Batman-Online.com

Here are some quotes from writers and artists who worked on the Batman comics, each giving their opinion on the Tim Burton Batman films. If you can find any more quotes, please feel free to add them.

Matt Wagner

Quote"The Burton films were strong on atmosphere but obviously showed that Burton was more interested in the misfit villains than in his title character. In fact, BATMAN RETURNS is often credited as being a better film but I f***ing HATED how it made Batman little more than just another costumed creep, little better than the villains he's pursuing.
Additionally, Burton is so blatantly NOT an action director. That aspect of both his films just sucked."

http://www.batman-on-film.com/interview_mattwagner_jett_2006.html

Bruce Timm

Quote"Burton and Furst were probably influenced by pretty much the same sources we were [...] There were things about the first movie that I thought they got just right – the spooky aloofness that Batman has and the fact that he isn't chummy and hanging out with Commissioner Gordon. I was particularly taken by the scene where Batman takes Vicki Vale back to the Batcave and he's not making eye contact with her, he's not talking to her, he's just being monosyllabic. I thought that was a cool way to go with the character, and that probably influenced us to a degree. We wanted to keep him as remote and creepy as possible [...] Now the Catwoman thing, in retrospect I wish we had made Catwoman more like she was in the movie, because I think that black costume is really, really cool."

http://tiny.cc/fq7w1w

Lee Bermejo

Quote"At the time the first one came out, I was in fifth grade and absolutely loved it. It was so completely new and fresh at the time and obviously made a huge impact on how superhero movies would be done for the next ten years. Visually, they were impressive. Honestly, I can't watch it now because all I concentrate on is how loose the story is, and how little they made you care about the character the movie is named after. In my opinion, all the previous movies failed to be true Batman films because most of the important elements of the Batman mythos where missing. There was no relationship with Gordon, Alfred was never a real presence, and Batman never really did those cool Batman things. The guy could barely move in that suit and he always seemed a little weak to me. It seemed like the attitude was, 'Let's just get to Batman doing his thing so we can spend more time introducing the Joker". The second one was barely a Batman movie at all. It just featured Batman characters. That was clearly a case of Tim Burton doing his own thing with no real care about a story or what these characters represented. The last two were just unbearable and I couldn't get through more than 20 minutes of the fourth. I walked out of the theater it was so bad."

http://www.batman-on-film.com/leebermejointerview.html

Norm Breyfogle

Quote"I really didn't like ANY of the Batman movies. Tim Burton is far too much of a flake to do such a highly rationalistic super-hero. And there were SO MANY bad errors. Batman's costume being so stiff, eliminating ninja flexibility. Batman firing missiles into a crowd of citizens (even though he was ostensibly aiming at the Joker). Making Gotham City so weird that it didn't even really look like Earth (and Batman's supposed to be the more realistic of the superheroes!), etc., etc I understand that a more adult and subtle version of Batman MAY (and I emphasize may) not sell as well as a kid's merchandising franchise, but I'm not a kid!"

http://www.normbreyfogle.com/media/interviews.asp?page=ozcomics

Alan Grant

Quote"I had hoped that when the Batman movie franchise began, back in '89, it would tie Batman into real life and make Gotham a real if weird-to-the-max city. Instead, Tim Burton and the director who followed him (Schumacher, was it?) preferred to source their tales in the campness of the '60s TV show. Don't get me wrong—I loved the '60s TV show, which was must-see for me and all of my teenage friends; nobody went out on Saturday night till Batman was done. But it was a product of its time, and its time is long gone. Michael Keaton should have played the Joker, and Jack Nicholson should have been Batman/Bruce Wayne. That at least would have made both of them actually act for their money, instead of just playing at being themselves."

http://graphicnovelreporter.com/content/alan-grant-batman-and-beyond-interview

Geoff Johns (ranked Batman 89 amongst his top five favourite comic books movies)

Quote"I've got to give a nod to Tim Burton's 'Batman,' just because it did bring Batman into a whole different place and it took (him) away from the TV show."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/other_news/news/?a=39871

Mark Millar

Quote"You know how "Batman and Robin" is the worst movie ever made? You're wrong. It's the first Batman movie that bites the big one. Yeah, the Tim Burton picture everybody's supposed to like and, frankly, that came as a bit of a shock. I remember being dazzled by this when I was eighteen and went back to see it four times in three weeks. Oddly, I hadn't seen it since and was quite excited about seeing it again, but oh f*** is this movie bad. Tim Burton's "Batman" is the one thing beneath Judas Iscariot at the very base of Hell and Michael Keaton is terrible as Batman. We all loved him at the time because he seemed to be taking it seriously, but watch it now and you'll realise he was just bored. The special effects are "Plan 9 From Outer Space" awful (check out the Batwing sequence, I dare you) and everything from Kim Basinger and Robert Wuhl to the paper-thin plot makes this by far the worst of the batch. Even the brilliant Nicholson is embarrassing, indulged to the point of tedium and clearly out of his mind on drugs the whole time. Please try to watch this again before you leap to your nearest message board to defend this gilded dog-turd of a movie. I swear you won't make it past the first ten minutes.

Daniel Waters (oh-so fashionable screenwriter of the time) does a really nice job on "Batman Returns," although the fact that it all takes place around one stage makes the whole enterprise oddly claustrophobic and not in a good way. "Batman Forever" is probably the best of the bunch, digital technology giving the movie the gloss and pizzaz it's lacking in story and, God bless him, Jim Carrey is nothing if not American's finest living actor. He doesn't just steal every scene he's in; he steals it, takes it home and sends a ransom note to the other actors. He's breath-taking as The Riddler and had Tommy Lee Jones not f***ed up and delivered his lines as straight as they were I think this could have been quite close to very good indeed. The seeds are there, of course, for "Batman and Robin," but it's a waste of time to castigate that picture when we all know how sh*te it was anyway."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14523

Graham Nolan

Quote"This will sound like blasphemy, but I was never a big fan of DKR or the Tim Burton movies. Batman (to me) is always first and foremost a detective. He solves crimes using his superior intellect and incredible resources that the police can't handle. He works best as a character with a small group of supporting players."

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/bane-dixon-nolan-part-1.html

Paul Levitz (on Batman 89)

Quote"I think there was a hope that it would do some good, but nothing like what ultimately happened. The business about doubled as a result. It was a combination of things: the movie was such a radical departure from what had been done adapting comics [...] If somebody saw the movie and saw it and went 'I didn't realize comics were like that, or that even Batman was like that,' they had to go to a comic shop. That had a terrific power that we've never seen equaled from any of the comic book films by any of the publishers."

http://www.nycgraphicnovelists.com/2012/01/paul-levitz-history-of-past-and-future.html

Grant Morrison (on Batman 89)

Quote"Tim Burton's version is nothing like Frank Miller's Batman, but obviously it happened because of what Miller did in changing the consciousness of people towards Batman as an icon. It kind of shocked people – it allowed for Batman, at least, not to be treated as a purely camp or comedic or vaudeville type. That's what a lot of fans didn't like in Michael Keaton. He was a comedian – so, again, it was going be another cartoonish performance, and it kind of was – but it was a really Goth cartoon. What Michael Keaton brought to it was more in the Bruce Wayne role because, with Keaton, you really felt that Bruce Wayne was this damaged child. He was constantly bewildered. I thought it was a great performance. After you saw him as Bruce Wayne, you were willing to just buy the guy as Batman."

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/grant-morrison-on-batman-hes-got-everything-20120720/tim-burtons-1989-batman-19691231

(on Batman Returns)

Quote"I like the second Burton film. The whole film was about the effect Batman has had on everyone else. And I think that he gave people who might otherwise have been locked up in prison license to just put on a top hat or a latex suit and call themselves a fantastic name. I like it better than the first one, and I think Michelle Pfeiffer was really good. But on both movies it's a closed set, so it's models and, like, 30 people in Gotham, and only one street corner, and I find them quite claustrophobic. In retrospect, you have to watch them as if they're stage plays rather than movies. I think at the time I wouldn't even have noticed, but they really feel cramped – this really tiny fairy-tale world. But at the time they were groundbreaking – suddenly this Batman stuff could all be taken seriously."

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/grant-morrison-on-batman-hes-got-everything-20120720/batman-returns-19691231

Jason Aaron

Quote"Over the years, I think Joker and Two-Face have headlined the best stories. Penguin has rarely had his day, though Danny DeVito's performance in "Batman Returns" was pretty great."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16924

Scott Snyder (ranked both of Burton's films over Schumacher's and Nolan's):

Quote"I LOVE these both. I waited in line with my dad (with a commemorative BK glass I dropped – dropped! and had to get out of line to get again). This was like the Batman I'd been waiting for. A man whose whole city seems like a twisted projection of his own mind. A guy fighting demons in this wild, darkly imaginative and wholly realized world. I'll admit – I was a completely non-believer before seeing Batman in Michael Keaton, but in the end, he won me over."

http://ifanboy.com/articles/batman-writer-scott-snyder-ranks-the-movie-tv-batmen-exclusive-capullo-art/

Steve Englehart (on Batman 89)

Quote"I liked the whole thing a lot. I wish they hadn't changed Silver's and Thorne's names, but I thought they captured them, and Bat/Bruce and the Joker, very well. The thing that did it for me was Bruce saying at one point that he wasn't crazy, which of course is my view, and not that of many others."

http://dccomments.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=interviews&action=display&thread=16

(on the rest of the Burton/Schumacher series)

Quote"My opinion's the same as everyone else's: each one was worse than the one before. I wasn't involved with any of them."

http://www.batman-on-film.com/interview_steveenglehart_jett_2006.html

(on Batman Begins)

Quote"I thought it was an extremely well-written, well-directed, and well-acted movie about a guy who was very similar to The Batman but wasn't The Batman. Too many little things rang false about the character and his world for me to buy into it. But that didn't stop me from enjoying it a lot."

http://www.batman-on-film.com/interview_steveenglehart_jett_2006.html

(on Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight)

Quote"... Close but no cigar. His Joker is more nihilistic than insane, I thought; there was still a core of rationality in there. It's someone very like the Joker, but not the Joker. But I liked the character on screen a lot. As for the Oscar, I don't see why not, at least until we learn his competition. But Hollywood will want to honor him because they didn't give him one for "Brokeback.""

http://www.norwalkreflector.com/article/54017

Thanks for digging and finding these, Silver Nemesis.  Haven't read some of these before.

