I'd say so. But keep in mind that I'm not arguing that darker is "better" or the movie is good because it's "dark". I'm only going by the proof of what we see on screen:
- Sexual deviance - The Penguin is a pervert who makes tasteless remarks towards women e.g. "I'd like to fill up her hole", "Just the pussy I've been looking for". :-[ Catwoman uses seduction as a tactic for distraction i.e. engaging in foreplay with Batman to find a chink in his armor. And her costume is obviously inspired by bondage.
- Violence - Unlike the neutered PG-13 of mainstream films made in this era, BR doesn't shy away from the awfulness of the violence e.g. Catwoman slashing a bloodied rapist in the face, the Penguin violently bites the yuppie in the nose as blood gushes out, the Ice Princess is seen falling to her death without the camera looking away, Batman finding Schreck's burnt corpse and a dying Penguin is bleeding to death after he fell in the pool of acid.
- Subtext - The thought of the Penguin wanting to kidnap innocent infants and have them murdered is just too depraved to imagine. Batman takes a more pragmatic approach to crime-fighting as he offs villains to keep the streets safe, even smiling wickedly as he outsmarts a violent strongman with dynamite. Catwoman arguably suffers from a mental disorder as she becomes increasingly deranged as the film progresses; due to her being victimised by her adversaries.
Well they didn't remake any of the others so I'm going to say yes, it's STILL the darkest lol.
It's definitely the deepest, with all the layers of the characters and the different plot points. It's not so much that it confuses you, it's just enough to keep you constantly entertained. Something is always happening. The others are more shallow, that doesn't mean they ARE shallow, just more shallow than Returns.
You forgot Catwoman getting shot four times. She's the only main villain (though I don't see her as really a villain) to get shot in any of the movies (I know Bob and some of the other goons and Grissom all got shot and so did Two Face's pilot but I mean main characters) so that sort of makes Returns' violence unique too.
As for the sexual deviance part, I don't need to get in trouble so I'll just smile and wink and go on my merry little way. :) ;)
Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 19 May 2015, 12:46
You forgot Catwoman getting shot four times. She's the only main villain (though I don't see her as really a villain) to get shot in any of the movies (I know Bob and some of the other goons and Grissom all got shot and so did Two Face's pilot but I mean main characters) so that sort of makes Returns' violence unique too.
Good observation there. I've honestly never noticed that before.
I should mention that one thing that intrigues me about the scene where Bruce and Selina get intimate with each other at Wayne Manor is that Bruce makes a self-deprecating comparison with Ted Bundy - one of the most notorious serial killers of all time. Which is kind of odd since this movie takes place in a rather timeless setting. I have to admit: I can emphasize how some parents at the time felt uneasy that a Batman movie takes place in the same world that consisted a sick psychopath like Bundy.
I found this odd blog excerpt that caught my eye.
Source: https://reelclub.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/bats-the-new-black-batman-returns-and-film-noir/
QuoteAs a superhero, Batman defeats the hero-less staple of film noir. In traditional film noir there is no hero; instead, there is a flawed antihero, the protagonist, who carries the narrative and emulates the typical themes of depression, imperfection, corruption, isolation, and alienation. However, doesn't that sound a great deal like Burton's Batman in Batman Returns, minus the corruption?
In this film version, Batman is not portrayed as a superhero; he is not even an average hero. At best, Burton's 1992 Batman is the antihero who barely saves anyone, does not defeat the villains of the narrative (Penguin and Catwoman), lives in isolation, is alienated from society, and ends up alone, all contributing to the theme of depression running rather steadily throughout the film. The only person Batman saves in Batman Returns is Selina, at the beginning, when one of the circus crew grabs her. But, where is he when Shreck "kills" her? Also, Batman failed to save the Ice Princess from the Penguin or Shreck from Catwoman. Moreover, Batman himself does not actually save the first-born children of Gotham from Penguin; it is Alfred who stops the rocket-packing penguins. And, in the film's conclusion, Penguin dies, basically, at his own hand when he falls into the toxic sludge lagoon he created.
In addition, Batman is also seen as physically flawed during an early exchange with Catwoman. In one of their first encounters, Catwoman runs her hand over Batman's chest, trying to feel the man behind the suit. Batman allows this, and when she finds the thinnest part of his suit she jabs her metal claw into it, stabbing Batman. This is not the type of wound one might expect a superhero to receive, lending more evidence as to why Batman is not actually a superhero in Batman Returns; he is clearly more a mortal antihero.
Didn't save anyone? Didn't Batman not scare off the Red Triangle Gang before they could do further damage to Gotham Plaza on two occassions? And I always thought that Batman and Alfred interrupting the kamikaze penguins' coordinates was a collaborative effort. And whoever wrote this article seemed to forget that Batman
did rescue the the first born children. He confronted Organ Grinder, remember? But one thing I'll agree with is this: Batman in this film is indeed an antihero, with flaws you can't deny. And I'm perfectly okay with that.
But I'll be fair, this blogger makes a great observation here about Bruce's psyche and society's relationship with Batman.
QuoteEven his alter ego, Bruce Wayne, lives in complete isolation. All the money in the world, but he lives shut-up in a gothic style mansion, with only his butler, spending most of his time in the dark, cold cave beneath the estate. Although he risks his life for the citizens of Gotham, no citizen of the city knows of his sacrifice. And, frankly, the citizens don't seem to care. In this film, Gotham's residents never ask who Batman is or why he became a vigilante for their society; the residents only care that he show up when they flash their spotlight signal. Burton makes this fact more obvious in Batman Returns, suggesting, perhaps, Bruce understands this fact about Gotham and it may be why his static characterization is so melancholy in Batman Returns. Bruce faces the fact when Penguin frames Batman for the Ice Princess' murder (a classic noir move, false suspicion of a crime). The people of Gotham believe Batman could be a merciless killer, even though they should know better. This is not the Batman of yesteryear's comic books. Burton's 1992 Batman is not trusted and society turns against him despite all the sacrifices he makes for them, this furthering the cynical tone of the film.
