Messages

Harley Quinn as the Joker's daughter, never before mentioned and suddenly appearing and vengeful against Batman, to me would have seemed like a waste of the character. I would have loved Jeff Goldblum as the Scarecrow, he could have made a strong climactic villain, and Cage would have been OK but Stern probably pretty bad and too (trying to be) reminiscent of Carrey as the Riddler.

I think it actually kind of makes sense that, having been the district attorney, on turning evil and crazy Dent *would* be pretty influenced by the (Nicholson) Joker. A lot of the portrayal still feels annoying thought.

I was thinking how today's superhero movies are designed with sequels and setting up cinematic universes in mind.
A movie like Batman Returns where the director had almost complete reign over everything would never happen nowadays.
So when you stop and think about it Batman Returns is really a one of a kind movie.

Let alone where a director has that kind of freedom and yet isn't reverent to his first movie, instead consciously makes the second film pretty independent to it.


It's pretty weird that Catwoman is very vague about whether there have or haven't been other superheroes or supervillains around, or where it's even set (not Gotham but not a sense of any specific place). Although if it is in the same continuity of BR I wonder if it maybe implies that Pfeiffer Catwoman died if there can only be one Catwoman at a time.

It's great how Timm is complimentary to Burton's films, especially liking the creepiness and moodiness and not just complaining, like some of the fans, that some things were too different from the comics and thus bad. Also cool that Englehart could enjoy BB despite thinking Batman was a little too different.

Almost surprising but not really that several thought there was too little use of the supporting cast, that the Batman character works better having and interacting with supporting characters and that without that the movies can easily be too much more about the villains.

Weird that Millar would bash the special effects of B89, a few shots to me do look dated (as do a few from BF) but I think hardly anyone complained about them back then.

I don't really get why Alan Grant thought even the Burton films were too campy rather than real, much more than the comics, it would be interesting to see what he thought of the Nolan films.

It would probably seem underwhelming if Ra's hadn't been killed and had just gone to jail, some viewers would probably think he could easily, quickly escape on his own or with his followers helping him.

The irony is that's exactly what I felt when he didn't kill the Joker at the end of the second film.

Yeah, Nolan sure got lucky that a lot of fans didn't complain that that ending was actually pretty/too inconclusive.

It's also understandable that Batman wouldn't feel merciful to Ra's, would think it's OK for him to suffer from his own scheme, after he had previously saved his life and that just led to Ra's feeling yet more vengeful.

Then it goes to show this Batman isn't really that righteous after all, does it? If it turns out that Batman has no issues with killing villains after all, then what is the supposed 'moral conflict'? What makes him any different to any other action hero? There's a massive inconsistency going on there.

I think a character can be righteous despite killing villains but aside from that there does seem to be a relevant difference between not saving someone, especially from the scheme or action they started, and killing them (even in a provoked fight/confrontation). Even Batman for example running into the Joker on his bike, as he refused to do in TDK, would certainly feel more brutal than just letting the Joker crash his own bike or car.

She was OK as a Bruce friend and Batman ally working in and believing in the system, despite its flaws, and a symbol of what Bruce had to sacrifice. Then in the sequel her relationship with Dent was OK but then continuing the possibly-getting-with-Bruce, with him eager, to retire so they could get together, made her seem both too prominent and the whole story too much of a love triangle.

It would probably seem underwhelming if Ra's hadn't been killed and had just gone to jail, some viewers would probably think he could easily, quickly escape on his own or with his followers helping him.

It's also understandable that Batman wouldn't feel merciful to Ra's, would think it's OK for him to suffer from his own scheme, after he had previously saved his life and that just led to Ra's feeling yet more vengeful.

The biggest things I would change would give Scarecrow much less, if any, connection with the League of Shadows, more like he's working for himself rather than someone else, and otherwise make it more of a surprise that the League of Shadows would come back and do what it planned to do (probably not announce its plan early on, instead be more vague about how they would try to bring reform even if it was always some villainous ways).

Put it this way, the thought that people would actually feel sympathy for Two-Face after getting manipulated by the man he knows was directly responsible for ruining his life AND then he threatened to murder a child afterwards out of a retarded desire for vengeance, is perhaps the most depraved thing I've ever heard in film discourse.

Well most versions of Two-Face feel bitterness toward their past, including to some extent specifically Batman, even though they also believe that good and evil are meaningless, only chance really decides actions and outcomes.
I think TDK also holds that Two-Face's background was tragic but his current actions make him not sympathetic.

There's another extra line from a novelization and the script-after Alfred takes Robin's side that Bruce isn't trusting Robin enough, Bruce complains "When did I become the bad guy?"