Batman Returns vs. Batman '89

Started by JokerMeThis, Sun, 23 Mar 2014, 20:42

Previous topic - Next topic
I'm on a Max Schreck binge of late. The guy is a vampire. The self-titled mean and twisted soul of Gotham City. What does he want? What everybody wants. Power. Literally. To suck electricity out of the grid and set it aside for himself. How interesting, blending the conceptual and literal together.

The BR Gotham does have this type of feel. Like the marrow has been sucked out of it. Bare streetscapes, silence and bleak skies. Schreck wants to make the place even darker for his own gain. Now that sounds like a truly ruthless businessman. What is he going to do with that power? Who knows, but he wants as much of it as he can get. As he says himself, "One can never have too much power."

Speaking of bare landscapes, I vaguely remember Burton saying in the DVD commentary that when the Batmobile passes by as the Penguin is looking for his parents in City Hall, the roads are intentionally kept empty; because even though Batman is keeping the streets safe, nobody dares to come out and approach him. Could it be that Burton was saying everybody afraid of Batman? Was he suggesting Batman is literally keeping everyone on their toes - both innocent bystanders and criminals? I'll have to listen to that part again soon.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

As much as I love the first film, Batman Returns is my favourite. Such an underrated masterpiece with substance and entertainment value in equal measure, delicious black comedy, brilliant performances, memorable dialogue, stunning visuals and a beautiful score. It's a really ballsy and ambitious film, unlike any other comic book adaptation I've seen. Critic Ty Burr was right to say that it was probably the first blockbuster art film.
Even the greatest masterpiece has its flaws.

Quote from: DallyWhitty on Mon, 31 Mar  2014, 21:46
As much as I love the first film, Batman Returns is my favourite. Such an underrated masterpiece with substance and entertainment value in equal measure, delicious black comedy, brilliant performances, memorable dialogue, stunning visuals and a beautiful score. It's a really ballsy and ambitious film, unlike any other comic book adaptation I've seen. Critic Ty Burr was right to say that it was probably the first blockbuster art film.

It definitely is a film that has imagination. Between the first and second, Returns especially has more Burton's distinctive Gothic style that are seen in most of his films. His directorial style does help to suspend disbelief that a mutant Penguin and Catwoman with literally nine lives can come to life.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 31 Mar  2014, 23:48
His directorial style does help to suspend disbelief that a mutant Penguin and Catwoman with literally nine lives can come to life.
I don't think she's supernatural. Gotham Alleys did a fine article on it here:

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/catwoman-supernatural.html

Still can't decide. I like Furst's Gotham design more, but Welch's has its unique charm.

I pick BR just because it has a lot less friends.

B'89 is the popular one - fans either like it, even if it's for nostalgia or pure entertainment value because of Nicholson, or at the very least grudgingly accept it as a historically important comic book film.

On the other hand, Batman Returns is the Burton outcast - unfairly maligned, being made fun of, called names ("a Batman film in name only", "weirdness", "Pfeiffer's Catwoman was the only good thing in it", "Penguin is disgusting" etc). There's a select few arguing it's a great Batman film, it has a strong cult following, but many fans just write it off and put it into the pile of the "increasingly bad" sequels.

I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but there is a poll on this is the miscellaneous Burton board.

Quote from: riddler on Sat,  5 Apr  2014, 12:45
I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but there is a poll on this is the miscellaneous Burton board.

(quoting AVGN) "it's not called poop, it's called sh-it"

Quote from: riddler on Sat,  5 Apr  2014, 12:45
I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but there is a poll on this is the miscellaneous Burton board.
JokerMeThis wasn't a member back in 2012 when that thread was last active.  Plus, that thread was done more as a poll whereas this one seems to be more discursive.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: Nycteris on Fri, 11 Apr  2014, 13:41
Quote from: riddler on Sat,  5 Apr  2014, 12:45
I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but there is a poll on this is the miscellaneous Burton board.

(quoting AVGN) "it's not called poop, it's called sh-it"

"You know, it's all coming back to me now. I remember once long ago I had this game in my possession. I just remember seeing this blank cartridge for a pale emotionless game, with the dullest graphics, the most awful gameplay. I spent eight years trying to figure it out, and another seven trying to keep it locked in my closet. Because I realised what was living behind that game... was simply... evil."