



In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2020)

Morrus said:


> In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?



I think you are misremembering. We are never shown a close up of the money in the parade scene, but according to official prop collectors, the money looks like normal dollar bills (but labeled Motion Picture Use Only on both sides). The Joker does have a ton of other products during the movie that bare his face.

Also, there is a line in the film where the Joker says he'd like to have his face on a one dollar bill.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> I think you are misremembering. We are never shown a close up of the money in the parade scene, but according to official prop collectors, the money looks like normal dollar bills (but labeled Motion Picture Use Only on both sides). The Joker does have a ton of other products during the movie that bare his face.
> 
> Also, there is a line in the film where the Joker says he'd like to have his face on a one dollar bill.



Ah, found it. It's in the novelization, and the original script, but not actually shown onscreen. It's the punchline to the line you refer to where earlier in the film he says he wants his face on the one-dollar bill. Apparently it is in a  brief deleted scene.

Here's part of the film's script:




ANGLE ON MAN IN CROWD

Looking at his money.  The green comes off on his hands.

      MAN
   What is this stuff?

TIGHT ON MONEY

A hand rubs the green dye off and we see underneath.
JOKER MONEY, with JOKER'S FACE on the one-dollar bill.

BACK TO SCENE

      CROWD
      (CHORUS OF ANGER)
   This stuff is fake!


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2020)

Oh wow, I never knew!


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 18, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Batman Forever. Not as much of a departure as I remember. Mainly it’s set design and vehicles. Brooding is exchanged for camp. Val Kilmer is doing a decent Keaton impersonation. The villains are a pair of annoying cackling clowns trying to out-cackle each other. Not a good film, but not as awful as....
> 
> Batman & Robin. My goodness. There isn’t a single good thing to say about this film. Camp dialled up another notch. It’s utterly awful.
> 
> What did you guys think?




Batman is supposed to be camp.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2020)

Bohandas said:


> Batman is supposed to be camp.



Who says?


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 18, 2020)

Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, _Batman Forever_ and _Batman and Robin_ and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness


----------



## Morrus (Oct 18, 2020)

Bohandas said:


> Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, _Batman Forever_ and _Batman and Robin_ and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness



Batman is whatever the current writer or film maker decides it is. It’s been camp; it’s been dark; it’s been gothic; it’s been 60s flair; it’s been horror; it’s been noir; it’s been action. It’s been around for 80 years and has been reinterpreted dozens of times. It’s not ‘supposed’ to be anything.


----------



## Rikka66 (Oct 18, 2020)

Bohandas said:


> Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, _Batman Forever_ and _Batman and Robin_ and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness




Even people who prefer a campy Batman don't find _Batman and Robin _a happy medium.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 19, 2020)

Morrus said:


> This last couple of weeks I’ve rewatched the Burtonverse Batman movies
> 
> It’s pretty much what I remember. Same pattern as most movie series — Alien, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. Starts strong then descends into farce.
> 
> ...



I feel similarly. One way of ranking films is how often one re-watches them. I saw the first three in the theater, have re-watched the first several times over the last 30 years, the second once or twice, but never bothered re-watching the third. As for the fourth, never saw it and see no reason to bother.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 19, 2020)

Batman and Robin was one of the few movies where I found myself and family looking at each other in disbelief during the first few minutes of the film as the horror of George Clooney as Batman unfolded before our very eyes.

It is also one of the few times I've actually wanted to leave the theater. Give me Adam West any day over that disaster.


----------



## ART! (Oct 19, 2020)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the biggest problem with that Man of Steel "Kill" was that ... we didn't know enough about this Superman to know whether he would go so far or not. The emotional impact on him killing someone would be bigger if he had seen a movie or two where he went out of his way to not do it.
> 
> The death of Zod is justified in that movie. He won't surrender, and he is just as strong and dangerous as Superman - he can't safely subdue him and give him to the authorities. The whole reason Superman doesn't kill generally is because he's... super. He is far beyond his enemies physically. But beating up and killing weaker people isn't exactly a hard thing to do in his situation, by usually going out of his way to avoid killing people, he is showing moral superiority. But against Zod, his only way to save people his to kill him.



After he murders Zod during a battle that decimates metropolis there's a scene of him gettin' stern with a general about spying on him and a joke about Supes being "hot", and then Calrk is riding his bike to work through what we can only assume is a recovered?!? Metropolis. So, yeah - no follow-through.


Bohandas said:


> Batman is supposed to be camp.



Insofar as "adults in tights" is campy? Sure.