Another great discussion Laughing Fish and I agree with allot of your points. In many ways I think Batman Returns is a product of it's day. But...like Batman & Robin... it's also a film you'll never see made in quite that way again. You have to remember back in 1992 the superhero franchise of theatrical blockbusters was still more exception than rule as it is today. I think the rules for engagement were not fully flushed out yet regarding what these films could and couldn't do because the industry was still trying to figure who the chief target audience was. Of course kids were players in this because if Warner Bros. didn't have toys to sell, none of these films would get made. But in the case of Batman, you had generations of fans to consider and so I believe the collective minds of the day were painting on a broader canvas of sensibilities than what they do now.
These days, superhero films are packaged and canned in a very deliberate and measured effort to maximize profits on all fronts. In short, today the industry knows their audience better with the explosion of blockbuster films in this genre. Batman Returns and Batman & Robin were learning curves for the industry. Both are polar opposite in terms of treatment and story, but both push the envelope with extremes in their desired treatment. As much as you most likely will never see another light hearted interpretation that showcases a cartoon environment with flashes of the human anatomy, you'll probably also never get another installment where the villain desires to kill innocent babies while spewing sexual vulgarities coupled with graphic excretions.
Thanks Wayne49.
I think superhero films nowadays tend to tread a little carefully when it comes to graphic content, but sometimes you still see moments of shock value that pop for a split second e.g. a HYDRA goon getting ripped apart by a helicopter tailspin in Captain America: The First Avenger, Loki murdering SHIELD agents with daggers and ruthlessly shoving a device into a museum curator's eye in The Avengers, and one of Zod's henchmen tearing apart a jet fighter pilot in Man of Steel. Besides, Avengers and MOS both had stories where humanity was facing annihilation.
But I understand why some people felt that Burton was pushing the envelope a little too far with the wicked tone and gory imagery. As an official sponsor of BR, McDonald's thought they couldn't capitalize on the film's success because of the violence:
QuoteBurton revealed that a significant part of it was that McDonald's was unhappy about how dark and gross Batman Returns was at moments - specifically Danny DeVito's portrayal of Oswald Cobblepott a.k.a. Penguin. It turns out that people don't want to sit down for a nice juicy hamburger after spending two hours looking at a sewer-dwelling villain with a black mouth. Said the director,
"I think I upset McDonald's. [They asked] 'What's that black stuff coming out of the Penguin's mouth. We can't sell Happy Meals with that!'".
To be 100%, it's not hard to see the situation from McDonald's perspective, as Penguin's visage (as seen above) doesn't exactly make me crave a burger.At the same time, it does really suck that the fast food corporation had so much sway at Warner Bros. that they were able to convince the studio to go in a whole new different direction for Batman Forever.
What's rather comical about the situation, though, is that McDonald's really sits on one side of a tonal argument that really has been going on for years. As Tim Burton points out in the interview, there are many that say Batman Returns is too dark for a superhero movie, but in equal measure there are fans who note that it certainly is a bit more upbeat and cheerful than it's predecessor - after all, it is set at Christmas! Burton told the site,
"It was a weird reaction to Batman Returns, because half the people thought it was lighter than the first one and half the people thought it was darker. I think the studio just thought it was too weird — they wanted to go with something more child- or family- friendly. In other words, they didn't want me to do another one."
Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Batman-Returns-Pissed-Off-McDonald-68794.html
Define "dark movie" .
It bemuses me when people state that Batman Returns is 'too dark' because the Penguin tries to drown the city's first-born sons.
Firstly, he fails!
Secondly, I guess the Old Testament of the Bible/the Exodus story is 'too dark' because a plague affects all of Egypt's first-born children.
And what about other kids' films/fairy tales (and remember, Batman Returns is partly a fairy tale)? Pinocchio for instance ends with a bunch of kids being turned into mules, and we don't ever see them change back. Apart from Pinocchio, the kids are likely to end up as work mules and die that way.
What about the books of Roald Dahl? In The Witches, the children get permanently turned into mice (in the 1990 they are admittedly transformed back), and other children are kidnapped and can only be seen by their families via pictures that capture them getting older. And in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory various naughty children are tortured and in some cases, disfigured. In the 1970s movie adaptation we don't even get a scene reassuring us that none of the children were in fact killed (as if the permanent disfigurement and trauma of their experience wasn't enough).
So, is Batman Returns really that dark? One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 14 Nov 2015, 18:52So, is Batman Returns really that dark? One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.
I'm sorry, but there's going to losses. But what makes TDK not as dark is that it ends on a heroic high note, where despite the loss, Bruce doesn't let that break his desire for heroism. He takes on the heat because he believes it's right. And not to mention all those people choosing to do the right thing on the boats. That's pretty uplifting to me.
God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 15 Nov 2015, 04:26And not to mention all those people choosing to do the right thing on the boats. That's pretty uplifting to me.
It is uplifting, but remember that the Joker than refers to the 'Ace in the hole' who happens to be Harvey, the 'white knight' who turns to the dark side and whose crimes the 'dark knight' must take the wrap for.
Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 15 Nov 2015, 04:39
Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.
I agree with you there.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 14 Nov 2015, 18:52
It bemuses me when people state that Batman Returns is 'too dark' because the Penguin tries to drown the city's first-born sons.
Firstly, he fails!
Secondly, I guess the Old Testament of the Bible/the Exodus story is 'too dark' because a plague affects all of Egypt's first-born children.
And what about other kids' films/fairy tales (and remember, Batman Returns is partly a fairy tale)? Pinocchio for instance ends with a bunch of kids being turned into mules, and we don't ever see them change back. Apart from Pinocchio, the kids are likely to end up as work mules and die that way.