There was discussion in the Your Version of Batman Begins thread about Mark Millar and now that Silver's posted the quote, I wanted to bring something up that's important.

First off, I think Millar's entitled to his opinion- whether we agree with it or not- so I'm not going to bash him for expressing it.

I am, however, going to question how truthful he was being.

His work in comics aside, the man's had a wishy-washy reputation for talking about projects/characters that aren't his own.  If he's talking about the next Kick-Ass movie or Nemesis, he's probably telling the truth.  His opinion on someone else's project, though?

Let's run down what I've experienced from him:

Millar actually first came to my attention in 2003 when he posted the "story" about Orson Welles' failed Batman project. 
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14529

While there are some who still believe in it up until this day, the story was revealed to be a hoax, particularly when knowledgeable fans pointed out that there was no way Jimmy Cagney could've been cast as the Riddler in 1944-1946 when the character didn't exist until 1948.

At the time, this was easy to dismiss as Millar playing a joke.  A "what-if" story, though it would've been nice if he had said so in the same article.

A year later, Millar broke the scoop that people were dying to know: who was going to be Superman in Bryan Singer's Superman movie?
Millar's answer: JIM CAVIEZEL!
http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/86661-mark-millar-confident-caviezel-is-superman

He stated:

QuoteJust to hammer home how confident I am as regards my source (pretty much as good as it gets), I will personally write a cheque to charity for 1000 dollars from my Wolverine royalties (Wolverine 20 and 21 out October 2004) if Jim Caviezel isn't cast as Superman on the day principal photography starts. Warners may have a couple of PR stunts planned prior to the final announcement, but this is a bet that Jim C is standing there in a Superman costume once the cameras start rolling.

I'm not sure if he ever did write that money off to charity but as we all know, Caviezel was not standing in the Superman costume before cameras were rolling.

Last year, Will Beall was announced to be doing the Justice League script.  Millar claimed that he had heard great things about it, saying in June 2012:

QuoteA pal of mine is good friends with the new Justice League screenwriter and said his take on the team is incredible. Very real-world and not at all what you might expect. WB has a chequered history with their superhero characters. They're great with their boy wizards, but less consistent with their DC stable. But my chum said that this could be a thing of beauty and has been in the works for a little while now, not just an avengers knock-off. Best of luck to them. The tidbits I heard sound quite dark and mature, which isn't what I expected. But word on Gangster Squad is great too so I feel this is in really good hands.

http://www.slashfilm.com/mark-millar-justice-league-script-dark-mature/

Flash forward to February 2013 and Millar apparently thought the whole project was a bad idea:

Quote"Now the stuff I grew up with... I adored the DC stuff growing up but really, how do you do a movie about Green Lantern," asks Millar, "his power is that he manifests green plasma from his imagination and uses them as weapons against someone? Even that in itself if you just imagine then watching a fight scene with a guy who's like a hundred feet away making plasma manifestations fight someone – it's not exactly raucous, getting up close and personal.

"The Flash has door handles on the side of his mask and if he doesn't wear that mask, I'll be pissed off, you know what I mean? They're in a weird, weird situation – if you've got a guy who moves at the speed of light up against the Weather Wizard and Captain Cold or whatever, then your movie's over in two seconds.

"You can get away with stuff in comics that in live action's just a bit sucky – the best one is definitely Aquaman. Aquaman can't even talk under water. If you think about it in comics it's fine, you just have a speech balloon, but how do you have Atlantis and people talking under water? Are they gonna talking telepathically? Is it going to be body forms? The actual logistics of each member of the Justice League is disastrous, and you put them all together and I think you get an excellent way of losing $200 million."

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/33956/justice-league-film-is-an-excellent-way-of-losing-200-million/

No mention made of all the good things that he had "previously heard" about the project.  In fact, if you click on the Millarworld source link in the Slashfilm article where Millar had praised what he heard about JLA, you'll find that it directs to a thread that's been deleted.  Hmm...
http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?/topic/100844-this-new-justice-league-movie/

Now, in November 2012, just before he apparently changed his tune about Justice League, Millar got the role of consultant for the Marvel projects at Fox:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42105

Perhaps this had an "influence" on his opinion. 

It was in this role as consultant that he got asked questions about the next big X-Men film, Days of Future Past, and gave out intel in interviews, like this one from February 2013:
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/02/01/mark-millar-on-x-men-days-of-future-past/

A month later, in March, the film's director Bryan Singer was asked about Millar's involvement.  Singer's answer: he wasn't involved at all yet.

QuoteI've not spoken to Mark Millar at all. He's not involved. I don't know what his role is about. All I know is that I have my own specific beliefs about how to take this universe forward. I started with the first X-Men, then First Class and now I am combining them and I think it could go further than that and I have some ideas about that, so perhaps he should chat to me at some point.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/03/11/bryan-singer-on-mark-millars-involvement-in-x-men-days-of-future-past/

While Millar had never said that he met Singer in the first place, it's a bit odd for him to have established authority to talk about the project when he hadn't even met with the director yet...

So, now let's look at his opinion on Batman 1989 in this context, along with something else people should know. 

This piece that Silver Nemesis found is from September 2003.

From 2008-2010, Millar wrote the comic Kick-Ass.  What superhero movie gets a tribute not once but twice in the story?  Batman 1989. 

The character Red Mist drives to the Danny Elfman soundtrack (I believe) and consciously quotes the Jack Nicholson Joker at the end of the comic (and the movie) with "As a great man once said, 'Wait'll they get a load of me.' "

Now, perhaps Millar was feeding his disdain for the movie by having his supervillain like it. 

Still, it's an odd choice.  Perhaps Millar's opinion on the film just happened to change...again.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri, 16 Aug  2013, 21:18
The character Red Mist drives to the Danny Elfman soundtrack (I believe) and consciously quotes the Jack Nicholson Joker at the end of the comic (and the movie) with "As a great man once said, 'Wait'll they get a load of me.' "

Now, perhaps Millar was feeding his disdain for the movie by having his supervillain like it.  

Still, it's an odd choice.  Perhaps Millar's opinion on the film just happened to change...again.

If you're right and Miller's intention is to imply that a typical fan of 'Batman '89' is a megalomaniac child-killing would-be rapist then he's an even bigger dick then I realised, and no I don't apologise for the language in this instance because if true that's a pretty douchey thing for Miller to do.  >:(

In any case, whatever he thinks of the film that entire line plays off his readers and the film-audience's knowledge and appreciation of that iconic line so it seems rather hypocritical of him to rubbish the movie as he has done.  Also how can I trust the word of somebody who has so drastically changed his opinion about a film he remained 'dazzled' by after watching four times over three weeks as an adult?

Besides, if Miller is going to compare his immature, bratty, control-hungry arch-villain to any sets of fans shouldn't he be looking at the types of fanboys who vote down popular movies on IMDb en masse, who attack professional critics on 'Rotten Tomatoes' for daring to say the slightest criticism and who are known for their rabid slogan 'In Nolan We Trust'?  Now what set of fans could I possibly be thinking of...hmmmm...

I know I'm the one who proposed the theory, but really, there's very little evidence, other than Red Mist liking the movie, to suggest it holds weight.  (And even then, I'm not sure if RM liking the film means anything.  Alex DeLarge in Clockwork Orange likes Beethoven.  Is the author of that book condemning Beethoven?). 

If Millar wanted to use the Kick-Ass comic to trash or condemn B89, he could've easily done more with the connection.  Kick-Ass would ask Red Mist, "You liked that movie?" or Red Mist would try to emulate Nicholson's Joker more while committing terrible acts, etc.  Such disdain would also likely bleed through into other works.  As it stands, none of this stuff happened.

I think it's more likely that Millar will just say anything to get attention and people talking about him.  It's the only way I can make sense out of the Orson Welles hoax, the Caviezel claim, the JLA claim, the JLA criticism, and talking big about X-Men: DOFP when he wasn't even involved with production.

In 2003, before any of that and before his comics were getting adapted into movies, he may have just said whatever he wanted in order to get a reaction and get people talking about him.

In reality, I think he might actually hold affection for the film, which bled through into writing Kick-Ass.  Let's face it, in 2008-2010 when he was working on the comic, the 1989 movie was not the Batman movie people were talking about all the time.  It was The Dark Knight. 

While Millar could've easily had Dark Knight references in Kick-Ass, he chose to reference the 1989 movie (twice!) instead.  To me, that says something positive about his opinion on the movie.  Otherwise, out of all the superhero movies before 2010, why reference the supposed "worst Batman movie?"