----------



## Eric V (Oct 19, 2020)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the biggest problem with that Man of Steel "Kill" was that ... we didn't know enough about this Superman to know whether he would go so far or not. The emotional impact on him killing someone would be bigger if he had seen a movie or two where he went out of his way to not do it.
> 
> The death of Zod is justified in that movie. He won't surrender, and he is just as strong and dangerous as Superman - he can't safely subdue him and give him to the authorities. The whole reason Superman doesn't kill generally is because he's... super. He is far beyond his enemies physically. But beating up and killing weaker people isn't exactly a hard thing to do in his situation, by usually going out of his way to avoid killing people, he is showing moral superiority. But against Zod, his only way to save people his to kill him.



In fact, I believe that Clark killing Zod is the _birth _of the no killing rule...people need to remember that this is a brand-new Superman; by the time he kills Zod, he is literally only hours away from having thrown his first punch.  This is all new to him!!


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 19, 2020)

Eric V said:


> In fact, I believe that Clark killing Zod is the _birth _of the no killing rule...people need to remember that this is a brand-new Superman; by the time he kills Zod, he is literally only hours away from having thrown his first punch.  This is all new to him!!




If that was the case, it was incredibly poorly telegraphed. There's also the bit about thousands of regular humans presumably being dead (as supported by the B v. S movie), but he only cried over Zod.


----------



## Eric V (Oct 20, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> If that was the case, it was incredibly poorly telegraphed. There's also the bit about thousands of regular humans presumably being dead (as supported by the B v. S movie), but he only cried over Zod.



It was not incredibly poorly telegraphed.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 20, 2020)

Eric V said:


> It was not incredibly poorly telegraphed.



OK, perhaps "tone deaf" is a better description, given the afore-mentioned thousands of dead innocents.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 20, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> OK, perhaps "tone deaf" is a better description, given the afore-mentioned thousands of dead innocents.



I hereby declare this the most mind-numbingly repeated conversation on the internet.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 20, 2020)

Yup totally oout of character for sups to kill


----------



## ART! (Oct 20, 2020)

I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,

Yes, given the content of all media for any and all audiences during Superman's 82-year history, he has killed.

The thing to remember is that older people grew up with a Superman who did not kill, or only under exceptionally weird or unusual circumstances, and in some of those cases the intent and/or outcome was questionable.

Because popular media is what it is, younger people have probably seen Superman kill more often than he used to.

Regardless of age, people naturally are exposed to a limited subset of all Superman stories ever told. Maybe they were only exposed to stories about a Superman who doesn't kill, or maybe they gravitate to that kind of Superman for whatever reason.

This is less true than it is for Batman but there is no _one_ Superman. Early Golden-Age Superman is very different from Silver-Age Superman, for example. 

Perhaps to get things back on topic, I find it really interesting how often Batman has been adapted into different takes and versions - much moreso than Superman. I think this is where some people are coming from when they react poorly to Superman killing. Superman is - for whatever reason - a less "flexible" character. 

The success of so many different approaches to Batman says something about the concept, but I don't know what.


----------



## Eric V (Oct 20, 2020)

It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.

In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod.  It's pretty much a constant.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 20, 2020)

Eric V said:


> It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.
> 
> In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod.  It's pretty much a constant.



Yup. Superman always kills Zod. He killed all three of them with Kryptonite once. People wrap themselves in convoluted No True Scotsman arguments with this for some reason.


----------



## Rikka66 (Oct 20, 2020)

ART! said:


> I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,




Video clip is from an alternate universe in which the Justice League rules the world as the tyrannical Justice Lords.

Picture is from the Injustice video game tie-in comic, in which the Joker tricked Superman into killing Lois Lane and setting off a nuke that destroyed Metropolis. He then ruled the world as the leader of the tyrannical Regime.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 20, 2020)

Eric V said:


> It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.
> 
> In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod.  It's pretty much a constant.



My favorite is all the times he's killed Lois


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 21, 2020)

Man of steel wasn’t a bad movie because Superman kills Zod.
It was a bad movie because it told the audience his origin story, TWICE!! WHY??!?


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2020)

ART! said:


> This is less true than it is for Batman but there is no _one_ Superman. Early Golden-Age Superman is very different from Silver-Age Superman, for example.
> 
> Perhaps to get things back on topic, I find it really interesting how often Batman has been adapted into different takes and versions - much moreso than Superman. I think this is where some people are coming from when they react poorly to Superman killing. Superman is - for whatever reason - a less "flexible" character.
> 
> The success of so many different approaches to Batman says something about the concept, but I don't know what.



