https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=478eUJ2kBts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=478eUJ2kBts)
I know a lot of people here hate the Nolan films and love Batman Returns, but it really angers me that this contrast exists. If Bale's Batman could save bleedin' Rachel Dawes, who ends up dying anyway, why couldn't Keaton's Batman save the Ice Princess?!? >:( >:( >:(
I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.
By the way, this clip isn't anything to do with me. I just discovered it, so please don't blame me for its existence.
Rachel Dawes was Bruce's girlfriend, who does not exist in the comics and was played by two actresses, but that's not important right now. There's no real point to compare them, very different characters and what purpose they had in the films.
The Princess was wealthy and very different looking, and I'd say better than Maggie Gyllenhaal as well as Katie Holmes, and not a very bright person, despite lighting trees :) , and who could not save herself by stepping off the ledge.
Rachel was supposed to be like a female Harvey Dent as well as a love interest in the first film, or so I figured, and in TDK they made the decision of having her forced to make a decision between the White Knight and the Dark Knight and ended up in a situation where Batman was tricked into not saving her. So may I remind you that this damsel in distress situation is not a fair comparison with Batman Returns.
Basically, I don't think clip should be any more relevant than another one with Aaron Eckhart's Two-Face shooting Jack Napier because Jack says"Eckhardt! Think about the future!"
Comparing anything Keaton's Batman did to something Baleman did is ridiculous. It's totally apples and oranges. First off, Nolan and Bale's interpretation of Batman is completely different from Tim and Michael's version, and they're depicted at different points of their careers too. Secondly, Rachel is Bruce's childhood friend/sweetheart who he is still smitten with. The Ice Princess in life is irrelevant to Batman, which doesn't mean he wouldn't try to save her. He did but she was too stupid to be saved.
The reason one was able to save his "damsel" and the other wasn't is because one was written to be able to save her. Baleman getting to Rachel before she hit the car was really far fetched to me, and that's even with her buying some time by sliding along the building before the actual fall started. The Ice Princess, by the time Batman could have even gotten to the ledge once she fell she was out of reach. Unless his suit had Batman Beyond capabilities there was no way he could have caught her.
Long story short, you need to get the hell over it. If she had been intelligent enough to live, she would have lived. She was written for a couple cheap laughs and mainly to be used as an accessory in trying to bring down Batman and nothing more. Guess what? Plenty of real girls go through life just like that and if they don't end up with a similar fate they're very lucky because they're too stupid to live. That's what she was meant to represent. Get over it.
Eddward beat me to it but we're basically in agreement.
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:15
Eddward beat me to it but we're basically in agreement.
"Sometimes counting on someone else is the only way to win." :)
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:13
Comparing anything Keaton's Batman did to something Baleman did is ridiculous. It's totally apples and oranges. First off, Nolan and Bale's interpretation of Batman is completely different from Tim and Michael's version, and they're depicted at different points of their careers too. Secondly, Rachel is Bruce's childhood friend/sweetheart who he is still smitten with. The Ice Princess in life is irrelevant to Batman, which doesn't mean he wouldn't try to save her. He did but she was too stupid to be saved.
The reason one was able to save his "damsel" and the other wasn't is because one was written to be able to save her. Baleman getting to Rachel before she hit the car was really far fetched to me, and that's even with her buying some time by sliding along the building before the actual fall started. The Ice Princess, by the time Batman could have even gotten to the ledge once she fell she was out of reach. Unless his suit had Batman Beyond capabilities there was no way he could have caught her.
Long story short, you need to get the hell over it. If she had been intelligent enough to live, she would have lived. She was written for a couple cheap laughs and mainly to be used as an accessory in trying to bring down Batman and nothing more. Guess what? Plenty of real girls go through life just like that and if they don't end up with a similar fate they're very lucky because they're too stupid to live. That's what she was meant to represent. Get over it.
Guess what?
