Batman Films Discussion

[Leo604]

While the general consensus is that the TDK Trilogy is probably the greatest set of Batman films so far, what do you guys think of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series?

[greeny]

I think the reason Bruce fixed both of them was to let Lucius Fox know that he had survived. Bruce had been dropping hints to the people who knew he was Batman (fixed Batsignal for Gordon, led Blake to the Batcave, went to café in Paris for Alfred). Fixing the autopilot in both of them was his hint to Lucius Fox.

Ah- ok

I think this film was the best in the triolgy, and Bane was nearly as good as Joker. In terms of being a villan Bane did much more, but Joker was more iconic.

[Clone OPatra]

I think this film was the best in the triolgy, and Bane was nearly as good as Joker. In terms of being a villan Bane did much more, but Joker was more iconic.

What do you mean Bane did much more? Bane closed off the city, true, but after that he just sat around for months, and the film never shows you how it affects the citizens of Gotham besides for the one montage where people get kicked out of their homes. After that, for months of story time Gotham is shown just as a barren wasteland, and you barely ever see the regular joes. Joker in Dark Knight, on the other hand, constantly inflicts mass terror, which we see directly affecting Gotham. The boat sequence in particular is one of the greatest sequence showing normal people I've ever seen in a superhero movie.

Joker is truly the most brilliant thing about this series (besides for the batpod, which is pretty damn awesome).

[Spider-Man]

I have to agree. Joker to me was what made this trilogy recognizable and a stand out from other superhero movies. TDK was the first movie I have seen that got so hyped up before anybody ever saw it, and then got even more hyped after people saw it and I think Heath Ledger's acting was a huge part of that.

[def]

While the general consensus is that the TDK Trilogy is probably the greatest set of Batman films so far, what do you guys think of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series?

They can't ever be compared to the Nolan series, since that would be comparing 'very real apples' to 'fantasy oranges.'

I like the first film, though it is a bit lumpy in places. Particularly the part where Joker killed his parents. Comic movies have seemed stuck with connecting the villain to hero's origin ever since. (the suckiest example being Spider-Man 3, where we learn Sandman killed Uncle Ben, despite that plot being finished in the first one) I've been meaning to rewatch the second for a while, and while I liked it enough at the time, it wasn't amazing. Ultimately, Burton had a strong vision of Batman, which wasn't contrary to the comic, though Michael Keaton would never manage a Bruce Wayne chin. And I still consider them the real start of the modern comic movie, since Superman had been a fluke of sorts. After Batman came out though, there was a steady trickle of comic-based properties (rent the Rocketeer!), leading up to the deluge we have today. So, good stuff.

Batman Forever sucked, full of Dutch angles and forced neon lighting, then Batman & Robin sucked worse. I took my girlfriend to see that second one, and I was so embarrassed. I liked to think I had good taste, but I had chosen to take her, so that suck was all on my shoulders. That being said, it is probably the worst movie of the 90's, and I love it now. Invite friends, have a drink or two, and watch that film together... You will be laughing all night. It's stunningly, amazingly terrible, and it's very entertaining. You can practically taste the cocaine on the screen.

[Clone OPatra]

Of the previous Batman films, I actually liked the Val Kilmer one the most. I thought the bad guys were fun in that one, and Bruce Wayne just seemed a little more interesting.

Tim Burton certainly had a strong vision, but I hated it. It's been a while since I watched them, so I might have a different opinion now, but his vision was utter camp that made everything - sets, vehicles - look like it was made out of thin cardboard or plastic. Really not my style.

I saw the Dark Knight Rises for the second time, and I enjoyed it more, as some thing that I thought were plot holes were actually explained briefly here and there. That's still a problem that Nolan packs too much into dialogue, but at least he did think of most things. Still not satisfied with his choice of plot, but at least I've discovered that he made it make sense.

[def]

Of the previous Batman films, I actually liked the Val Kilmer one the most. I thought the bad guys were fun in that one, and Bruce Wayne just seemed a little more interesting.

Tim Burton certainly had a strong vision, but I hated it. It's been a while since I watched them, so I might have a different opinion now, but his vision was utter camp that made everything - sets, vehicles - look like it was made out of thin cardboard or plastic. Really not my style.