Unless it's Batman and guns, then you get into fights over has he used guns (yes a number of times) or not and all that


----------



## Bohandas (Oct 21, 2020)

cmad1977 said:


> Man of steel wasn’t a bad movie because Superman kills Zod.
> It was a bad movie because it told the audience his origin story, TWICE!! WHY??!?




Maybe one of them was initially cut from the film and then got put back in (sort of like how, in Star Wars, Han solo has the exact same conversation twice in a row, first with Greedo and then with Jabba, due to the fact that the Jabba version was cut from the initial theateical release)


----------



## ART! (Oct 21, 2020)

Eric V said:


> It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.
> 
> In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod.  It's pretty much a constant.



My problem with that scene is only _partly_ that he chooses to kill someone. I think the that moment is not laid out well, such that him snapping Zod's neck seemed like just one of many options.


Rikka66 said:


> Video clip is from an alternate universe in which the Justice League rules the world as the tyrannical Justice Lords.
> 
> Picture is from the Injustice video game tie-in comic, in which the Joker tricked Superman into killing Lois Lane and setting off a nuke that destroyed Metropolis. He then ruled the world as the leader of the tyrannical Regime.




Right, so neither is an example of Superman in his right mind, so it doesn't seem arguing in bad faith to use them as examples of "Superman kills" - I think it goes without saying that the "Superman doesn't kill" claim excludes stories in which Superman _isn't himself_, i.e. is driven mad or mind-controlled or raised by Nazis or whatever.


----------



## ART! (Oct 21, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> Unless it's Batman and guns, then you get into fights over has he used guns (yes a number of times) or not and all that



Right - it's an interesting question: how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is?


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2020)

ART! said:


> I think it goes without saying that the "Superman doesn't kill" claim excludes stories in which Superman _isn't himself_, i.e. is driven mad or mind-controlled or raised by Nazis or whatever.







 issue #2 of "Action Comics", Clark Kent is sent on an assignment to the war-torn South American country of San Monte. While there, he finds a man torturing prisoners, and throws him like a javelin over a forest clearing, seemingly to his death. Later that same issue, a San Monte army camp is under attack by an enemy aircraft, so Superman jumps into the propeller of the plane, causing it to crash without the pilot being able to escape by parachute.



















And that's not counting the number of covers in which he kills Lois,cuz he's a jerk. All from the main superman in his right mind,and not totally in rage mode.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2020)

ART! said:


> Right - it's an interesting question: how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is?



He most recently used a gun in Final Crisis, it's more of "what character trait is part intrinsically part of the character for you?"


----------



## ART! (Oct 21, 2020)

trappedslider said:


> issue #2 of "Action Comics", Clark Kent is sent on an assignment to the war-torn South American country of San Monte. While there, he finds a man torturing prisoners, and throws him like a javelin over a forest clearing, seemingly to his death. Later that same issue, a San Monte army camp is under attack by an enemy aircraft, so Superman jumps into the propeller of the plane, causing it to crash without the pilot being able to escape by parachute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See my point about how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 21, 2020)

ART! said:


> I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,
> 
> Yes, given the content of all media for any and all audiences during Superman's 82-year history, he has killed.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen that particular cartoon, but the second image is from the alternate reality series "Injustice." Joker poisons Superman with a hallucinogen, laced with Kryptonite, that results in him killing Lois Lane (thinking that she's Doomsday). He snaps and starts going full vigilante.

_EDIT_ Forgot to add the little point that Joker had wired Lois' heartbeat to a nuke. When her heart stopped, Metropolis was destroyed.









						Injustice: Gods Among Us (comics) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 22, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> _EDIT_ Forgot to add the little point that Joker had wired Lois' heartbeat to a nuke. When her heart stopped, Metropolis was destroyed.




What an absurd edgy plot. Got to admire the Joker's creativity though.



trappedslider said:


> Yup totally oout of character for sups to kill




Batman also seems surpringly cool with it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 25, 2020)

Morrus said:


> This last couple of weeks I’ve rewatched the Burtonverse Batman movies
> 
> It’s pretty much what I remember. Same pattern as most movie series — Alien, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. Starts strong then descends into farce.
> 
> ...




I have not liked a live-action Batman interpretation yet, save perhaps the 1966 film which exists apart from everything else due to the nostalgia factor  The murdering-psychopath-Batman of the Nolan films is something best forgotten. About the only thing I could say good about them was the first half of Batman Begins, which is at least an era we've never seen before. Save for Rachel 'I've been shoe-horned into this movie to provide a sub-plot for people who don't know who this 'batman' person is' Dawes.  