At the time, his statements on the '89 film were five-seven years old and he probably didn't count on someone like Silver Nemesis digging up an old CBR post where he expressed his "feelings."

Given that Mark Millar first gave praise to that Justice League script that ended up being scrapped, to suddenly saying that most JL characters wouldn't work in live-action, it makes me suspect that he talks garbage for the sake of attention. He comes across as two-faced. I haven't even read any of his comics, and I have no interest in doing so after watching that reprehensible piece of trash called Kick-Ass.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 17 Aug  2013, 02:18
In reality, I think he might actually hold affection for the film, which bled through into writing Kick-Ass.  Let's face it, in 2008-2010 when he was working on the comic, the 1989 movie was not the Batman movie people were talking about all the time.  It was The Dark Knight. 

On balance, that's what I think too.  Why reference a movie if it's the 'worst film ever made'?

His comments just come off as incredibly inconsistent.  Also, I could understand if he'd been a child when he first saw 'Batman '89' and was swept away in the hype, but he was an 18-year-old when he watched the movie fours times in three weeks.  I adore the movie but even if I had been lucky enough to see the film on the big-screen when it first came out I doubt I would have wanted to watch it more than twice in quick succession.

I just kind of switch myself off now to all this needless criticism. I'm so fed up of it all. Once you've read a dozen of so whining blogs about each Batman film it really does hurt the enjoyment of watching the films. It got to a point where instead of enjoying the brilliant performance of Jack Nicholson as usual I was looking out for justification of his haters comments. Jack Nicholson!....one of the greatest actors in our time playing a classic Batman character and we're being encouraged to prove how terrible it really all is? Frankly I'd rather sit back, relax and enjoy each of the 7 Warner's films a million times more than I already have before I hit the crematorium. Because life's too short to moan.

I must admit I'm disappointed by several of the above quotes especially coming from people I admire such as Norm Breyfogle. These were the first comics I enjoyed at the time of first seeing the movies and for me they go hand in hand in entertainment. You'd think the DC creative staff would get behind the feature films a little more and appreciate them being made at all. Filmmakers could always have spent their money elsewhere after all and then the creators could have a moan as to why their work was being rejected from being adapted. Still I advise other fans to ignore criticism like this. I couldn't give two craps what even the DC creative people think. If you let other morons tell you what to enjoy your living a very sad life in my book.

I've never read Kick Ass nor seen the movies. Just glimpsing them in trailers was enough for me to see how dreadful it all is. I cannot believe comic fans actually buy this overrated trash. So Mark Millar's views is something you can easily laugh off.

I admire what the filmmakers achieved and they should be respected for their worthy tries. After all in movie land there is just (if that) 2 hours to fit in decades of Batman history. Can you really blame them for sacrificing a relationship between Batman and Gordon and just leaving it off for a much later movie? Graham Nolan's comments were quite shocking. The nerve of this guy to criticize when he himself wrote The Dark Knight Rises! He's no angel himself.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sun, 18 Aug  2013, 16:14
Graham Nolan's comments were quite shocking. The nerve of this guy to criticize when he himself wrote The Dark Knight Rises! He's no angel himself.

Well, Graham Nolan co-created Bane and co-wrote the original Bane comics that Rises drew inspiration from. 

If you mean the writers of the Dark Knight Rises, that was Chris & Jonathan Nolan, with David Goyer, who (I don't think) have had critical comments of the previous movies, other than Goyer remarking once that he wish they hadn't killed off Nicholson's Joker.

Wow. BatmAngelus, you just nuked Millar's credibility in one post. I didn't realise he was the source of the Orson Welles and Caviezel (cast him as Batman, Snyder!) rumours. And I hadn't bothered to cross reference the date of the Batman 89 review against the publication date of Kick-Ass. Maybe he's started to appreciate the movie more since writing that review. In any case, I don't think we should read too much into what he's said and written. I'm sure he wasn't taking a shot at Burton fans with the Red Mist character. For one thing, Millar just isn't that subtle. And for another, his criticism of the 89 film strikes me more as an expression of humour than genuine contempt. I think he was just trying to write a funny article about how bad comic book movies were in general, and he strayed a little too far into polemics. Don't take it too much to heart.

I don't think anyone should be upset by these quotes. These people are entitled to their opinions and some of them highlight perfectly valid flaws in the films. It doesn't mean they're completely right, or that your own opinion is wrong, or that you shouldn't enjoy the movies anymore. I've studied critical theory in connection with both film and literature, so I can't help analysing things and looking for faults in them. No work of art is truly perfect, but the trick is to see if the merits outweigh the flaws. If criticism of a film detracts from your enjoyment to the point where you no longer like it, then the film couldn't have been that good to begin with. But if you still enjoy a film, even after confronting its faults, then that's the sign of good movie.

QuoteNow, in November 2012, just before he apparently changed his tune about Justice League, Millar got the role of consultant for the Marvel projects at Fox:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42105

Perhaps this had an "influence" on his opinion.

And now he's endorsed the Superman vs. Batman film:

Quote"No, not at all," he replied. "I actually think it's a brilliant idea. Justice League would have been a really weird move for them. Could you imagine doing The Avengers without doing Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and everything beforehand?"

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/mark-millar-talks-batman-vs-superman-172700892.html

The plot thickens...

QuoteI've never read Kick Ass nor seen the movies [...] I cannot believe comic fans actually buy this overrated trash.

In fairness, how do you know it's overrated if you haven't seen or read it?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Aug  2013, 19:07
In any case, I don't think we should read too much into what he's said and written. I'm sure he wasn't taking a shot at Burton fans with the Red Mist character. For one thing, Millar just isn't that subtle. And for another, his criticism of the 89 film strikes me more as an expression of humour than genuine contempt. I think he was just trying to write a funny article about how bad comic book movies were in general, and he strayed a little too far into polemics. Don't take it too much to heart.

I don't think anyone should be upset by these quotes. These people are entitled to their opinions and some of them highlight perfectly valid flaws in the films. It doesn't mean they're completely right, or that your own opinion is wrong, or that you shouldn't enjoy the movies anymore. I've studied critical theory in connection with both film and literature, so I can't help analysing things and looking for faults in them. No work of art is truly perfect, but the trick is to see if the merits outweigh the flaws. If criticism of a film detracts from your enjoyment to the point where you no longer like it, then the film couldn't have been that good to begin with. But if you still enjoy a film, even after confronting its faults, then that's the sign of good movie.

Agreed.  The main reason I singled out Millar is because of his poor track record with the truth.  If I thought the quote was his genuine opinion, like with the others, I wouldn't have commented.

I believe at one point I read something by Greg Rucka criticizing the Burton/Schumacher films in how Batman killed in their movies (well technically B89-Forever.  Is it funny how George Clooney, perhaps the most maligned Batman actor, is the only live action Batman from the WB movies to not kill anyone?) and that he couldn't see that version of Batman as a hero.

I was curious lately what Rucka thought about the Nolan interpretation, since Batman is still responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Two-Face, and Talia.  I dug into it and while he didn't comment on the "Batman kills" aspect of the films, his response on the Dark Knight Trilogy was:

QuoteI think they're exceptionally well-made films that are inherently ashamed of the fact they're about a superhero who calls himself "Batman."

http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/30045442431/what-has-your-opinion-been-on-the-nolan-batman-trilogy

Quote
And now he's endorsed the Superman vs. Batman film:

Quote"No, not at all," he replied. "I actually think it's a brilliant idea. Justice League would have been a really weird move for them. Could you imagine doing The Avengers without doing Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and everything beforehand?"

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/mark-millar-talks-batman-vs-superman-172700892.html

The plot thickens...

To be fair, Millar just criticized how the other JLA members- Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman- would work on film when he did the 180 and slammed the JLA movie concept.  His new comments about JL seems consistent with that, at least.

I think even he knows it'd be tough for him to bash a Superman vs. Batman story since he's famous for writing one in Red Son.

Thanks for posting Rucka's opinions. I didn't know he'd commented on the films.

QuoteIs it funny how George Clooney, perhaps the most maligned Batman actor, is the only live action Batman from the WB movies to not kill anyone?) and that he couldn't see that version of Batman as a hero.

There's a troubling thought: from a moral standpoint, Clooney's Batman is actually the closest to the comics. :-[

I was going to say that West never killed anyone, but he and Robin did accidentally turn those rehydrated pirates into antimatter in the '66 movie. Though that was more the Penguin's doing than theirs.

QuoteI think even he knows it'd be tough for him to bash a Superman vs. Batman story since he's famous for writing one in Red Son.

And Millar can't very well criticise the casting of an older actor to go up against Cavill, since he portrayed the Red Son Batman as being about fifteen years younger than Superman. Snyder's just inverting the disparity so it's Batman who's older.

Does anyone know what Alan Moore thought of the 89 movie? I thought someone on this site once said something about him phoning Burton to compliment him on the film, but I can't find any evidence of that. I know he described Sam Hamm as "an excellent screenwriter" and was happy to have him write the Watchmen movie: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/mwop/moviefile/2008/10/alan-moore-endorsed-watchmen-m/

But that was in 1987. Did his opinion of Hamm change after he saw the 1989 Batman film?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs7.postimg.org%2Ffvzirt4dj%2Fbr_oneill.jpg&hash=4b044da0fea735806897cfb3c7b5e327451106cc) (http://postimg.org/image/fvzirt4dj/)

"I expect audiences will still be applauding Tim Burton's Batman in whatever the world will become in the next fifty years" - Dennis O'Neil, 1992

EDIT: Adding a link to the beginning of this discussion (Matt Wagner's opinion on Burton's Batman)

LINK - YOUR VERSION OF BATMAN BEGINS (http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2472.msg36589#msg36589)

Yes! That's the one! Great job finding it, Enigma. This quote in particular is what I was thinking of:

Quote"Burton found film equivalents for the best work of the comics' artists and writers and then realised them brilliantly [...] I expect audiences will still be applauding Tim Burton's Batman in whatever the world will become in the next fifty years."