I can't quite get that at all. The third and fourth were pure camp to me (from number three: "Holy rusted metal, Batman!"). With the third, the movie started turning into the 60's TV show.

I can agree that Batman Returns was sillier than the first one. Gotham got a little out of control. But the first one was pretty restrained. The Gotham in it was literally gothic, and though I prefer the Nolan version of Gotham, it had a solid quality to me.

I dare you to rewatch the first and third

[JimBee]

I personally liked the first one a lot. :shrug: It definitely seems before its time, but I think that adds to the dark comic/surrealistic vibe that Burton was going for. And I say it all the time: Jack Nicholson was a much better Joker than Heath Ledger. While Ledger did a phenomenal job and fit in to the Nolan-verse perfectly, I just think Nicholson portrayed a Joker more true to the comics. The character just made a lot more sense versus TDK's story that doesn't explain who the Joker is.

[Sam892]

It's hard for me to judge the previous batman films. The Tim Burton ones are great and admittedly the Joel Schmacher ones aren't great but I owe then so much. Batman forever was the first Bat film I saw and it introduced me to such a large universe. I don't like Two-face or Band in those films as they were kind off butchered by joel but they all have good points. Jim Carrey was great and so was some off the action scenes. I think That the upcoming reboot should be written by Paul Dini as he has done such great work with the animated series and the Arkham video games. The Arkham games have exactly what the next series needs which is great stories just believable enough and it stays true to the source. Also it would be a great chance for some characters to get the right live action portrails like Ivy and Freeze.

[Scorpiox]

Damn!

Edited August 2, 2012 by Scorpiox

[DarkKnightRises]

I thought this was the best batman movie made, Anne Hathaway did amazing as the cat woman

[TheLegoDr]

I think the reason Bruce fixed both of them was to let Lucius Fox know that he had survived. Bruce had been dropping hints to the people who knew he was Batman (fixed Batsignal for Gordon, led Blake to the Batcave, went to café in Paris for Alfred). Fixing the autopilot in both of them was his hint to Lucius Fox.

I guess I took that differently. Yes, he survived, but I don't think he was letting them know he survived. I think he wanted Blake to find the batcave because he knew he could handle the helm and help out Gotham since "batman" is only a symbol, not a person. Fixing the autopilot for Fox shows that Bruce was willing to die for Gotham, not that he necessarily survived. He wanted to give "everything" to them. Obviously going to the cafe for Alfred alerted him that he was still alive, which calms his saddened heart. The batsignal for Gordon does alert him that he survived (or maybe he fixed it prior to the ending and Gordon never went up there). It also plays on the symbol aspect instead of strictly Batman being there for Gotham.

Either way, it was a brilliant ending to a great trilogy. I can't wait for the blu-ray.

Since Nolan said he wasn't doing anymore Batman movies, with Blake finding the cave and the school housing the orphaned boys, maybe Nolan could create an awesome Robin universe with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the star..

Robin doesn't have the clout that Batman does, but with Nolan behind it I could see it becoming an awesome addition the to Nolan-verse.

[Sam892]

I guess I took that differently. Yes, he survived, but I don't think he was letting them know he survived. I think he wanted Blake to find the batcave because he knew he could handle the helm and help out Gotham since "batman" is only a symbol, not a person. Fixing the autopilot for Fox shows that Bruce was willing to die for Gotham, not that he necessarily survived. He wanted to give "everything" to them. Obviously going to the cafe for Alfred alerted him that he was still alive, which calms his saddened heart. The batsignal for Gordon does alert him that he survived (or maybe he fixed it prior to the ending and Gordon never went up there). It also plays on the symbol aspect instead of strictly Batman being there for Gotham.

Either way, it was a brilliant ending to a great trilogy. I can't wait for the blu-ray.

Since Nolan said he wasn't doing anymore Batman movies, with Blake finding the cave and the school housing the orphaned boys, maybe Nolan could create an awesome Robin universe with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the star..

Robin doesn't have the clout that Batman does, but with Nolan behind it I could see it becoming an awesome addition the to Nolan-verse.

I would prefer it if they don't do any spin offs or secondary trilogies now. It's great how it is maybe release a graphic novel or a book but not another film series. They should just reboot it and start again. When they do reboot the film I really want to see Dick Grayson as Robin and then as Nightwing with Tim Drake taking over the role in one of the later films. One of the best robins in my Opinion is the Arkham games version, he's not campy but isn't to serious but isn't as stupid and irritating as he was in Bat forever.