In fact, at this point, I'd almost rather NOT have a Batman movie. I'd rather it be done as a high-end cable TV series. We've seen now that if you scale back some of the more ostentatious aspects of the Bat-universe you could easily have a mystery-detection series with Batman and Robin solving crimes and such in Gotham. Save the actual supervillains for special occasions. Use them like strong spices - a light hand is best. I have vague hopes for the new movie, but the 'we're already opening up with multiple villains' seems just like jumping right to Raimi-Spider-Man-3 territory. At least they're not going directly to The Joker.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 25, 2020)

WayneLigon said:


> I have not liked a live-action Batman interpretation yet, save perhaps the 1966 film which exists apart from everything else due to the nostalgia factor  The murdering-psychopath-Batman of the Nolan films is something best forgotten.




Does he murder in the Nolan films? I know he takes out the temple of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, and leaves Raʼs al Ghul to die at the end. But he's far removed from a murdering psychopath. In the Dark Knight he doesn't even let the Joker drop to his death.

What Nolan does however in his trilogy, is question Batman's vigilante justice. Batman's acts, although motivated by good intentions, are unlawful and wrong. Batman seems necessary to take out the threats that Gotham faces, but the movies also ask the question: "at what cost?"



WayneLigon said:


> Save for Rachel 'I've been shoe-horned into this movie to provide a sub-plot for people who don't know who this 'batman' person is' Dawes.




I feel Rachel's role is a lot more important. She acts as a voice to teach Bruce (and his audience) that his views of justice are wrong. She helps explain how the criminal underworld of Gotham works. Her confrontation with Bruce after Joe Chill's death is one of my favourites in the movie. And I also really like the confrontation between Bruce and Falcony in that movie. Both Rachel and Falcony help Bruce realize that his view of the world is wrong, since he was born in a priveledged position. And it is through their words that both Bruce and the audience are set on this path of transformation. Note that after his transformation into Batman, Bruce does not kill Falcony. Nor does he kill Scarecrow.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2020)

WayneLigon said:


> I have not liked a live-action Batman interpretation yet, save perhaps the 1966 film which exists apart from everything else due to the nostalgia factor



You are the first that i've seen to hold that opinion


----------



## Eric V (Oct 26, 2020)

Imaculata said:


> Does he murder in the Nolan films? I know he takes out the temple of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, and leaves Raʼs al Ghul to die at the end. But he's far removed from a murdering psychopath. In the Dark Knight he doesn't even let the Joker drop to his death.
> 
> What Nolan does however in his trilogy, is question Batman's vigilante justice. Batman's acts, although motivated by good intentions, are unlawful and wrong. Batman seems necessary to take out the threats that Gotham faces, but the movies also ask the question: "at what cost?"
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more.  He is far from a murdering psychopath in the films...in fact, he's the only mentally healthy Wayne we've gotten.  He actually retires at the end of the 3rd film, looking to find the happiness he knows his parents would have wanted him to have.

Why? Because unlike the crazy person in the comics, he isn't out to eradicate _all crime_; Rachel made him see where he should be spending his efforts. Notice how the Nolan Batman doesn't go out "on patrol" to stop muggers, etc.; he is focused on bringing down the mob which have infiltrated every system. He is doing this to give Gotham a chance to get back on its feet again; he isn't going after street criminals, except insofar as it gets him closer to shutting organized crime down.

By the end of the 3rd film, he has recovered from Rachel's death (mostly), there is no insidious organized crime in place running Gotham (and no terrorists either), and so...he can relax. As he should.


----------



## ART! (Oct 26, 2020)

Yeah, I don't have much room in my life for dark Batman, and that seems like all the movies know how to do without plunging into to ridiculous _Batman & Robin_ waters. A live action series could - theoretically - create a more tonally nuanced Batman.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2020)

ART! said:


> Yeah, I don't have much room in my life for dark Batman, and that seems like all the movies know how to do without plunging into to ridiculous _Batman & Robin_ waters. A series could use a lot of elements to create a more tonally nuanced Batman.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 26, 2020)

DC does animation so much better than they do live action.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 31, 2020)

Ryujin said:


> DC does animation so much better than they do live action.



Oh, yes. I've enjoyed almost all of the DC animated offerings  - _Young Justice_ is in my opinion the best depiction of DC properties I've ever seen, and that includes the comics. I'm also hoping we're past the point of shoe-horning Damian in everything,.  as well.


----------