What about the books of Roald Dahl? In The Witches, the children get permanently turned into mice (in the 1990 they are admittedly transformed back), and other children are kidnapped and can only be seen by their families via pictures that capture them getting older. And in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory various naughty children are tortured and in some cases, disfigured. In the 1970s movie adaptation we don't even get a scene reassuring us that none of the children were in fact killed (as if the permanent disfigurement and trauma of their experience wasn't enough).
So, is Batman Returns really that dark? One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.
Just to be fair to the original intent of this thread, Batman Returns was only being compared with the Batman franchise and not other conceptual pieces in story and film. I don't think anyone is ever lost on the surrealism that accompanies nearly all of Tim Burton's work. It's a style to be applauded on so many levels. He's absolutely unique in an era where so many copy one another. So there's nothing but praise from me regarding the skills and artistic vision of Tim Burton.
I think it's fair game to say superhero movies today have a far more deliberate direction in their story and have a better understanding of it's target audience. Batman Returns might have had a fairy tale quality, which is inescapable from Tim Burton, but the subject matter did not really take into account it's audience. Another trait BR shares with B&R is the sexual innuendo. BR was more in the dialogue where B&R was visual subtext. So I think when you take the mood of the film and supplant it with the tone of the characters, then wrap it with the almighty bow of intent...well... Batman Returns comes off pretty dark.
I think it's safe to say the sexual dialogue took the fairy tale quality off the movie and made it far more edgy for younger audiences or parents in attendance with said youngsters. I'm sure there were more than a few parents that squirmed when the Penguin said, " Oh just the pussy I was looking for." Not the best line to put in a Batman film. So mixing that with a plan to kill little babies, likely gave more than a few kids nightmares (which didn't make parents all too happy). Forget whether he was successful. Just the idea that an iconic Batman villain wanted to kill little children was weighty enough. Mix in his reasoning with abandonment and your strolling into some pretty heavy material for Batman audiences of 1992. So I think when we talk about "dark", what we're really alluding to is the expectations of content for a Batman film and it's audience.
I think you can take the Batman character and his villains to extreme situations under certain circumstances, but usually the bad guy is wanting to destroy on a universal level which gives it a more comic book annotation. Once you start dabbling with certain groups of people and explore the justification to bring them harm, I think you push the envelope of entertainment value for a number of people in the audience. As a business model, Batman will always translate into toy sells for the movie studios. So even if the makers want to expand the target audience and make a sweeping story that encompasses a far broader scope of age groups, I think they still have to remember the foundation they stand on. Exploring the intent to harm kids is really taboo for Batman films and should not be something writers evolve into a main story.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 15 Nov 2015, 04:39It is uplifting, but remember that the Joker than refers to the 'Ace in the hole' who happens to be Harvey, the 'white knight' who turns to the dark side and whose crimes the 'dark knight' must take the wrap for.
Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.
I understand, but that goes back to what I said about how there's going to be losses. There can't not be. But I don't see darkness in Bruce taking the fall for Harvey's crimes. That's pretty uplifting to me, a heroic act. I think in a lot of ways it's how the content is distributed in the movies, not the content itself. The Joker doesn't explain in detail how the people are going to die. The movie doesn't hang on Harvey dying for a minute. There is barely any sexual content at all in TDK. There's a very minimalist approach to it all. There's barely any blood. It's an un-vicious approach. Where Burton's sort of puts all of that right there. Even the way the physical appearances are are very heightened. It makes a lot more visual noise than the Nolan films, where they take a step back from it.
God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015, 14:53
I think it's fair game to say superhero movies today have a far more deliberate direction in their story and have a better understanding of it's target audience. Batman Returns might have had a fairy tale quality, which is inescapable from Tim Burton, but the subject matter did not really take into account it's audience. Another trait BR shares with B&R is the sexual innuendo. BR was more in the dialogue where B&R was visual subtext. So I think when you take the mood of the film and supplant it with the tone of the characters, then wrap it with the almighty bow of intent...well... Batman Returns comes off pretty dark.
Not to contradict my original point of this thread, but a large majority of superhero films are quite dark in nature. For all the talk about the "light-hearted and fun" nature of the MCU, a lot of people tend to overlook the horror that occurs to people on screen. For instance, Captain America: Civil War showed a couple getting killed as they were driving by, innocent bystanders accidentally getting killed during a terrorist attack, a man tortured and getting drowned to death, and a bombing that kills dozens of people attending a press conference. And that's in the first half hour!
But having said that, yes, Burton's Gothic fantasy vision certainly builds the film's creepy and tragic atmosphere. Whereas Civil War feels like your typical Hollywood blockbuster, particularly in terms of visuals.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 17 Nov 2015, 14:53
I think it's safe to say the sexual dialogue took the fairy tale quality off the movie and made it far more edgy for younger audiences or parents in attendance with said youngsters. I'm sure there were more than a few parents that squirmed when the Penguin said, " Oh just the pussy I was looking for." Not the best line to put in a Batman film. So mixing that with a plan to kill little babies, likely gave more than a few kids nightmares (which didn't make parents all too happy). Forget whether he was successful. Just the idea that an iconic Batman villain wanted to kill little children was weighty enough. Mix in his reasoning with abandonment and your strolling into some pretty heavy material for Batman audiences of 1992. So I think when we talk about "dark", what we're really alluding to is the expectations of content for a Batman film and it's audience.
I'm thankful that BR was released twenty five years ago. If it were released today in this digital age, it would've been unfavourably described as an unconventional superhero film in comparison to something like the MCU, and I bet Danny DeVito wouldn't have gotten his recognition for his performance he deserved because it wouldn't be what fans expect from the Penguin. I bet his take would've been dismissed as "a disgusting perverted freak with mommy and daddy issues". And they'd have a point, but they'd also be overlooking at how multilayered the Penguin is. Suffice to say, the film would've received a greater backlash if came out today instead of 1992.