[the last chronicler]

I just watched this movie, and I thought it was utter clown shoes. There were some things to like, but Nolan's repeated mantra of "real" makes the thing silly. In that opening scene, the notion of a big plane taking a smaller plane with a bunch pros dropping from the big plane is just totally 'bad James Bond'... Sure a big plane is expensive, and of course hiring a dozen world class assassins costs money too, but it's the League of Shadows or whatever Then the reveal that the eight-year Batman vacation was because his girlfriend died, oh my God that was dumb. His parents die, and that leads him to a psychotic life as a crime fighter, but then some girl he sort of dated dies, and he turns into Howard Hugues? The whole premise was flawed, which made the rest of it just silly. And the rest didn't make a lot more sense either, since Bane's "plan" made no sense. What was his goal? Why do any of it?

In retrospect, The Amazing Spider-Man looks a lot better. And the video game Arkham Asylum is better than both.

<sorry if this hurts any super fans here. I'll watch this again in six months and try to see if it's any better, but right now it just seems desperate for parody>

Nolans mantra has never been 'realism', but more so 'heightened realism'. I think you where going into this film expecting a plot at Dark Knight level, ( or maybe you where expecting a documentary?), but as for realism this film sits right snug between the first and second film. So although Nolan films boast a realistic setting, the heroes and villians represent extremes in this world. Nolans films avoid superpowers because they are beyond logic, where as Batman's powers come from gadgets. Similarly Bane has gained power through securing mining facilities in foreign countries for expensive investors like John Dagett. For this reason, Bane's attack on the airplane is no less realistic then Batman's batpod ejector seat on the Tumbler, or the Bat. Frankly, most people don't understand physics at that scale because such a situation has never occured, the closest thing being mid-air refueling, which is entirely possible. In the end though, the realism is not important here, but its metaphor and relevance to the rest of the plot. It sets up Bane's power, his men's willingness to the cause, and the abilities of the League of Shadows. Plus, the seaming lack of CGI pulls the whole thing together as one of the coolest action sequences ever.

Bruce Wayne always believed Batman was a way of pulling the world and Gotham out of apathy towards crime and corruption, so when he became an outlaw and the Dent act was created, there was no reason for Batman to exist anymore. Unfortunately he has been living in constant depressing through his parents death, and the death of Rachel, waiting for the chance to avenge them once more. Batman had become a part of him, and in case you don't remember, Rachel was his 'hope for a normal life', with Alfred being the only peice of that past left. With him gone he desperately turned to Miranda Tate for affection. It's all connected, you just have to look beyond the beautiful cinematography.

Bane's plan parallels this, as not only is he destroying Gotham to fulfil Ra's Al Ghul's mission to enact justice apon a corrupt empire, but he is also destroying everything that Batman believed was justice. Bane tortures Batman by not only showing that his heroism was a lie that gave the rich and powerful control over Gotham city, but by also completing the work of the man Bruce Wayne murdered. This way, he was enacting true revenge against the Dark Knight.

Now about the ending:

In the end Bruce Wayne realises that his mission to become "more than just a man" was an idea corrupted since he first took up the cowl. Bruce Wayne is still a child living through this need to take revenge. The climbing out of the tunnel represents his turn back into a man, and the leaving of his angry child self behind. Only then does he realize that for Batman to become a legend, he can no longer live through the costume. In the nuclear explosion Bruce Wayne destroys Batman, severing his ties and goes to live his life with the only other person who elliminated their past to become a hero, Selina Kyle. Meanwhile, by Robin Blake taking up the mantle, Bruce has allowed the ideals of Batman to pass beyond one man to truly turn the bat into a symbol of justice.

I've heared people argue that Bruce should return to train Blake but this goes against this idea of a symbol. He would end up passing on the same corruption that Ra's passed to him, instead of the good which he protects.

People keep saying things need to be closer to the comics, but every idea I've seen and spoken of in TDKR is derived from them (even exact sequences). People just think it takes fantastiscal characters to make a good superhero story, which in my opinion lends itself to lazy writing. (Why does Catwoman survive that murderous fall in Returns. Um, cat... magic. It works but it's not as strong as the characters background lending to

their costume and actions.)