Whatever O'Neil may have said about Burton's movies in recent years, he clearly wasn't so disdainful towards them at the time.

I haven't read O'Neil's thoughts on the Burton films in recent years.  What did he say that indicated he changed his tune?

Several of the BOF crew are very pleased with Scott Snyder's recent work with Batman, so Snyder's choice in Bat-films struck me as very amusing.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 20 Aug  2013, 20:51
Yes! That's the one! Great job finding it, Enigma. This quote in particular is what I was thinking of:

Quote"Burton found film equivalents for the best work of the comics' artists and writers and then realised them brilliantly [...] I expect audiences will still be applauding Tim Burton's Batman in whatever the world will become in the next fifty years."

Whatever O'Neil may have said about Burton's movies in recent years, he clearly wasn't so disdainful towards them at the time.

Those words from Dennis O' Neil came from I believe a Batman Returns souvenir magazine to which he wrote the intro. Just like to add he also wrote a piece for the Batman Forever book in which he rather shockingly considered in regards to the script that this is: "...maybe the best Batman movie". Do I sense your eyebrows raising at reading that last sentence? lol Go and find this article and take a look.

Just goes to show that while O'Neil is a fine writer and a true "ambassador" for all things Batman he's nevertheless a very confused guy just like us mere fan boys and can't seem to make up his mind what he truly thinks about matters. I personally love Batman Forever and for a little while in the nineties it truly was the best Batman movie for me and my dad. Certainly the biggest. I take it fans would take a slight issue with this quote nowadays.

Cobblepot4Mayor, where would you place 'Batman Forever' in relation to 'Batman '89' and 'Batman Returns' these days?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 20 Aug  2013, 22:37
I haven't read O'Neil's thoughts on the Burton films in recent years.  What did he say that indicated he changed his tune?

I'd like to see that quote as well.

Man, I hope Silver Nemesis didn't leave us due to Caviezel not getting the Batman part  :(

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun,  1 Sep  2013, 04:53
Man, I hope Silver Nemesis didn't leave us due to Caviezel not getting the Batman part  :(

He's in my basement. If there wasn't tape around his mouth, he'd say hi.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun,  1 Sep  2013, 04:53
Man, I hope Silver Nemesis didn't leave us due to Caviezel not getting the Batman part  :(

It's a shame Silver Nemesis has been so quiet lately although I don't see why he would leave the site on that basis.

I was half-joking.  Still, I haven't seen a post from him, post-Affleck casting, and I was curious what he thought.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 31 Aug  2013, 20:11
Cobblepot4Mayor, where would you place 'Batman Forever' in relation to 'Batman '89' and 'Batman Returns' these days?

Hi. Well let's not be too foolish here. As a maturer guy now of course the Keaton movies are better and my favorites. I did start off with them. I'd certainly rank Batman Forever in third place. Because it's been around longer and I have fantastic memories of going to see it I wouldn't rank any of the Bale pictures over it (though Batman Begins is my fourth favorite).

Maybe you had to be a certain age to appreciate the third one. I'll certainly never forget how popular and huge it was in the summer of 95. Ve Neil, the lady who did most of the films makeup, commented in the making of book that the film felt much bigger and more elaborate than what Batman Returns had been designed to be. I just think the action sequences got larger and certainly more insaner than previously (where else will you find a "wall crawling" Batmobile? lol). It seemed a lot more packed with action and the cast of characters felt grander too. Seeing my favorite villain of the time, the Riddler, as the main villain was a big deal and of course finally getting Robin. I still love the Batcave scene when Robin properly enters the movie in costume. My dad and I loved watching the tv show at the time so getting a feel of that in the modern films was a tremendous exciting thrill and turned the whole ending of the third film onto another level than the previous two. It's hard to disregard how massive something was and how much you had a great time seeing it.

Dennis O'Neil on Tim Burton's Batman (August 29, 2013)

QuoteWhen the world learned that Michael Keaton had been chosen to drive the Batmobile in director Tim Burton's 1988 Batman it seemed like a highly questionable pairing of performer and role. But what we didn't know, all of us inclined to say nay, was that Mr. Burton had his own vision of what the character might be and proceeded accordingly. Not my vision, but a vision that was valid on its own terms. Burton made a pretty good movie and then he made another. Not great flicks, but I'll generally settle for pretty good.

Source: ComicMix.com (http://www.comicmix.com/columns/2013/08/29/dennis-oneil-ben-fans/)

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun,  1 Sep  2013, 04:53
Man, I hope Silver Nemesis didn't leave us due to Caviezel not getting the Batman part  :(

Verily, my butthurt on that score knows no bounds. But Warner Bros have made their choice (for better or worse), so we'd best make the most of it.

Regarding my recent absence, I'm afraid I couldn't get a decent internet signal from The Dark Knight's basement... ugh, that is to say I took a break from the internet for a while to enjoy the summer holidays.

As for the whole Batfleck controversy, I've got a lot of thoughts on that subject. I'll post them when I've got more time (expect some of my signature rambling posts). But for now I'll just say that I'm in the "give the guy a chance" camp. I do have serious misgivings about the project as a whole, and I think there were other rumoured actors who would've been more suitable for the part. But I'm still willing to give him a shot. He might surprise us.

Part of the reason I'm keeping an open mind about Affleck is because I don't like how nasty some of the personal attacks on him have gotten. I'm not his biggest fan, but these rumours about death threats and suicide pacts are just horrible. You'd think with all that's going on in the world (Syria anyone?) people would have a more balanced perspective on the matter.

But like I say, I'll post more on the subject soon.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  1 Sep  2013, 23:07
Dennis O'Neil on Tim Burton's Batman (August 29, 2013)

QuoteWhen the world learned that Michael Keaton had been chosen to drive the Batmobile in director Tim Burton's 1988 Batman it seemed like a highly questionable pairing of performer and role. But what we didn't know, all of us inclined to say nay, was that Mr. Burton had his own vision of what the character might be and proceeded accordingly. Not my vision, but a vision that was valid on its own terms. Burton made a pretty good movie and then he made another. Not great flicks, but I'll generally settle for pretty good.

Source: ComicMix.com (http://www.comicmix.com/columns/2013/08/29/dennis-oneil-ben-fans/)

Thanks for posting this. I've not read this quote before. It's certainly the most recent comment I've seen from O'Neil on the subject. I think he did say some negative things about the Burton movies round about the time Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were released. But it looks like his attitude has grown more favourable since then.

Ha!  Glad to see you're alive and well, my friend.  Not to derail this thread into talking about Affleck, but I agree with your sentiments.

Thanks for sharing the O'Neil quote, SilentEnigma.  Interesting to see O'Neil's stance change over time.  I'd be curious to hear what he thinks of Batman Forever now, in light of his "maybe the best Batman movie" speculation for the Batman Forever Official Movie Magazine.

I was just browsing James' blog over at 1989Batmancom and I found this interesting quote from Bob Kane concerning Batman Returns.

Bob Kane (on Batman Returns)

Quote"The movie has a dark brooding atmosphere with some comedic dialogue relief. The dialogue is kind of risqué in certain parts, more adult, I think. It's a very good movie."

Quoted in "Comics Scene Spectacular" Issue #6, July 1992
http://www.1989batman.com/2013/08/vintage-magazine-article-comics-scene.html

Add that to the positive quotes we've already gathered from Denny O'Neil, Grant Morrison, Jason Aaron and Scott Snyder and it looks like Batman Returns isn't so hated in the comic industry after all.

Can anyone find any more quotes? I've always got the impression that Paul Dini, Bruce Timm and Mike Mignola were fans of Batman Returns. But aside from a few comments on the DVD extras, I can't seem to find any definitive statements from them. Can anyone else?

Here's a quote from Paul Dini, though not directly related to Returns:

QuoteTim Burton's vision was very over the top; a little bit Gothic but at the same time sort of like Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Christopher Nolan's Batman was very modern day; it almost got to the point where I was watching the movie and I was noticing landmarks as I'm a native of Chicago where it was shot. To some degree I don't think Batman works in a completely modern city; I think Gotham has be reflective of his personality and those of his enemies.

Ann Nocenti (on the characterisation of Selina Kyle in Batman Returns)

Quote"When she turns into Catwoman, she takes her frumpy little apartment and she destroys it. She realizes she was locked into a non-feminist life as a downtrodden secretary. And she just rips that to shreds. To me, that's a feminist moment. From then on, she takes care of her stuff. She doesn't fit in at a work-a-week, wage-slave job. And never again."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/story/2012/09/17/catwoman-writer-embraces-feline-accidental-feminist/57794298/1

I have an even more bashful quote by Joss Whedon (from a 2005 issue of Wizard). You sure want to see it?

Let's see it, SE!

Wizard # 155, September 2004

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatman-online.com%2Fimages%2F13811013541649.jpg&hash=67f39151e94dba8b3647e93436bc780c2a3f8411) (http://www.batman-online.com/gallery/4483/wizard-batman-begins)

(EDIT - adding the full page in the Gallery a few days after this discussion)

Just curious, what were his order for "favorite Batman movies?"  Besides B89-B&R, is the fifth movie B66?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 29 Sep  2013, 22:34
Just curious, what were his order for "favorite Batman movies?"  Besides B89-B&R, is the fifth movie B66?