I actually agree with most of what you've said. :) Including this: "If she had been intelligent enough to live, she would have lived...Plenty of real girls go through life just like that and if they don't end up with a similar fate they're very lucky because they're too stupid to live. That's what she was meant to represent."
But I still needed to read someone else rationalise these differences.
But you do raise a more serious point unrelated to Batman Returns and the Ice Princess., and that's how ridiculous that scene of Batman saving Rachel Dawes was, in what was meant to be a 'realistic' Batman film. ::)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:43
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:15
Eddward beat me to it but we're basically in agreement.
"Sometimes counting on someone else is the only way to win." :)
I wasn't counting on you, I was typing mine at the same time and didn't see yours til after I hit post. lol.
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 21:30
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:43
Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 20:15
Eddward beat me to it but we're basically in agreement.
"Sometimes counting on someone else is the only way to win." :)
I wasn't counting on you, I was typing mine at the same time and didn't see yours til after I hit post. lol.
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to say that. ;D
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 17:02I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.
It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:54
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 17:02I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.
It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.
Like Nora Fries was required to die and Alfred to live.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:04Like Nora Fries was required to die and Alfred to live.
If you're referring to B&R, nonsense! She survived the movie.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:53
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:04Like Nora Fries was required to die and Alfred to live.
If you're referring to B&R, nonsense! She survived the movie.
I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:54
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 17:02I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.
It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.
Yeah, I'm not that keen on that type of argument because it basically excuses characters acting out of character given the needs of the film's plot, and that's generally a sign of poor writing. I do appreciate however that we're talking about two different franchises. I would be even more peeved off if Batman was somehow able to save Rachel in the Burton/Schumacher franchise yet still let the Princess die. >:( In fact, I can't understand how he was able to save both Chase and Robin from descending to their fate in Batman Forever. :-\
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 01:08
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 23:54
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 17:02I am happy to read intelligent arguments as to why he could save Dawes but not the Princess.
It could be that one narrative required that Batman be able to save Rachel while the other narrative required that Batman be unable to save the Ice Princess.
Yeah, I'm not that keen on that type of argument because it basically excuses characters acting out of character given the needs of the film's plot, and that's generally a sign of poor writing.
Yeah, I remember agreeing with you about this a couple of times in the past, but in BR's case, I reckon it is a case of poor staging rather than poor writing. If the Ice Princess immediately fell to her death as soon as the bats flew out of the box and frightened her, then that would've made more sense why Batman was shocked and couldn't react. But her demise in the film was long enough to give him more time to try to save her.
But as for your comment about the contrast between those who like Burton and dislike Nolan? In Nolan's case, I was put off by how his Batman did things that were far more negligent than what any other film interpretation did to date. I've complained about this ad nauseum, and I'm not going to go through them again.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:55I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.
Alfred was at a different stage in the disease than Nora.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 05:43
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 5 Dec 2015, 00:55I was referring to the fact that Victor could not find a cure for her stage of the disease yet, while he could give Batman one for Alfred. I should have said that. The way I put it, it was incorrect.
Alfred was at a different stage in the disease than Nora.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
I know that, but it was convenient that Freeze had a cure for Alfred right at the end of the film, wasn't it?
Anyway, I feel I went off-topic with this too much.
I'm not really sure how Batman could've saved the Ice Princess. Maybe I'm missing something but it all seemed to happen too fast once Batman made it to the roof. Penguin planned it all too well.
And in TDK Batman was stupid to tell Joker to "Let her go!" Joker couldn't help but point out the irony and let her go literally. Maybe if Bale's Batman hadn't been so stupid as to use those words Joker might not have let her go, at least not so soon. If anything I think Bale's Batman behaved more stupidly than Keaton's Batman did on the roof with the Ice Princess. ::)
No one ever said Bale's Batman was a genius. But he has his fans.
I only liked him in BB, and that's it.