Quote
Exploring the intent to harm kids is really taboo for Batman films and should not be something writers evolve into a main story.
But let's remember that child abuse isn't a one-off thing that happened in BR. TDK had Two-Face pointing a gun at Gordon's son, and TDKR showed Talia nearly getting torn apart by convicts as she narrowly escaped the Pit when she was a child.
Sometimes it's not always about the content. It's about emotion. How you feel. And that is especially true for BR. The Elfman soundtrack is on the melancholy side, and the visuals are on the dark side. The plot has elements of darkness, to be sure. But it's not an overly bleak film devoid of humour, playfulness or charm. It has all those things. BR is my favorite film in the franchise, but I do think it's darkness is overplayed by some fans. And honestly, I have been guilty of doing that too in the past. And to be clear, I'm not underselling BR here. I'm saying it has a lot more going for it than being one note. The fairytale/social commentary nature of the film is why it works so well in the first place.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 4 Jan 2017, 13:52
Sometimes it's not always about the content. It's about emotion. How you feel. And that is especially true for BR. The Elfman soundtrack is on the melancholy side, and the visuals are on the dark side. The plot has elements of darkness, to be sure. But it's not an overly bleak film devoid of humour, playfulness or charm. It has all those things. BR is my favorite film in the franchise, but I do think it's darkness is overplayed by some fans.
BR definitely has its charm and fun, though personally I believe B89 was better in this area. After all, it's hard to top the Joker's black sense of humour.
I think the tragedy surrounding the main characters make BR unique unlike any other film in the genre. Batman saves the day, but he feels empty inside. Catwoman gets her revenge, but she's gone far off the deep end in terms of sanity. Penguin dies as he was born, discarded. Only the penguins mourn for him. Even Max Schreck, despite showing what a sociopath he is, sacrificed himself to spare his son chip from being taken hostage by Penguin, ultimately leading to his death.
Very emotional.
The ending of the film hits all the right notes, that's for sure. And the end credits music, with the black and white aesthetic, truly hits that cold and tragic vibe home. I think it's because we know this is THE END. The film is over and that's that. As you say, Penguin died alone as an outcast and Bruce/Selina go their seperate ways.
I know people here disagree with me, but I actually think BR has more atmosphere than B89.
There was a video by some YouTuber called Jeremy Jahns who did a review looking on BR, and he made this strange claim that Catwoman's behaviour was promiscuous, for a lack of a better word. I don't think he was paying much attention if he truly believed that.
Catwoman was a rebellious vigilante who used sexuality as a weapon, taunting men for being impotent e.g. the mall cops at the Shreck convenience store, and seducing Batman to exploit the chinks in his armour and stab him. I guess one can claim that Catwoman's outfit and violence is a disturbing metaphor for bondage, but it's beyond me how Jahns could think she was a promiscuous.
After her transformation, Michellewoman didn't suppress herself in any way. But Michellewoman's focus was on Max. She wanted to destroy his company and finally kill him. Batman represented an obstacle against her crusade, so she needed him out of the way too. When she discovered Batman was Bruce Wayne her opposition to him was confused. But ultimately that didn't matter as much. She chose her hatred of Max over her love of Bruce. That's why she suited up in the first place.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 5 Jan 2017, 11:19
I know people here disagree with me, but I actually think BR has more atmosphere than B89.
No disagreement from me. I don't think it's even close, either.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 29 Jun 2017, 14:02
There was a video by some YouTuber called Jeremy Jahns who did a review looking on BR, and he made this strange claim that Catwoman's behaviour was promiscuous, for a lack of a better word. I don't think he was paying much attention if he truly believed that.
Catwoman was a rebellious vigilante who used sexuality as a weapon, taunting men for being impotent e.g. the mall cops at the Shreck convenience store, and seducing Batman to exploit the chinks in his armour and stab him. I guess one can claim that Catwoman's outfit and violence is a disturbing metaphor for bondage, but it's beyond me how Jahns could think she was a promiscuous.
Sounds like some millenial nolanite with a single functioning brain cell who's incapable of scratching (no pun intended) anything beyond it's very surface, let alone looking deeply enough to grasp anything as deep as Michelle's Catwoman. What a simple minded juvenile observation. He needs to be fed a laughing fish.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 29 Jun 2017, 14:02There was a video by some YouTuber called Jeremy Jahns who did a review looking on BR, and he made this strange claim that Catwoman's behaviour was promiscuous, for a lack of a better word. I don't think he was paying much attention if he truly believed that.
Catwoman was a rebellious vigilante who used sexuality as a weapon, taunting men for being impotent e.g. the mall cops at the Shreck convenience store, and seducing Batman to exploit the chinks in his armour and stab him. I guess one can claim that Catwoman's outfit and violence is a disturbing metaphor for bondage, but it's beyond me how Jahns could think she was a promiscuous.
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 30 Jun 2017, 09:21Sounds like some millenial nolanite with a single functioning brain cell who's incapable of scratching (no pun intended) anything beyond it's very surface, let alone looking deeply enough to grasp anything as deep as Michelle's Catwoman. What a simple minded juvenile observation. He needs to be fed a laughing fish.
Calling someone simple minded and juvenile over this doesn't make sense to me. Why is that necessary? It's not a real person he's talking about. Her being promiscuous either way doesn't negate the depth of the character at all. That's not thinking through the situation. I don't know why the character being called that is a bad thing character wise. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 30 Jun 2017, 09:21
Sounds like some millenial nolanite with a single functioning brain cell who's incapable of scratching (no pun intended) anything beyond it's very surface, let alone looking deeply enough to grasp anything as deep as Michelle's Catwoman. What a simple minded juvenile observation. He needs to be fed a laughing fish.
From what I've heard about Jeremy Jahns, he does appear to be a Nolan fan, so your suspicion is spot on.