I was 50/50 about adding this particular article in the gallery.. It wasn't an order of the Bat-franchise, in this article he writes them off completely. It was a list of movies which he thinks have a "Batman" feel. Only the first is an actual Batfilm.

1. Mask of the Phantasm, 2. Spider-Man, 3. Last of the Mohicans, 4. Unbreakable, 5. The Thomas Crown Affair (Brosnan version)

Hmm, interesting way to do it.  Does he write out his thoughts on each one or does he just list the movies?

Well, better upload it in full  :)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbatman-online.com%2Fimages%2F13811013541649.jpg&hash=67f39151e94dba8b3647e93436bc780c2a3f8411) (http://www.batman-online.com/gallery/4483/wizard-batman-begins)

(EDIT - adding the full page in the Gallery a few days after this discussion)

Thanks, Silent Enigma.

In reading his Spider-Man section, I'm curious what he thought of the Batman Begins ending where Rachel turns down Bruce.

Sorry but f*** Whedon.  This stupid piece makes me wonder if I should boycott 'Shield' and the next 'Avengers' movie.  I never liked the guy until the last 'Avengers' film anyway and it does make me wonder how much of the 'Avengers' success was down to him.  He's one to talk about bad dialogue...

By the way, isn't Whedon the one who wrote a Batman movie treatment featuring none of the Rogues Gallery but some 'Hannibal Lector' rip-off of his own conception?

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/11/joss-whedon-talks-about-his-batman-movie-that-never-was/ (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/11/joss-whedon-talks-about-his-batman-movie-that-never-was/)

Also, 'Hulk' is a great movie and both Ang Lee and Tim Burton are ten times the auteur he will ever be.

So yeah, thanks Silent Enigma on reminding me why I hate Whedon and why I should probably give anything produced by that self-publicising prick a pass in future.

I could care less about what Joss Whedon has to say about Burton's Batman, though the guy has gotten big-headed since the Avengers' success. He says he's got a problem with the ending of The Empire Strikes Back because it was too obvious into setting up a sequel. I wonder if he has the same problem for The Dark Knight then, or is he yet another Nolan sycophant?  ::)

That's not all though, he describes that comedic scene where Indiana Jones kills that Arab swordsman in The Temple of Doom to be everything that's "wrong" with contemporary cinema.  ???

Sources:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/23/joss-whedon-star-wars-the-empire-strikes-back-ending-was-terrible-3935959/
http://www.slashfilm.com/joss-whedon-points-at-temple-of-doom-scene-as-example-of-cultural-problem/

I saw those quotes a few weeks back too Laughing Fish.  Like you say, Whedon has gotten big-headed lately.

It seems to have become fashionable lately to dump on Lucas and Spielberg which is perhaps symptomatic of the current Nolan-love-in.  Anything that threatens his or Whedon's positions at the top of the blockbuster director pantheon has to be brought down a peg or two.  The difference between Lucas & Spielberg, and Whedon & Nolan of course is that the former two came up with entirely fresh material (albeit material that was inspired in part by the serials and fantasy novels they'd grown up with) and in the process completely rewrote the language of popular cinema, whereas the latter two had to adapt already proven & tested popular icons in order to come up with their big blockbuster successes (heck even Nolan's first Batman film only did so-so business at the box-office relative to inflation meaning that he was quite lucky to get another chance with the character).

While it's interesting for me to read different opinions from other well-known comic creators, their actual opinions don't affect me one way or another.  They don't change what I think of the movie or of the people themselves.  If this thread had more comic creators gushing love for Burton, I'd feel just as ambivalent.

I might disagree with them, but I've got no problem with Whedon, Wagner, Rucka, etc. as long as:
a) they back up their opinions with why they felt that way (which most, if not all, of them did)
b) they're consistent (thus, why I went after Mark Millar's credibility.  He's never consistent)
c) they don't attack the people whose opinions differ from them. 

It's the same thing with my friends.  I don't expect them to agree with me, but as long as they exemplify all three things, I don't really care.

I don't think any film is above criticism.  When it comes to Whedon's comments on Empire Strikes Back and Temple of Doom, I find them both valid and I'm someone who grew up with Star Wars and Indiana Jones.  Maybe they feel a bit exaggerated ("a cultural problem?") but, again, he at least goes into his reasons.

He criticized ESB's ending for lacking closure and setting up a sequel, which is something I've criticized movies today for anyway (Prometheus anyone?). 

And his criticism of Temple of Doom's scene is that it's reliant on you watching the gun vs. swordsman scene from Raiders to get the joke rather than anything planted in the movie's story itself (Not to mention the fact that Temple is technically a prequel, so Indy hasn't even done the gun trick).  There's a lot of franchise movies that do this on a bigger scale and I take issue with them too.  A ton of Star Trek Into Darkness, for example, (SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT-) is built off of you knowing The Wrath of Khan, which is one of the reasons why I didn't think it worked that well.  If you never saw the Wrath of Khan, then the whole Khan story has little significance to you and, worse, Khan's identity, when it's revealed, doesn't even have any significance to the characters.  A lot of its story is built off of another movie's back.

Perhaps it seems big-headed for him to use films that are part of people's childhoods, but, as I said before, I don't think any movie's above criticism.  Even if I disagreed with him on the movies, he still backs up why he feels that way and doesn't attack Star Wars or Indiana Jones fans.  In both instances, he was talking about storytelling and filmmaking on a broad scale and used well-known movies to help us understand the points he was making. 

I agree that down the line, ESB and ToD will probably be more memorable in cinema history than any movie he makes, but I don't think that makes his points less valid.  Just because the Batman Online posters here aren't filmmakers doesn't mean that our criticisms of, say, Batman & Robin or The Dark Knight Rises are any less valid either.

And, guys, what does Nolan have to do with it?  Whedon's Wizard article was obviously written before Begins came out (and, hell, even features Whedon saying that he doesn't have much faith in it) and I see no indication that his comments on ESB or ToD have anything to do with Nolan either.  I believe he's made positive comments about the Nolan Batman movies over the years, but...so what?

And, really, if we're taking the whole spectrum of Whedon's comments into account, he is on the record criticizing The Dark Knight, too:

Quote"The Dark Knight," for me, has the same problem that every other "Batman" movie has. It's not about Batman.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/05/03/avengers-director-joss-whedon-on-trying-to-be-more-like-buffy/2/

I'm not Joss Whedon's #1 fan.  I've only seen one of his TV shows (Angel) and The Avengers.  But I don't have a problem with his opinions.

I love you guys and I completely understand that we live at a time where every other site overlooks the Burton movies.  Most of us here have a great love for B89 and BR.  But if this thread's going to bash every person who criticizes the Burton movies, how different is it from a forum where posters bash everyone who criticizes the Nolan movies?

Well put, BatmAngelus, I agree whole-heartedly.

But that's just my opinion  ;D

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 30 Sep  2013, 16:01
Most of us here have a great love for B89 and BR.  But if this thread's going to bash every person who criticizes the Burton movies, how different is it from a forum where posters bash everyone who criticizes the Nolan movies?

Agreed.

Agreed 100%

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 30 Sep  2013, 16:01
I love you guys and I completely understand that we live at a time where every other site overlooks the Burton movies.  Most of us here have a great love for B89 and BR.  But if this thread's going to bash every person who criticizes the Burton movies, how different is it from a forum where posters bash everyone who criticizes the Nolan movies?

Of course you're right BatmAngelus and I admit I was wrong to bash Whedon simply for not liking 'Batman', although since most of us here are fairly likeminded when it comes to our appreciation of the Burton Batman films I didn't feel it was quite so bad as making a similar comment on a more general film forum (something that I tend to avoid for fear of causing an argument or being seen as a 'troll').  I guess I was being a hypocrite but my problem also partly extends to Whedon's various criticisms.  I just feel many of them are the same clichéd nonsense that gets trotted out all the time to bash the film (i.e. the Prince songs, which as another poster pointed out is still far superior to featuring bleedin' Take That in an 'X-Man' film, and heaven forbid, Jack Nicholson wasn't quite as svelte as the Joker from the comic-books) or just plain misguided (Whedon takes a lot of pride in his dialogue but I can't think of anything he's ever written that ranks alongside 'where does he get those wonderful toys?' or 'ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight' in terms of memorability, and in fact, a lot of Whedon's dialogue often comes across as smug and self-reverential, which is admittedly one of the issues I have with some of Daniel Waters' writing for the first pre-Wesley Strick re-write draft of 'Batman Returns).

Mike Mignola (comparing Burton's two Batman films with Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy films)

QuoteThe first film, to me, was all about Guillermo putting my comic on the screen. Through the course of that first movie, he gradually took possession of those characters. With Hellboy 2, it's about Del Toro owning those characters. What you see there is truly a Del Toro Hellboy. He's much more confident.

In a way, the best way to compare it is to Tim Burton's Batman. The first Batman film was fine, but it was a little safe. With the second film, you could see that Burton was saying he was going to do the crazy sh*t only he was capable of. He was putting his personality on the character. I think that's what you see with the second Hellboy. There were less places where Del Toro would ask me if he could do something. He just did them. It was his character by that point, and that's fine.

http://www.newsarama.com/1510-mike-mignola-looking-back-at-hellboy-2-and-ahead.html

QuoteAt least YOU didn't see "Batman and Robin" at a special private screening for DC staffers and guest. I'll never forget the moment Batman whipped out the Bat Mastercard, and someone behind me screamed like a lost soul howling its agony from the pit of the damned. It was Denny O'Neil. What a blood-curdling sound THAT was.