I don't think you can really compare the two because Batman films in their infancy did not enjoy the special effects and story pacing that movies by this time have acquired. Different times and a different audience. In 1992 it would have been inconceivable for him to leap off the roof and make a believable catch and save with the effects as they were at that point in time. Burton very much had Batman grounded with a kind of pulley system that allowed him to get away when he needed to, but was not quite as effective in saving others at that point unless he was falling with them as he did with Vale in the first film.
Plus you have to remember hero films were still not the rabid success they are in today's industry. It would have been difficult to justify the expense in staging a rescue scene like that since the story responsibilities carried greater weight for him to take the blame for her fall. Plus these were no other films creating rescue spectacles like they do today. It was just different times and I think you have to wear different hats when you watch these movies.
Personally, many "old" superhero films and action films in general I find to be more fun and heartfelt that some newer ones. Special Effects aren't everything. :)
Quote from: Max Shreck on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 23:49
Personally, many "old" superhero films and action films in general I find to be more fun and heartfelt that some newer ones. Special Effects aren't everything. :)
But I really wish the Ice Princess had only been 'scared' like The Penguin promised. :-\ I also wish that she somehow survived her fall, as Selina survived hers earlier in the film. :-\
I understand but that's a plot element, really not related to the difference in technology for SFX. And it wouldn't be Batman Returns if a character got a happy ending, right ?
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 00:47
I understand but that's a plot element, really not related to the difference in technology for SFX. And it wouldn't be Batman Returns if a character got a happy ending, right ?
But the Ice Princess was a happy-go-lucky bubbly blonde; not a brooding misfit. She should have got a happy ending. >:(
No one got a happy ending in the film.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 01:30
No one got a happy ending in the film.
How about the mayor and the children who were saved from being drowned? :-\
The children were never shown... and the Mayor was good friends with Shreck, was he not?
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 03:02
The children were never shown... and the Mayor was good friends with Shreck, was he not?
Really? Shreck stabbed him in the back. And didn't we see Batman avert the children's kidnap?
The children were not characters in the film. And do you think the Mayor was really happy with what happened to the city that Christmas? I think not.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 03:26
The children were not characters in the film. And do you think the Mayor was really happy with what happened to the city that Christmas? I think not.
Still, he got to keep his job, without authorising Max's power plant, and I'm not sure what you mean about the children. :-\
We never see the children. They can't really be considered as having an ending if they didn't ever appear in the film as characters, from my point of view.
There was another Mayor by the time of the next movie, so I don't think that this one got a happy ending.
So, nobody got a happy ending except maybe Alfred who didn't have to watch Oswald on television anymore. :)
Quote from: Max Shreck on Wed, 20 Jan 2016, 04:13
We never see the children. They can't really be considered as having an ending if they didn't ever appear in the film as characters, from my point of view.
There was another Mayor by the time of the next movie, so I don't think that this one got a happy ending.
So, nobody got a happy ending except maybe Alfred who didn't have to watch Oswald on television anymore. :)
;D
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. :)
My pleasure. :)
'Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view' - Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi (Alec Guinness)
Sorry to bang on about this (although it is my right) but it still angers me immensely that Batman was not punished in any way for losing his Batarang. If a cop had lost their gun and it was subsequently used by a criminal in the commission of a crime they'd be rightly disciplined and even suspended from duty. So what makes Batman, an unofficial cop, on call to Gotham Police Department, any different? He was carrying around a dangerous weapon and carelessly let it be taken by a frigging poodle!?! >:(
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 22 Jan 2016, 12:08
Sorry to bang on about this (although it is my right) but it still angers me immensely that Batman was not punished in any way for losing his Batarang. If a cop had lost their gun and it was subsequently used by a criminal in the commission of a crime they'd be rightly disciplined and even suspended from duty. So what makes Batman, an unofficial cop, on call to Gotham Police Department, any different? He was carrying around a dangerous weapon and carelessly let it be taken by a frigging poodle!?! >:(
I think if you're going to reach into the rationality bag and pull out this perspective, then you would have to abandon pretty much every superhero film ever made. As a concept, all of these masked personas are carrying out justice according to their own morality not something mandated by a governing body or election. So I wouldn't invest as much in comparing reality to fantasy as I would readjusting your disbelief scope. You will never come across a superhero film where the liberties of others are not being compromised as a result of what one of these people are doing. That is a baked in requirement that you either accept with the territory or abandon entirely with the concept.