I'm not a fan of any of these YouTube critics. They tend to be very young "millenials" (I hate using that term), usually review only popcorn blockbusters, and they're quite shallow when it comes analysis. That includes the geek channels like Collider and Screen Junkies. I'd love to see how these people get by once Hollywood stops making comic book films.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 30 Jun 2017, 02:02
After her transformation, Michellewoman didn't suppress herself in any way. But Michellewoman's focus was on Max. She wanted to destroy his company and finally kill him. Batman represented an obstacle against her crusade, so she needed him out of the way too. When she discovered Batman was Bruce Wayne her opposition to him was confused. But ultimately that didn't matter as much. She chose her hatred of Max over her love of Bruce. That's why she suited up in the first place.
It's certainly an even darker contrast to B89. Revenge was a theme in the first film too, but not quite as intimate compared to in Returns. Once Batman avenges his parents, he continues on his crusade, but he still seems empty and unfulfilled. Not even with Vicki by his side, and she eventually leaves him.
In Returns, he meets Selina who he shares a lot more in common in terms of duality, loneliness, quirkiness, and revenge. And ironically, revenge gets in the way of their romance. Hence, the bittersweet ending.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 1 Jul 2017, 01:52It's certainly an even darker contrast to B89. Revenge was a theme in the first film too, but not quite as intimate compared to in Returns. Once Batman avenges his parents, he continues on his crusade, but he still seems empty and unfulfilled.
Heh, well revenge is the stock motivation for a lot of comic book movies. But you are right, it does permeate a lot of BR.
But then, the movie does suggest that it's possible for revenge to be subsumed.
Catwoman was able to do it during the Penguin's press conference. She wasn't there for Max at that moment; she was there for the Penguin. But she backed off because... Batman wrecks the Penguin's s**t. After that, it's almost like she never gives the Penguin another thought. She goes back to wanting revenge on Max.
The Penguin is able to subsume his own desire for revenge, though it was temporary. When it looked like he'd become the mayor, he wasn't as bloodthirsty as he had been. But Batman gets revenge on the Penguin so the Penguin in turn goes back to wanting revenge against... well, the whole world, I guess.
Assuming there even is a moral to any of it, I guess it's that revenge never truly satisfies and is never truly satisfied. The anger that feeds revenge is the real drug and Batman, Catwoman and the Penguin are most definitely addicts.
I think Batman Returns is the darkest Batman movie I've ever seen. Also the darkest family movie I've ever seen.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 1 Jul 2017, 02:02
Assuming there even is a moral to any of it, I guess it's that revenge never truly satisfies and is never truly satisfied. The anger that feeds revenge is the real drug and Batman, Catwoman and the Penguin are most definitely addicts.
Revenge is a natural reaction, consequence and conclusion for bad deeds. If you do the wrong thing, as James Brown sang, "get ready you mother, for the big payback". If someone keeps goading, they gotta be stomped. The moralists can say whatever they want, but revenge satisfies the soul. An evildoer walking away scot-free is what frustrates the soul.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fwebroot%2Fanimatedgifs1%2F2159390_o.gif&hash=6b9ec40608f1cb45f741d42a3302722f0696ef52)
Taking care of business doesn't make you the bad guy. People bring it on themselves, and then they're suddenly sorry.
Bruce spent decade with revenge on the mind and got it in the first film. I doubt he's seeking more in this film. Note that even when Catwoman and Penguin frame him, he remains resolved and doesn't show uncontrollable anger.
The first film showcases his anger where he seeks revenge; That may be why he confronts the Joker as Bruce instead of Batman in the 'lets get nuts' scene and why he reveals his identity in the cathedral. He doesn't just want to beat the Joker, he wants the Joker to know who is beating him.
Quote from: riddler on Tue, 15 Aug 2017, 16:43
Bruce spent decade with revenge on the mind and got it in the first film. I doubt he's seeking more in this film. Note that even when Catwoman and Penguin frame him, he remains resolved and doesn't show uncontrollable anger.
The first film showcases his anger where he seeks revenge; That may be why he confronts the Joker as Bruce instead of Batman in the 'lets get nuts' scene and why he reveals his identity in the cathedral. He doesn't just want to beat the Joker, he wants the Joker to know who is beating him.
I think you're right. In B89 it's deeply personal because he unintentionally found the man who killed his parents. It doesn't get any bigger than that. What I love about the cathedral sequence is how Burton had Joker play the scene. Does he really know who Bruce is? Does he remember killing the Waynes? Or does he just go along with it because Batman is fired up? I don't think we really know the definite answer to this. But either way, Bruce gets his revenge.
Batman is always going to have some degree of aggression, but I honestly think a lot of it dissipated after Napier fell from the cathedral. In BR the revenge connection just isn't as strong. Sure, he can sympathize with Oswald given the issue with his parents. But that's sympathy. He exposes Oswald for being a fraud, but as you say, it's done in a controlled and even humorous way. I think he's even smiling in the cave with Alfred. Keaton's Batman blew up the Strongman, but that's just how Burton rolled. I'm sure a hypothetical Batman III would've continued with these elements. Something like 'after being rejected by Selina, Batman returns to the shadows to continue his war on crime'.
I like the bit of taking Cobblepot down because I always got the idea that it was pure vengeance on his part. He had Cobblepot nailed cold on kidnapping, grand theft auto, vehicular assault, probably kidnapping, murder one and other things. He didn't have to destroy him so publicly that way. Just turning his video over to Gordon probably would've done the trick.
But no. He went a lot more personal with it.
It's probably fair to question how much responsibility Batman has in the reign of terror that the Penguin subsequently unleashed upon the city. If the job had been done right, the Penguin would've been cooling off in a cell rather than free to kidnap the children.
The reason I dig that is because the early Detective Comics issues, especially those written by Gardner Fox, showed a Batman with a vengeful streak in him. Yeah, he wants to do right and arrest criminals. But don't EVER forget that this is a personal thing for him. He's not above revenge by any stretch of the imagination. Tick him off and it's your @$$ on the line.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Aug 2017, 23:03
He didn't have to destroy him so publicly that way.