- Peter David.  http://www.peterdavid.net/archives/002412.html

:D Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during that screening. I wonder if they held similar screenings for the other Batman movies. And if so, what sort of reactions did they elicit?

Does anyone think it would be worth having separate threads for comic creators' comments on Schumacher and Nolan?

Jason Fabok (artist) just posted:

"Rewatched Batman 1989 today. As I watched it, I realized it is the most influential vision of Batman on my art and work in general. It was the movie that helped me discover Batman and later a love for comic books. Such great design and art direction as well."

In terms of a straight up 'Batman' movie, B89 is where it's at. Though lately I've had a longing feeling. The best Batman movie has yet to be made. Something like the Arkhamverse in live action would be the bees knees.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 27 Jan  2014, 04:36
In terms of a straight up 'Batman' movie, B89 is where it's at. Though lately I've had a longing feeling. The best Batman movie has yet to be made. Something like the Arkhamverse in live action would be the bees knees.

I agree with almost all those sentiments although I'm ambivalent about the Arkhamverse.  I'd prefer to see a live-action version of Batman: The Animated Series.  Also, don't you think the Arkhamverse cockney version of the Penguin is terrible?

I like BTAS like all Batman fans. It's great, excellent, fantastic and all the other superlatives you can throw at it. But the Arkhamverse has an added 'dark' oomph for my money. It's a nice blend of the best of Burton and Nolan, and is very now.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 27 Jan  2014, 13:03
Also, don't you think the Arkhamverse cockney version of the Penguin is terrible?

No, it's one of my favourite incarnations, along with BR and BTAS. I like Pain and Prejudice too. Arkham Penguin is crude and cruel. Telling Batman and Catwoman to "piss off" and calling Batman and "wanker". People either love or hate the voice, but they've made something unique and instantly recognisable.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Mon, 27 Jan  2014, 02:13
Jason Fabok (artist) just posted:

"Rewatched Batman 1989 today. As I watched it, I realized it is the most influential vision of Batman on my art and work in general. It was the movie that helped me discover Batman and later a love for comic books. Such great design and art direction as well."

Great quote! I'm looking forward to seeing Fabok's work on Batman: Eternal. The teaser art was terrific. I just checked his Twitter page and he's made some other comments about the 1989 film in the past few days.

QuoteI find that "Batman '89" really picks up from the museum scene onward. Near perfection. Still love this movie after all these years.

https://twitter.com/JasonFabok/status/427511681862733824

QuoteI wish I could find some Batman 89 suit concept designs. I'd love to see the evolution of the design.

https://twitter.com/JasonFabok/status/427608110153228288

I particularly like that "near perfection" part. :) Think we can help him out with the costume concept designs?

QuoteDoes anyone think it would be worth having separate threads for comic creators' comments on Schumacher and Nolan?

I'd love to gather comments, in general, from these guys on any of the adaptations.  This thread can either be retitled for us to gather all comments or we can split them up into different threads.

I haven't gathered any quotes regarding Schumacher and Nolan's films. I'd imagine the comic creators' responses would follow the general consensus: i.e. Schumacher bad, Nolan good. But you never know, there might be some interesting opinions out there. If there are any interesting quotes, we could just add them to this thread for now. If we get enough of them, I'll change the thread title and edit the original post to include all the new additions.

It would be nice if there were some Schumacher fans in the comic business, but I don't think it's too likely.

I spoke to one artist well known for his Batman work (I won't mention his name since it was a candid conversation) but he didn't like the approach Nolan took.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed, 29 Jan  2014, 22:52
I spoke to one artist well known for his Batman work (I won't mention his name since it was a candid conversation) but he didn't like the approach Nolan took.

And if you did mention his name he'd no doubt be subjected to the typical abuse anyone who dares question Nolan's movies usually faces.

QuoteWhat do you think of Hans Zimmer's Batman scores?
I think he did a fantastic job. What Nolan did was great and really took it into a whole different realm. After Tim, those films were really a mess. When I heard they were reviving the franchise I was like, 'Oh god, really? Can they get even more ridiculous now?' And instead it was the opposite, which was really smart.

Danny Elfman - EmpireOnline (2013) (http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1652)

(I know this is primarily for comic creators, but I don't know where else I could post this)

I was viewing some scans from Comics Scene #6 that Nycteris uploaded to the gallery, and they contain some quotes from Bob Kane concerning the 1989 Batman film.

On Burton's approach:

Quote"It's the definitive Batman that Bill Finger wrote at the beginning, and more so. Batman was a little naive at the beginning, but now he has dramatic, psychological overtones. Bruce Wayne is a real three-dimensional character. He broods. He has migraines. He's not a cardboard cutout like the TV show or the comic book."

On Gotham City:

Quote"It isn't like the New York of today. It's timeless. It's a combination of the 40's and the year 2000. It reminded me of the main streets of New York when I was a kid growing up there, but it also has a little bit of a futuristic Fritz Lang look. Hopefully, there will be a couple of sequels so it will never be outdated."

On the Batmobile:

Quote"It's a big, black threatening vehicle. I made some original designs. Mine were more like the comic book's with the bat hood. They thought that was probably too cartoony. But this one is just awesome. There's just no other word to describe it."

On Michael Keaton:

Quote"Michael Keaton is going to knock the ears off the fans. He is definitively Batman. He gets into that suit and he swaggers around that set and he looks like Batman. He's almost six feet tall with the big ears. I was very surprised. I didn't even know it was him walking around the set!"

On casting Jack Nicholson as the Joker:

Quote"I brought it to Warner Bros. about five years ago. It was Jack all the way for me. I lobbied and lobbied. They had people like Robin Williams and Steve Martin in mind. But I couldn't see them for anything. I said, 'Just look at The Shining. There's the Joker for you!'"

A couple of comments on Nolan's Batman.

Mark Waid on The Dark Knight

Quote"I love the Christopher Nolan movie, I love the last few minutes where you realize Batman is going to be the villain in that story, essentially. I have no interest in writing that kind of movie, because that means I don't get to watch that kind of movie, and watching the second Batman movie was one of the best comic book experiences I ever had in my life."

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=29185

Mike Mignola on Nolan's trilogy

Quote"As far as superhero films, I still think RoboCop is the greatest superhero/comic book film, because it wasn't a comic, but it felt so much like a comic. I'm not a big fan of the Batman movies that (Christopher Nolan) did recently. But I thought the first Iron Man was just great."

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2013/01/comic-relief-with-hellboy-creator-mike-mignola.html

James Tynion IV

Quote"I saw Batman Returns when I was waaaaay too young, and it warped my young brain into a fan of all things creepy and all things batty... I was four years old when it was released in theaters, and I think I saw it two or three times."

http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2014/04/02/batman-eternal-an-interview-with-james-tynion-iv

Good comment from James. I remember seeing BR as a youngster. Even then I knew it was the 'bad boy'. I've always been a lover of atmosphere and visuals. I rank that very highly.

I'm not sure this should be included in this thread, since he hasn't actually worked on the Batman comics, but Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles co-creator Peter Laird was recently asked about possible similarities between the TMNT reboot and Batman Begins. His response....

Peter Laird (on Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy):

Quote"I confess I don't remember enough about the plot of "Batman Begins" to really answer your question adequately. Blame that on "The Dark Knight Rises", which made me want to forget that whole trilogy."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=97678

Ivan Reitman, a one time potential director of what became Burton's Batman, also gave a similar comment to Mr Eastman recently when discussing the long gestating Ghostbusters III and whether it should simply just be rebooted. His response was rather pleasing to read.

"I certainly think rebooting it is not interesting – i.e., tell the same story but with new guys," Reitman told Spinoff Online in an exclusive interview. "But picking up a story that has a generational shift in it, yes."

"I always felt it was important to tell a story that had the first two movies as predecessors that everybody involved in the movie recognizes," he said. "I mean, all of the story recognizes, as opposed to well, let's pretend nothing happened and let's talk about the creation of Batman yet again. That's sort of what my thinking was."

EVERYTHING these days is trying to be just like Batman Begins. To a T. It's all so very irritating because the formula as we all know doesn't work for everything. It really is killing the imagination. It's not Nolan's fault however. It's the "hacks" who lazily just copy him in a cesspool of cop outs. I'm pointing at you...Zack Snyder lol

Norm Breyfogle gave his opinion on Nolan's Batman, while talking about the difficulty of trying to apply too much realism to comic book characters during an interview on a fan's podcast:

QuoteThe [other equally relevant] problem I had with the Nolan films is that the story made Batman less of his own man. I mean, the Nolan films portrayed him as an unfocused, angry guy until Ra's al Ghul got a hold of him when he was an adult. That's not Batman! In fact, it makes even more difficult to believe that Batman can do the things that he does. One of the main things about Batman that makes him a little bit more believable that he can do these superhuman feats is that he was so driven from the age of nine or so (or whatever age he was when his parents got killed) to reach the peak of human ability in the mental spirit and the physical spirit. And Nolan completely wiped that away! And not only that, he made Batman's creation as a result of Ra's al Ghul, one of his own villains, instead of being his own man.

