General Batman Talk — Page 4

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Wouldn't know. The only things I remember from Batman Returns are Catwoman's costume and the Penguin's death scene.

Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I understood Ra's Al Ghul to be his title, not his name. I also understood him to be of British origin. But again, my comic experience is very limited.

On the subect of church desecration, it's a question of intent. After all, it was just a set, not a real church anyway. But the point is, they chose to film a pointless scene of Batman desecrating a sanctuary before climbing the bell tower for the actual fight. That's what I had the problem with then and now. It was the intent behind it that I think was less than noble, both to the story and to Christians. I'm no Bible-thumper by a LONG shot, but this always got under my skin.

Originally posted by: ADigitalMan

On the subect of church desecration, it's a question of intent. After all, it was just a set, not a real church anyway. But the point is, they chose to film a pointless scene of Batman desecrating a sanctuary before climbing the bell tower for the actual fight. That's what I had the problem with then and now. It was the intent behind it that I think was less than noble, both to the story and to Christians. I'm no Bible-thumper by a LONG shot, but this always got under my skin.

Originally posted by: greencapt


"...its *only* a model!" heh heh.

Actually as we are in confessional mode of sorts let me chime in. NONE of the Burton/Schumacher moved me in any way, shape or form. Now I know that many people have profoundly moving experiences with the first two films and define their Batman experiences by them and I can understand and appreciate that. But for my tastes... meh. Now in '89 I was in about the height of my comic collecting and had been a Batman fan for some time. I even drove a batmobile- a blue '73 Buick Elektra with huge yellow bat-symbols painted on the driver's and passenger's doors. I like many people was stoked about the first film. What I wasn't excited about was the casting. Like many people I was wary about Michael Keaton and I was underimpressed by the idea of Jack Nicholson. After seeing the film I thought that Keaton made a decent Bruce Wayne but I didn't like his Batman. And I frankly hated Nicholson as the Joker.

Yes I know... blasphemy! But there were a couple things going on in my way of thinking:

1) By this time in his career Jack was not *acting*... Jack was being Jack. Nic Cage has the same problem right now. There's no technique involved... they just do their own thing which is what everyone expects from them. I never saw 'The Joker'... I saw Jack Nicholson being himself but with a horrible prosthetic mouth extension
2) The Joker of the comics was a skinny psycho. Jack was a tubby middle actor that everyone recognized. They should have gone with an unknown.

Actually until I sat down to re-edit 'B&R' I had NEVER watched any of the four Batman films more than ONCE completely through. I saw each on opening night in the theater and that was it. Yeah I've seen bits and pieces on the TV showings, but I never had any desire to see them all the way through again. Like I said- though I was a comic geek and all they just didn't do anything for me.

I very much enjoyed 'Batman Begins' though. I won't be like many people and say it was the second coming or anything but it was the first Batman film I've had the desire to re-watch and the first I've bought on DVD.

I'll ramble on more later.

The first part has a title that sounds like a 4th grader made it up.. "Batman Begins"... and then the second film has something mysterious, slightly gothic, and serious in its title called "The Dark Knight"... "Batman Begins" - "The Dark Knight" just doesn't have any titular compatibility! I'd be happy if it was just "Batman: The Dark Knight" that would give some continuity... or if the first film was called something like "Rise of Vengeance" THEN would "The Dark Knight" fit in. All right...

Originally posted by: Lord Phillock
I wrote "Batman: The Dark Knight" not "Batman Begins: The Dark Knight"

and yes, I think "Batman: The Dark Knight" would be a more logical title.

Originally posted by: greencapt


Well *I* still like Superman, and dissing 'Superman Returns'!

I forgot to say, HSvIJ, that I DID really enjoy Batman: The Animated Series! If the Burton/Schumacher films made *that* possible then their debt to society was paid for in full! I saw 'Mask of the Phantasm' in the theater as well and what a great film that ended up being.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice that!

Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape


And does calling the second one Begins make any sense at all, considering the fact that it already began?

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
How about 'Batman Continues', Batman's Back!!' or 'Batman: The Caped Crusader'?

EDIT: Oh, and can everybody please stop referring to them as the 'Burton/Schumacher' films? Whatver you may think of Burton's movie, they don't deserve to be lumped in with the pieces of shit that followed.

Originally posted by: theredbaron


I echo that sentiment, although I am pretty sure that Burton was the producer of Forever. *Pretty sure*, but not definite...

Originally posted by: theredbaron
But please tell me he didn't produce Batman & Robin!

He was probably thinking something along the lines of Batman Beyond or something.

Originally posted by: Lord Phillock


what do you mean? I was just stating that having the "Batman" name before "The Dark Knight" hence "Batman: The Dark Knight"
would have a compatibility to the previous "Batman Begins"... is that so hard to understand?

because the two official titles are both on the extreme on either side... really cheesy (Batman Begins) and really serious (The Dark Knight)...
I'm just saying the two titles differ way too much... and should have at least some resemblance.