That was a lot of words which I am too tired to check for errors.

PS: on second thought, Peter Parkers need to become cool and then becoming cool was a much better plot, and Dr. Conners want to turn everyone into lizards because they were 'better' was much more logical than Banes 'ridiculous' rampage.

PSS: Def, now I that have turned your argument to ashes you have my permission to die.

Edited August 8, 2012 by the last chronicler

[Walter]

My feelings on this film were mixed. The ending was satisfying, but I just couldn't help thinking to myself "What the heck did I just watch?"

It just didn't feel like a Batman film to me. Multiple aspects of the film led me to believe that there was something lost in the transition from the previous film to this one.

I think out of all the comments and opinions I've read, the comparison of Nolan's Batman trilogy to the original Star Wars films is good. The Dark Knight is The Empire Strikes Back, while The Dark Knight Rises is clearly, Return of The Jedi.

This isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. I did in many ways, and the ending almost had me teary eyed. I'm just sad we couldn't have a more Dark Knight/Batman Begins type film.

[def]

PSS: Def, now I that have turned your argument to ashes you have my permission to die.

Thanks!

I think it's great that you love the movie, but saying that it's not real, it's heightened reality, except when it's a metaphor, doesn't prove it to be a great movie. And Batman getting eight-years upset is fine for "Nolan's Batman," but it sucks for Batman. It's fine for what it is itself.

I'm going to watch the movie again at some point, to see some of the positive points of the movie again, like Bane's charming accent, but I won't be expecting a coherent, real movie. I'll expect one where every cop in the city enters the sewer together and live there for three months.

[Leo604]

My feelings on this film were mixed. The ending was satisfying, but I just couldn't help thinking to myself "What the heck did I just watch?"

It just didn't feel like a Batman film to me. Multiple aspects of the film led me to believe that there was something lost in the transition from the previous film to this one.

I think out of all the comments and opinions I've read, the comparison of Nolan's Batman trilogy to the original Star Wars films is good. The Dark Knight is The Empire Strikes Back, while The Dark Knight Rises is clearly, Return of The Jedi.

This isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film. I did in many ways, and the ending almost had me teary eyed. I'm just sad we couldn't have a more Dark Knight/Batman Begins type film.

Well, the way that Nolan decided to go with the film probably would have made it rather hard for Batman to be the way he was in Begins and TDK. For him, it's been 8 years of being alone, sitting around doing nothing, and basically wearing his bones completely down (as you could probably see by the first fight with Bane, he was terrible). For me, I thought Rises was mostly about character development, the way Batman retrained himself by fixing his back and then learning how to fight properly all over again, and eventually learning to use the fear of death, which in turn led to deciding to make the jump without the rope so he could save Gotham.

I personally liked it better too way; too much fighting and repetition isn't great for a trilogy conclusion, especially this trilogy conclusion.

[the last chronicler]

Thanks!

I'll expect one where every cop in the city enters the sewer together and live there for three months.

Yeah, that part was a little off, not the greatest writing for that. You know what they say though, if being stuck in a tunnel doesn't kill you it makes you stranger stronger.

Actually, for me, the most unrealistic part was Catwomans "clean slate program". With people having more knowledge about technology in this decade over the last, I found it's inclusion, or at least the way it was handled a bit illogical, despite being thematically relevent. Reminds me off the shattered bullet reconstruction in order to simple find fingerprint in TDK, it's a concept that's a little illogical for my taste.

Reminded me of Cobb in Inception, and that company that could magically erase all his problems. That was actually handled better script-wise by Nolan because it implied political connections more so than technology, something like that may have worked better in ths film.

Def: please don't take it personally, I just don't why someone can't believe Batman would retire, he's done it in the comics, gaaaahhhhh! Whatever.

Walter: I found the film surprisingly similar to both previous itterations, almost a little too much so. The whole story brough back elements and concepts of the first film, with the feel and overaching political and emotional symbolism of the second. Personallly I though the balance this time was perfect, with the plot just enough out there to not feel like a rehash like other comic book films.

Dark Knight is still my favorite, where the way the story arc plays through the characters is amazing. For me a good film is where it's plot, characters, themes, and arch fall together like clockwork, which the Dark Knight did slightly better, with I think an equal, but less obvious, amount of plot holes. But the way this film takes such extreme situation as a revolution into the modern world, playing off of some great Batman characters, almost makes me favor it's concept over TDKs.