The main problem I have outside of portraying Batman realistically on live action is that Batman is not his own man. In my opinion, we are still waiting for the best Batman to be portrayed on screen. For instance, one great example that is a glaring lack that we've had in the Nolan films is that because Bruce Wayne is unfocused until he meets Ra's al Ghul, we don't get to see any montage sequences of young Bruce Wayne growing and building his physique, by going through his acrobatics, weightlifting, training and his martial arts. We don't get to see that. As any strong Batman fan of the comics, including me, will tell you is that's one of the most important things about Batman. To me, it also helped me as a young man to be a self-actualised individual. Bruce Wayne in the Batman films is not a self-actualised individual – he's actualised by Ra's al Ghul!

Quote
And Lucius Fox is his science guy. Instead of Batman being the supreme scientist, Lucius Fox has to tell him everything about science. That's ridiculous! That's not Batman, that's some guy in a Halloween costume!

Source: play it at 31:10 minutes on http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/NormBreyfogle02.mp3

I mentioned this off-topic in another thread awhile ago but I'd thought it would be more suitable to mention it here. I especially love "the guy in the Halloween costume" too!  ;D

But by the sound of it, I don't get the impression that he's too big of a fan of the Burton stuff either. Nonetheless, he does have a point that the definitive Batman on screen is yet to happen.

I don't think I would have bought Bale's Bruce Wayne as a genius scientist/self-made master of the martial arts, but I don't mean that as a criticism.  I liked Bale's portrayal of a spoiled, pampered brat who needed moral guidance from others to become the self-sacrificial figure he became by TDK and TDKR.  That might not be Norman Breyfogle's Batman, but it makes for a fascinating story of redemption.

I wonder if "Gotham" will deal with the aspects of Bruce Wayne's development Breyfogle longs to see, bearing in mind that we're already seeing a fairly pro-active, intellectually acquisitive child, albeit one who has not yet started to build his physical faculties as well as his mental ones.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 16 Nov  2014, 04:17
I don't think I would have bought Bale's Bruce Wayne as a genius scientist/self-made master of the martial arts, but I don't mean that as a criticism.  I liked Bale's portrayal of a spoiled, pampered brat who needed moral guidance from others to become the self-sacrificial figure he became by TDK and TDKR.  That might not be Norman Breyfogle's Batman, but it makes for a fascinating story of redemption.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I thought the character's morals were contradictory throughout the series, and the "sacrifices" he made in the sequels made absolutely no sense. He takes the blame for Harvey Dent because he's afraid people would lose hope...despite his argument that people are ready to believe in good at the end of the boat scene. I guess Joker was right after all?!  ::)  And if Batman tainted his own symbol to protect Dent, wouldn't that cause an equally devastating impact to anyone who looked up to him?  :-[

For TDKR, I think BatmAngelus suggested the ending would've been far better if Batman "died" but Bruce stayed alive to help Gotham recover from the ruins in the aftermath and taking over his father's role as a philanthropist. I like that idea a lot. Instead, he fakes his death as both personas, tricks everybody in the process for no real good reason and gets together with a morally shady woman who killed several times...while an under-trained Blake takes over the mantle as Gotham's protector.  None of this comes across as redeemable to me. And Batman needing to be explained about everything all the time diminishes him as a character too. Let him figure things out for himself for once!

I forgot to add that Breyfogle is applying the standard to all the films when it comes to Batman not being a self-actualized individual. He just especially finds it more troublesome in Nolan's interpretation.

Bruce Timm credits B89 for being an inspiration for BTAS, and talks about some of the differences between the film and the show.

Quote
We have a love/hate thing going on with the Tim Burton movies. Obviously our show would never have gotten made if it hadn't been for that first Batman movie. There are some interesting parallels, somewhat, in the design of the movie and what we did, but I made it clear to Jean [MacCurdy] when we first got the gig that I didn't want to make the TV show just a spin-off of the movie. I didn't want to use their Batman design, I didn't want to use much of anything they did. I wanted the show to be unique. Not on that, but I had my own ideas what Batman was. They coincided in some places with the movie, and some places they didn't.

Tim Burton and Anton Furst used retro/deco elements in their version of Gotham City as well, but theirs was more of an ugly take on it - it was a deliberately ugly, brutal take on the futuristic design - and we didn't really want to go that way. It certainly worked for the movie, but we wanted more of a pure, old-fashioned kind of art deco. Burton and Furst were probably influenced by pretty much the same sources we were. There was an architectural visionary named Hugh Ferris, who did these elaborate futuristic cityscape architectural renderings. They were just gorgeous - these massive deco buildings rendered very moodily. That was one of our prime influences on the look of the show. I'm sure Burton and Furst were looking at the stuff too, and then they went off in their own direction with it.

Source: https://books.google.nl/books?id=EMwn_4llWK0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=our+show+would+never+have+gotten+made+if+

And this is what Timm said during the DVD commentary for the BTAS House and Garden episode.

Quote
If he [Burton] had done an Adam West style Batman movie, regardless whether it was successful or not, they would never have allowed us to do this take on Batman. They only allowed us to do this because it was perceived to being in vein to what Tim Burton had done. Once again, thank you Tim Burton for making that movie.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 29 Jan  2014, 19:48I haven't gathered any quotes regarding Schumacher and Nolan's films. I'd imagine the comic creators' responses would follow the general consensus: i.e. Schumacher bad, Nolan good. But you never know, there might be some interesting opinions out there. If there are any interesting quotes, we could just add them to this thread for now. If we get enough of them, I'll change the thread title and edit the original post to include all the new additions.

Right around the time Forever came out, Wizard did a comic pro round up of different peoples' views about it. One that stands out was someone (Alex Ross?) saying the movie was nice eye candy but he kept checking his watch for when the movie would end. Some pros really liked it.

Also O'Neil has gotten picked on for his changing views regarding the movie. Keep in mind that he was editor of the comics at the time and so logically he would've been expected to be a company man. "This movie is the greatest thing ever created. Try not to think of it as a 'movie' so much as a divine revelation. Tim Burton is God inscribing the commandments onto stone tablets and showing us simpletons and fools The Way!" Crap like that is to be expected. You're more likely to get honest feedback these days, oddly enough. But there was a lot of sugarcoating going on back then.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Aug  2015, 02:48Right around the time Forever came out, Wizard did a comic pro round up of different peoples' views about it. One that stands out was someone (Alex Ross?) saying the movie was nice eye candy but he kept checking his watch for when the movie would end. Some pros really liked it.

This peaked my interest so I checked through the Wizard issues I have in .cbr format... none of which are have that column. I'm estimating it would be somewhere in issues #47-#53 though.

John Byrne on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises:

Quote
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

There are some movies for which the phrase "Piece of Sh*t" seems especially to have been created. This is one.

As many of you know, despite some annoying indulgences, I enjoyed BATMAN BEGINS as much as I could any adventure of Batman in a rubber suit. The casting was good, the characters seemed very much themselves.

But THIS! Admittedly, I started it about half an hour in, catching it this afternoon while channel surfing, but somehow I doubt there were elements in those first thirty-odd minutes that saved the rest of the film. At virtually every step off the way, I was two or three steps ahead of the filmmakers. "Oh, look -- he's going to get shot now. He's going to drop that. She's going to be bad. She's going to be good. He's going to get saved at the last second. He isn't." On and on. it was as if Christopher Nolan made a list of clichés he REALLY needed to get into this movie.

(One surprise, which probably would not have been if I'd seen it from the start: the Bad Girl turns out to be *****.)

And, gosh, isn't it lucky THIS version of Batman isn't burdened with that corny old promise to his dead parents to spend the rest of his life warring on crime!

FEH!!!

Source: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29741&PN=1&TPN=171

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Dec  2015, 00:26Source: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29741&PN=1&TPN=171

It really is a good thing he isn't burdened with that, because it isn't really healthy.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 31 Dec  2015, 00:26
John Byrne on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises:

Quote
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

There are some movies for which the phrase "Piece of Sh*t" seems especially to have been created. This is one.

As many of you know, despite some annoying indulgences, I enjoyed BATMAN BEGINS as much as I could any adventure of Batman in a rubber suit. The casting was good, the characters seemed very much themselves.

But THIS! Admittedly, I started it about half an hour in, catching it this afternoon while channel surfing, but somehow I doubt there were elements in those first thirty-odd minutes that saved the rest of the film. At virtually every step off the way, I was two or three steps ahead of the filmmakers. "Oh, look -- he's going to get shot now. He's going to drop that. She's going to be bad. She's going to be good. He's going to get saved at the last second. He isn't." On and on. it was as if Christopher Nolan made a list of clichés he REALLY needed to get into this movie.

(One surprise, which probably would not have been if I'd seen it from the start: the Bad Girl turns out to be *****.)

And, gosh, isn't it lucky THIS version of Batman isn't burdened with that corny old promise to his dead parents to spend the rest of his life warring on crime!

FEH!!!

Source: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29741&PN=1&TPN=171

Do you find it curious that he hasn't mentioned anything about the second film? Could it be that he has never seen it? If he has seen it, but was more forgiving towards it, then I'd find it a little rich because you could easily apply the criticism of TDKR to TDK too.

(not sure if this has been posted in one of the earlier pages of this thread - EDIT: Yes it was. Well, it's been almost three years since it was started)

QuoteI LOVE these both. I waited in line with my dad (with a commemorative BK glass I dropped – dropped! and had to get out of line to get again). This was like the Batman I'd been waiting for. A man whose whole city seems like a twisted projection of his own mind. A guy fighting demons in this wild, darkly imaginative and wholly realized world. I'll admit – I was a completely non-believer before seeing Batman in Michael Keaton, but in the end, he won me over.