I think he did.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Aug 2017, 23:03
The reason I dig that is because the early Detective Comics issues, especially those written by Gardner Fox, showed a Batman with a vengeful streak in him. Yeah, he wants to do right and arrest criminals. But don't EVER forget that this is a personal thing for him. He's not above revenge by any stretch of the imagination. Tick him off and it's your @$$ on the line.
True.
Bruce didn't need to go through the law. That can be lengthy and it was critical he stop the Penguin before the election. Besides, hacking his microphone was a more effective way to take his power; turn HIM into the marter.
I love Burton's Batman because he didn't concern himself with maintaining a public image in terms of his methods.
He blew up Axis Chemicals.
He shot Joker's goons via the batwing.
He burnt the firebreather.
He blew up the strongman.
Too cruel? Too bad. He got the job done.
This Batman will continue to save Gotham whether citizens or officials like it or not. His Batmobile was sabotaged and it wrecked a whole fleet of police cars and public property. Did he issue a public statement about that? Nope. He said nothing. He knew the truth and that satisifed him, and if anything, any doubt about his motives would've led to even more street cred. That's a real Dark Knight.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Aug 2017, 12:00
I love Burton's Batman because he didn't concern himself with maintaining a public image in terms of his methods.
He blew up Axis Chemicals.
He shot Joker's goons via the batwing.
He burnt the firebreather.
He blew up the strongman.
Too cruel? Too bad. He got the job done.
I've seen some fans describe Burton's Batman as the Dirty Harry of the franchise, and it's very hard to ignore the comparison when looking at those points.
I think it's safe to say that they're both alpha male action heroes. Dirty Harry is fed up with the bureaucracy of the law and sees extremely dangerous criminals that need to be put down without making any apologies for it. Burton's Batman accepts that he lives in a violent and imperfect world, and he reacts accordingly.
I am beyond sick of hearing how super heroes should never kill. I don't think they should be written to kill everyone who looks bad but sometimes in life there's no alternative. They go off to war every night and sometimes it's kill or be killed. The Joker would have gotten away and killed more people if Batman didn't stop him, the dynamite was about to blow someone up (and anyone who thinks it's okay to fool around with dynamite in public needs to be taken off the street), ACE chemicals was basically ground zero for the joker and his goons and the exploding penguins were going to destroy the city if he didn't intervene. Despite what the detractors say, Keaton's Batman DID try and avoid killing people- if he were just a cold blooded killer he would have taken out the joker and his goons with the batwing, he just wasn't above taking people out if there was no other option.
I agree. It depends on the severity of the situation. The warehouse sequence in BvS is a good example. When you're in a room of ten or more armed and dangerous goons, anything can happen. Grenades are going to go off and guns are going to be fired. You do what's necessary to stay alive in the heat of battle. That was also the case with the B89 fight with Ray Charles.
(https://i.makeagif.com/save/6tlmyW)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, 02:47You do what's necessary to stay alive in the heat of battle. That was also the case with the B89 fight with Ray Charles.
(https://i.makeagif.com/save/6tlmyW)
That's true. Very true.
I'd add that (1) Batman was f***ed up and badly injured after the Batwing crash and (2) the Joker would be escaping with Vicki any second to God only knows where.
The only choice was to go
through the Ray Charles guy. Sucks to be him but lives are at stake here, including Batman's own because of his injuries.
It really blows my mind that people take exception to whacking that guy. Even now, people throw tantrums over it.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 19 Aug 2017, 15:28
I am beyond sick of hearing how super heroes should never kill. I don't think they should be written to kill everyone who looks bad but sometimes in life there's no alternative.
I've noticed people only hypocritically complain if it involves Batman and Superman, while ignoring certain popular interpretations of the characters doing the same thing.
Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody else talk about the Avengers or even Wonder Woman killing people. You would think that after all of the unfair and unjustified flack the DCEU versions of Bats and Supes received, people would've doubled down on Diana killing people. But, whatever.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 19 Aug 2017, 15:28
Despite what the detractors say, Keaton's Batman DID try and avoid killing people.
Yes, that's true. A good example of Batman taking non-lethal force is when he fires his grapple gun at one of Jack Napier's henchmen at Axis Chemicals, and saved the goon from falling to his death by quickly attaching the hook onto the rail.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, 04:47
It really blows my mind that people take exception to whacking that guy. Even now, people throw tantrums over it.
People have selective outrage. That's why.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Aug 2017, 04:47
It really blows my mind that people take exception to whacking that guy. Even now, people throw tantrums over it.
I don't get that either. Mr Charles wasn't there to talk about soul music. He was there to kill Batman. That long chain he was swinging gave it away. It was pure self defence. Mr Charles tried to do the very thing Batman did to him: toss him down the bell shaft. Mr Charles was unsuccessful. Batman was successful.
super heroes are basically going off to war every night. Sometimes in war you find yourself in kill or be killed situations. Iron Man made multiple kills in his first movie, people forgave him because he killed people pointing guns at civilians. Is there much difference here?
I think this will always be subjective to what each of us views as "dark". Sometimes the general look of the film can be dark in tone. Others might view the definition according to the physicality of the characters and who gets hurt. For me the Burton films were surreal, so I took them as the A-typical Burton "Gothic" approach that is his signature look. The Burton universe doesn't typically concern itself with a moral code so much as survival of the fittest and character motivation backed with a load of style and charm. It always feels like I'm opening this huge fairy tale book that comes to life. Because of that, I tend to give more latitude towards what I see in the film because it never truly seats itself in a real world plane.
The Schumacher films pretty much speak for themselves. Pure comic book escapism. You either embrace them for what they are or struggle with them. I think there's always a time and place for them and I'm GLAD they have a place etched out in cinematic history. Some might argue it;s not a distinguished place. But like allot of things, time heals most wounds and both of these films seem to be getting a warmer reception these days from the fans.