PS: I think people who found this film iffy the first time should watch it again soon. At least for me, I've always found Nolan films to feel very compact, especially with the transition between high-octane action and they emotional scenes. Plus they tend to jump around alot over elements that can be solved by common sense through carefully watching the film, which lends to peole seeing plot-holes where there isn't. This played well with Inception and Dark Knight, because of the choatic nature of the Joker and dreams, but due to the linear nature of this film it makes things more jaring. You can't go into this film thinking about the previous one or the image you've constructed from previews.

Edited August 10, 2012 by the last chronicler

[Walter]

Well, the way that Nolan decided to go with the film probably would have made it rather hard for Batman to be the way he was in Begins and TDK.

I wasn't stating that specifically, more of that I felt that the film as a whole barely seemed like a Batman movie to me. I can't explain it word for word. It's just how I felt about it when I watched the film.

Dark Knight will always be the quintessential Batman film for me.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Walter

[Darth Lurtz]

I wasn't stating that specifically, more of that I felt that the film as a whole barely seemed like a Batman movie to me. I can't explain it word for word. It's just how I felt about it when I watched the film.

Dark Knight will always be the quintessential Batman film for me.

The Dark Knight Rises was more of a Bruce Wayne movie with the struggles he faced and pain he had to endure.

[Omicron Squad Leader]

I saw The Dark Knight Rises on the day it came out. I was not disappointed. Sure, it wasn't as good as The Dark Knight, but it was definitely on par with Batman Begins. I think the three films got across their themes of fear, chaos and pain respectively very well, and that Nolan's trilogy is one of the best movie trilogies in history. I rate it 9/10.

[Omicron Squad Leader]

While the general consensus is that the TDK Trilogy is probably the greatest set of Batman films so far, what do you guys think of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series?

Burton's two movies were good, I rate Batman a 7/10 and Batman Returns a 8/10. Schumacher's two on the other hand... well, Batman Forever was mediocre, and Batman & Robin was utter trash. I give Forever a 4/10, and B & R a 2/10. Seriously, bat-nipples? Bat-a s s e s?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Omicron Squad Leader

[TheLegoDr]

I loved Batman Forever when it came out. Although I was 9 at the time, so probably more of the target audience. Now that I'm significantly older and the Nolan movies have come out, those are clearly the better films. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Forever was a fun movie, especially for kids. Batman & Robin definitely had its issues, but it is a completely different take on the Batman-verse. A lot more imagery and animated-style violence will change the overall feeling of a movie.

TDKR was a brilliant movie, but it did have a completely different feeling than the other two. It was very gloomy and I think Nolan got his point across with it. TDK is the pinnacle of superhero movies (Batman especially), but the other two are great additions to the trilogy. I think overall that is the consensus. Begins, Dark Knight, and Rises are all three great movies that work together well, even if one is stronger than the other two.

With that said, I think I am going to go watch Dark Knight again soon.

[Oky]

Without having read the comic, I watched The Dark Knight Returns last week and I have to say that it was better than I thought it would be. Nicely dark and violent like a modern Batman movie should be. I was concerned the decision to split the story into two parts would make it half as good a movie as it could be, but it actually worked pretty well as a standalone movie and didn't feel too drawn-out. There were some parts that felt unnecessary, however, such as all the newsreports. I understand why they showed them, I just feel they could have gotten the point across with only half of them. Another thing I didn't like were the mutants. It was never explained where they came from or why they are called mutants, and they were said to be the worst gang Gotham has ever seen, but all of them except the leader seemed to be moronic cowards. They even got nervous when an old man showed a bit of defiance against them. Some backstory on Carrie Kelly would have been nice too. The overall story wasn't quite as good as that of Under the Red Hood or any of the DCAU films in my opinion, but one has to keep in mind that this was written in the 80's and was one of the first stories that made Batman the serious and dark character he is today, and after nearly 30 years, it still holds up pretty well. That said, I can recommend this to any Bat-fan, and after the way it ended, I can't wait to see Part 2!

[Darth Lurtz]

The Dark Knight Returns part 2 came out and I was surprised to see what they could get away with in it. Michael Emerson as the Joker stole the show with his subdued but terrifying performance.