People have even tried to imitate the comics by wearing masks and the vast majority of them are laughed at , ridiculed, or otherwise hurt and/or killed for trying to play out a scenario that really only exists in fantasy. Batman is (and will always be) make-believe. He's a guy dressed up as a bat fighting crime with enormous style points. There is nothing realistic about that. So I would take the bat-a-rang as a plot device to color the villains bad and place an obstacle in front of our hero in trying to stop them.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016, 17:06
I don't think you can really compare the two because Batman films in their infancy did not enjoy the special effects and story pacing that movies by this time have acquired. Different times and a different audience. In 1992 it would have been inconceivable for him to leap off the roof and make a believable catch and save with the effects as they were at that point in time. Burton very much had Batman grounded with a kind of pulley system that allowed him to get away when he needed to, but was not quite as effective in saving others at that point unless he was falling with them as he did with Vale in the first film.
Plus you have to remember hero films were still not the rabid success they are in today's industry. It would have been difficult to justify the expense in staging a rescue scene like that since the story responsibilities carried greater weight for him to take the blame for her fall. Plus these were no other films creating rescue spectacles like they do today. It was just different times and I think you have to wear different hats when you watch these movies.
I never really thought about that. I just had a look at the budget comparisons between BR and BF. The former cost $65 million and the latter cost about $100 million. That possibly explains why BF was able to show Batman performing that death-defying stunt to save Robin and Chase Meridian in the end, and why BR didn't have Batman react and try to save the Ice Princess from falling to her death.
Nonetheless, we can still complain about Burton's direction of the scene all we want and debate whether Batman should've done this or that. But at the end of the day, the Ice Princess's role in the film was serve as a plot device, where Batman would be framed for her murder. Whether it's done well or not is entirely up to anyone's point of view.
I would have liked to have seen the Catwoman and the Penguin's original plan carried out. Apparently they were just going to scare the Ice Princess but do it in a way that caused Batman to be disgraced. Instead of such an unnecessarily misanthropic turn-of-events that made Batman look helpless, the film should have presented us with Catwoman and Penguin's non-fatal plan, after all no character should simply be reduced to a plot-device.
I think allot of these subplots muddied an already crowded script of players. The whole matter with the batarang and Princess was so sloppy in execution was it really even necessary to be in the story at all? Batman was far from being a defined hero for all of Gotham so it never really made any sense that in one breath Gordon would be seen talking to him in public, only to flip positions and implicate Batman with a crime by showcasing his batarang on a news report. That said as much, if not more, about his lack of trustworthiness as an elected official. So it doesn't appear there was really any serious thought given to whether these plot devices fit with the world established, because it really didn't.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 28 Jan 2016, 10:38
Nonetheless, we can still complain about Burton's direction of the scene all we want and debate whether Batman should've done this or that. But at the end of the day, the Ice Princess's role in the film was serve as a plot device, where Batman would be framed for her murder. Whether it's done well or not is entirely up to anyone's point of view.
This
Quote from: Nycteris on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 07:10
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 28 Jan 2016, 10:38
Nonetheless, we can still complain about Burton's direction of the scene all we want and debate whether Batman should've done this or that. But at the end of the day, the Ice Princess's role in the film was serve as a plot device, where Batman would be framed for her murder. Whether it's done well or not is entirely up to anyone's point of view.
This
And this again. The princess dying makes everything stronger. In the eyes of the public, Batman kills her and then drives away like a crazed maniac, sending police cars flying everywhere.