The Nolan films definitely conceptualize both hero and villain with perhaps too many social overtones which tend to betray the concept based on how those are handled in each story. Some work better than others (for affect), but all of them are heavily flawed. Nolan movies tend to place the mental angst more in the foreground as part of the narrative. If the Burton films gave the "how" and the Schumacher films gave the "why nots", the Nolan films give the "why should they" a huge center stage. Some found this very deep and distressing for the license. Others enjoyed it for what it was and embraced the conceptual slant to the entire DC universe. Which brings us to Snyder...
Snyder is an acquired taste. Lets be honest. In general he does not make likable characters in any of his films (not to the masses anyway). They all tend to profile the same - Reluctant participants doing a job they feel cursed to do for a lifetime. That mission statement doesn't exactly allow for allot of room for optimism or a general embrace one typically has for traditional superheroes. It's hard to celebrate his heroes when they don't seem to like themselves. So his characters' manic depressive states tend to overshadow the story being told if not outright muddy the point for why we watch them. So this too can be defined as "dark".
I guess in the final analysis Batman is kind of like your favorite cup of coffee. You can take it black and bitter or light and colorful. But no matter what side you lean towards, you get your hero in a cape and cowl beating up the bad guys with style points. Not a bad day at the office.
My favorite Batman film and comic is TDK Returns. Joker shooting civilians in cold blood during the tunnel of love sequence is as bleak as anything I've seen in Batman media. It's raw and illicits a reaction. Same thing with Joker gassing the live audience, and killing Wolper with the coffee mug. Or Joker stabbing Batman repeatedly with his knife. It's pretty confronting stuff and I love it all. It keeps you on your toes.
But I think you need dark themes to match the violence to complete the package. We have:
A suicidal hero who gave up his career due to emotional trauma.
A city without hope overrun by mutant gangs.
The theme that the peace and love 1960s movement meant nothing. Things only got worse.
The theme that criminals like Harvey and Joker can't truly be rehabilitated.
The reality that Bruce is only getting older and will never father a biological child.
A hero who returns only to be hunted and hated as strongly as ever.
Batman beating his old friend Superman to a pulp.
Alfred dying and Wayne Manor destroyed in a ball of flames.
And so on.
But through of all this is an inspirational tale of a man who finally decided to never give up, even when he thought all hope was lost. He moved on from his pain and focused on the future he had left. He fought the system and won. Even if that now means he has to live the remainder of his days in seclusion.
That's a great description of your preference Dark Knight. I certainly understand why that moves you to the Snyder Batman. That depiction is embraced fully by Snyder. It will be interesting to see what happens with Justice League.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 23 Aug 2017, 19:19
That's a great description of your preference Dark Knight. I certainly understand why that moves you to the Snyder Batman. That depiction is embraced fully by Snyder. It will be interesting to see what happens with Justice League.
I think the direction Snyder/WB went with Batman in JL is logical. You can't really get any darker than TDK Returns Batman, but Snyder did it by ditching the rubber bullets for real bullets. So if you can't go any darker, there's only one place to go. And that's with a redemption arc where Batman reclaims a purer sense of heroism and becomes a team player again. Facts are, that's how things have to be for a shared universe. A strict loner who doesn't want to co-operate just doesn't fit in with that dynamic. And really, I'm ready for things to be loosened in that area. I'm not asking for Adam West's Batman again, but something with that same charm would be great. Batman trying to work in a team will definitely make the guy more loveable.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 25 Aug 2017, 00:14
I think the direction Snyder/WB went with Batman in JL is logical. You can't really get any darker than TDK Returns Batman, but Snyder did it by ditching the rubber bullets for real bullets. So if you can't go any darker, there's only one place to go. And that's with a redemption arc where Batman reclaims a purer sense of heroism and becomes a team player again. Facts are, that's how things have to be for a shared universe. A strict loner who doesn't want to co-operate just doesn't fit in with that dynamic. And really, I'm ready for things to be loosened in that area. I'm not asking for Adam West's Batman again, but something with that same charm would be great. Batman trying to work in a team will definitely make the guy more loveable.
I agree. At this stage I think audiences want material that is engaging but not so depressing. The world is kind of a depressing place right now and I think comic movies can serve as great escapist fun if they balance the formula properly. We need our heroes right now.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 25 Aug 2017, 10:36
I agree. At this stage I think audiences want material that is engaging but not so depressing. The world is kind of a depressing place right now and I think comic movies can serve as great escapist fun if they balance the formula properly. We need our heroes right now.
I've always thought the world has always been such a depressing place. Ever since the Raimi Spider-Man era ended, it had been a long time that I got any sense of wonder or excitement until the MCU's Phase 1 kicked in. I don't mind at all if the DCEU moves forward as escapism, as long as it's more like Marvel's Phase 1 era and less like its current form, which I find to be very underwhelming.
I optimistic that JL will end on a happy note that concludes Batman redemption arc while anticipating challenges going forward. That's my guess
This isn't really the right place to post this, but it's still related to the Burton batsuit aesthetic.
This has got to be one of my favorite Batman comic covers of all time:
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/8/86/Batman_-_Shadow_of_the_Bat_35_Variant.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140726043418)
This suit is everything to me. Black suit, yellow belt and yellow chest emblem.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 06:11
This isn't really the right place to post this, but it's still related to the Burton batsuit aesthetic.
This has got to be one of my favorite Batman comic covers of all time:
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/8/86/Batman_-_Shadow_of_the_Bat_35_Variant.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140726043418)
This suit is everything to me. Black suit, yellow belt and yellow chest emblem.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geekenfreude.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2F7axHJIO.gif&hash=bfc6e979208ffedbd17216907e923fb6b19cd67a)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 06:11This suit is everything to me. Black suit, yellow belt and yellow chest emblem.
There's a storyline from No Man's Land. I forget the title but I think it was a three-parter and it was drawn by Paul Gulacy where Batman's outfit was B89. Or maybe the panther suit from BF. But that's what it was, full-stop. No gray, no blue, no trunks, nothing.
Black body suit, yellow oval, yellow utility belt.
The story was decent but the all-black suit looks a lot better on the printed page than I would've originally assumed.
Yes, I remember (this was edited some time ago for sharing)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs26.postimg.org%2Fw9e9xtch5%2F418178_166478776820859_868983340_n.jpg&hash=35ee3ba4a431613d07dd0929e74d97790ed78ec0)
Most of the Batman movie villains have pretty ruthless, evil plots and characterizations and so, to an extent, all the movies have somewhat dark themes. But BR probably does still have the most grotesque violence and it's neck-and-neck with TDK for grimness and intensity.
It's indeed interesting that for so long after BR comic book movies have been very reluctant to show blood.
I don't think the sexual innuendo and themes and themes are particularly intense, though, the Penguin's are pretty distasteful but watching the movie as a kid most of them went over my head and I think that would be the more common reaction.
Quote from: Andrew on Mon, 11 Sep 2017, 04:43
I don't think the sexual innuendo and themes and themes are particularly intense, though, the Penguin's are pretty distasteful but watching the movie as a kid most of them went over my head and I think that would be the more common reaction.
I know what what you mean, but sometimes the dialogue can have a double meaning. Penguin saying "Just the pussy I've been looking" when meeting Catwoman can be either literal or, ahem, vulgar. :-[ Of course, I was too innocent to understand the latter as akid.
People tend to forget also about the Penguin's origin here. Regardless of treatment, Batman has (and will always be) a film that attracts kids of all ages. I think there's a general expectation from audiences for that understanding since all of these movies unload scores of toys for it's promotion. So to have kids witness a set of parents throwing their baby into the sewer is pretty edgy subject matter. You can't expect a young person to be "worldly" about such things. And even a very young child might find that scene very distressing. So between the adult innuendo and the dark origins of the penguin, it's pretty easy to understand why audiences in the early 90's were caught off guard by this approach.
We can look at this film today and say it was way ahead of it's time for this genre. But superhero films were still very much in their infancy when Batman Returns came out, so this kind of treatment was far more edgier for it's time than what it would be now. These days you have generations who have grown up with these movies being a staple in theaters. Back then, that was not the case. For me this look for Batman remains my favorite. i feel inclined to pick up the Hot Toys version with Bruce Wayne.
The opening scene of the first film featured a boy witness his parents getting shot in a mugging and shows a man getting stabbed in the neck. Anyone who was shocked by the content should have done their own research, it wasn't that much of a stretch considering Tim Burton directed it. I could understand if the first movie ended up this dark since many people were expecting something on the lines of the Adam West series but this film wasn't that much darker.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 15 Sep 2017, 16:03
The opening scene of the first film featured a boy witness his parents getting shot in a mugging and shows a man getting stabbed in the neck. Anyone who was shocked by the content should have done their own research, it wasn't that much of a stretch considering Tim Burton directed it. I could understand if the first movie ended up this dark since many people were expecting something on the lines of the Adam West series but this film wasn't that much darker.
You might be getting confused with Bruce's flashback, because the opening scene shows a boy and his mother witnessing the dad getting pistol-whipped by a mugger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKB0t2peW6s
But aside from that, you're absolutely right that B89 is still quite dark. For example, the Joker electrocuting a mob boss to death while laughing and mocking at his charred corpse is still disturbing, and quite possibly the most underrated example of gruesome violence in the entire franchise.
Here's a blog by a fan who describes BR as a horror film.
Source: https://warrenisweird.com/2017/02/03/film-study-batman-returns-1992-is-actually-a-horror-film/
Nothing much to add that wasn't covered before, but these are some excerpts:
Quote
What makes Batman Returns a horror film on top of a superhero movie is this pervasive violence and dislike for human life sprinkled throughout the film. There is an almost a hidden smile in the death of people and during the destruction of Gotham, which comes from Batman himself too. Many people were shocked by just how easily Ben Affleck's take on Batman casually killed people in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. But if you compare the two, he's got nothing on Keaton, who will happily turn the Batmobile back around, only to shoot flames from his tailpipe onto a fire-breather or how about that time when he drops a guy into a manhole.. who then later explodes? This is the real killer Batman and it is terrifying to know that he does it with efficiency, coldness, and even a sense of enjoyment.
It's a fair observation. No matter how brutal Affleck was in BvS, you can't deny that he never took any pleasure how he projected his anger on crooks, like Keaton does in BR. Both BR and BvS end on a bittersweet note, but the latter has Batman's faith reinvigorated and passes over the angst and cynicism. Whereas, the former has Batman heartbroken and left thinking about the one he got away. Of course, it's possible that he too turned a new corner in terms of morals, which paved the way for BF. But, in my opinion, and you may call it petty, the change in the casting always hurt the continuity for me.
Here is this writer's fascinating analysis about the Penguin, making a possible religious reference his characterisation:
Quote
What also makes his character so fascinating is the parallels between The Penguin and God and Satan. As previously discussed, Cobblepot's ultimate end game is to kidnap the first-born children of Gotham in their sleep. This is essentially the 10th Biblical plague, in which God came down and slew the first-born child of every family who was not protected by lamb's blood, Cobblepot plans to bring tremendous terror and grief to those who he feels enslaved him below the surface. However, as we all know, Penguin is no God and that's where his "palace" comes into play. Hidden in the depths of the abandoned Gotham Zoo, Cobblepot's "castle" is cold and icy, which could be seen as an allusion to Dante's Inferno, where the terrifying [and grotesque] Satan lives within the bowels of Hell, trapped in a frozen lake. Ultimately, the icy location becomes engulfed in flames, much like how we -as people – envision Hell.