---

Scott Snyder on Batman & Batman Returns - source (http://ifanboy.com/articles/batman-writer-scott-snyder-ranks-the-movie-tv-batmen-exclusive-capullo-art/)

QuoteThe last three movies that came out, I believe the first two were good. I liked the third one... but I thought it wasn't exactly Batman. I'm hoping that the people who make the [next] films take a little more armor off of him, or make it it out of something where we can see his muscles. And stop making masks that make his face look like this [squishes cheeks].

---

Neal Adams on Nolan's Batman - source (http://screenrant.com/best-batman-movie-version-comic-book-writers/)

An interesting but scathing comment concerning Batman 89 from John Byrne, posted on the message boards of his official site:

QuoteIn 1988 I went to England for a Con, and visited Pinewood Studios, to see the pre-shooting work that had been done on "Batman". Met Anton Furst and saw his marvelous take on Gotham City. Strolled the streets and stood on the steps of "city hall". Unfortunately, also saw the rubber suit and the machine guns mounted on the Batmobile and Batplane. Knew right then that we were in trouble. This was not going to be Batman any more than had been the Adam West version. Less, really, since that old TV show at least gave us a Batman who was dependent upon his wits more often than his "wonderful toys".

Came home quite convinced that the Batfans would utterly reject this bastardization of their beloved character. Even advised Jerry Ordway against doing the adaptation. "When this turns out to be a giant stinker, the fans will blame you!"
Once again, the magpies proved me wrong. Sigh

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12852&PN=0&TPN=1

'Magpies'?  Who are the 'magpies'?  Us?

Interesting that Byrne used the word 'magpie' since he's the writer who created...

Marv Wolfman on BvS:
https://www.facebook.com/marv.wolfman/posts/1077646818961085

I deleted a part that may give something away to people who haven't seen it yet and weren't following every news bit associated with the film. If you're curious, you can read the deleted part in the Facebook post linked above.

Quote
So I left that less than cryptic mention the other day about seeing Batman Vs. Superman at the DC employee screening (I was invited to the world premiere in NY but couldn't make it). I intended to follow it up right away but life happens. So, here's a PLOT SPOILER FREE non review. If you've seen any of the trailers nothing I say here will reveal anything. If you haven't seen the trailers, I probably still haven't said anything revealing but I suggest you move on anyway.

First off, I really liked the movie a lot. For those who think I'm saying this because I work at DC, if I didn't really like it I wouldn't have posted anything despite having two of my characters appear in it. So please know my view is real and honest.
I thought Ben Affleck was great as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, but I never doubted he would be. I've liked his work for years. He's a solid actor and director and writer and he brings gravitas to the role. I refuse to play the game of is he better or worse than Christian Bale. They're playing very different versions of the character and both are great.

The action scenes with Batman are the best I've seen in any Batman movie. In comics, Batman is an acrobat and despite lugging a cape that's two miles long, he moves like nobody's business, but that has always been pretty impossible to show on screen; the uniform itself prevented that so fights were done with extremely well done cuts and edits. Heck, some of the actors said they even had problems turning their heads in the costumes. But Snyder knows how to play with live action and CG and everything else and Batman moved the way he should. The action is stunning.

Superman is different from the comics, more troubled and alienated (no pun intended) than the comic but I think it works based on what the events in the last film. Since I feel Batman, especially an older Batman as he's portrayed here has probably cemented his world view you can understand why his concern about Superman is real to him. And Superman, based on how the people of Metropolis and the world reacted to the events of the last film would obviously be more cautious in his life, even willing to chuck some of it away. For Superman the road to hell is paved with good intentions and now, based on the events of the last movie, he's not only being cautious but distant. Very different from the comic but I can accept that if one accepts his becoming Superman as an adult and immediately and without time to train, finding himself the center of an interplanetary man hunt.

Wonder Woman got the biggest cheer in the audience. Can't say too much but I thought she was handled really well.

By the way, here's a complaint. When Ben Affleck was first announced as Batman fans immediately attacked the choice (as they had Michael Keaton). Now many of the same fans are saying he's the best Batman/Bruce Wayne ever. If Gal Gidot was hired to play Wonder Woman fans complained she was too thin or too wrong to play the Amazon. Now everyone's saying she's the high point of the movie. Why don't people wait to actually see something before deciding it can't possibly work?

Finally, Luthor. we've seen so many Luthors over the years (my favorite being Smallville's interpretation) that I would have previously said not to use him at all, but I think they found a different approach. If you've seen any trailer you've seen the interpretation. His insanity is either tempered by his genius, or his genius has been affected by his insanity, but he's an original here and since there have been a million different interpretations of Luthor (and may I remind folk that the businessman version was my proposal so I actually have a real personal viewpoint here) I don't think we can say "This" is Luthor or "That" is Luthor. All I can say is this worked for me and I liked that I hadn't seen this character before. He felt new and different in a way that worked.
I know there are people who love the film and there are already those who don't. But I really, really liked it. I hope I can take Noel to see it this weekend or next if we can get into a local IMax screening. I do hope I was able to give my opinions without accidentally giving away any spoilers. Check it out and enjoy.

In contrast, Peter David was not as kind on the film, though his main issues were with Superman more than Batman:

Quote
Seriously. I'm going to be discussing, among other things, the end of the movie. Which I don't ordinarily do, but it relates squarely to the film's major weakness. You're warned.


The people applauded at the end.

I should mention that first. At the packed Thursday screening I attended, the audience applauded. They didn't applaud any Marvel films. They didn't applaud "X-Men: Days of Future Past." But they applauded BvS because...well, I guess because they had never seen anything quite like it. They believed that they had seen a true rarity in superhero films: a genuine epic.

This was a story of gods and men.

Which is its strength and its problem.

Let's face it: Superman has always been something of a god. Going all the way back to the first film, as Marlon Brando intoned, "And so I have given them you. My only son." He was a Christ substitute and the concept of him being a god on Earth could easily have been raised by the citizens of Metropolis. But they didn't, because Chris Reeve was so human, so affable, so perfectly Smallville cornbread, that not only would it have seemed preposterous to raise him to that level, but his Clark would doubtless have considered it sacrilegious.

But in BvS, that's entirely what the film is about, with all the pluses and minuses that having a godlike being walking around amongst us would undoubtedly entail. And that is ultimately the problem with the film.

No, the acting isn't the issue. Ben Affleck, defying the haters, is brilliant as Bruce Wayne and formidable as Batman. His personal enmity toward Superman is understandable as he witnesses first hand the destruction that Supes inflicts on Metropolis in general and his own employees in specific. And Gal Gadot...my God, what a great Wonder Woman. Whether she is quietly informing Bruce that he's never met a woman like her, or actually SMILING as she faces off against Doomsday–SMILING–Godot is a terrific 21st Century inheritor of the role from Lynda Carter.

As for Henry Cavill...well, there's the problem.

It's not that he's a bad actor. He's not. He even actually has a scene where he gets to act like a human being and climb into a bathtub with Amy Adams's Lois Lane. He seems to enjoy that. Who wouldn't? I'm happily married with four children, but I'd climb into a bathtub with a naked Amy Adams if given the opportunity. So would you, so don't judge.

The problem is that since Superman is a god, he can't be human. And as a movie goer, there's a simple truism which is that your personal involvement with a character is determined by his humanity. Ninety percent of the time that Cavill is on screen, he's in Superman mode, even when he's Clark. As Superman he never cracks a smile, never cracks a joke, never cracks his facade. Even when a building explodes around him, killing everyone but him, he is just left standing there looking bummed out. He doesn't try to find out if anyone survived, he doesn't do anything. He just stands there, like God observing just how idiotic mortals can be.

The plot doesn't serve him, or anyone, especially well. He is blamed for the deaths of people in a desert city for no reason. When Lex Luthor kidnaps his mother, Martha, he can't find her for no reason (even though he can find Lois Lane anywhere at the drop of a hat.) Lex Luthor wants to kill Superman for no reason other than that he's nuts. He's like a demented Twitter-head on acid. For no reason. Maybe he hates Superman because Superman is God and being a scientist, he doesn't believe in God and so must drag Superman down to mortal levels.

And Batman wants to get rid of Superman because he likewise perceives him as a God who has the potential to destroy humanity. Because, well, that's what God does. Why do you think they call earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc., acts of God? Let's face it, if God Himself descended from on high, Batman would probably want a piece of him. It's only when he discovers he actually has common ground with Superman that he stops trying to kill him. But that's okay because, as anyone who watched the trailers know–which is everyone reading this–Lex has Doomsday lined up to pick up where Batman left off.

Man, I am so sick of trailers ruining films. In this instance, every major story beat is in the trailers. They literally tell us everything except the last ten minutes, and anyone who was reading comic books twenty years ago KNOWS what the ending is. Superman vs. Doomsday. You know how it ends.

Yes, that's right. Doomsday kills Superman.

And that's the culmination of the problem:

I didn't care.

If Chris Reeves' Superman had died in "Superman II," I'd have been devastated (although then we'd have been spared the sequels, so that would've been a benefit.) Hell, if Brandon Routh's Superman had been killed in "Superman Returns," I'd have been upset.

But when Cavill's Superman died, I felt absolutely nothing. Indifferent. I wondered if they'd bring him back in future films as they did in the comics and realized that if they didn't, I'd be fine with that. It would make the JLA films better because let's face it, if Superman is on your side, you don't really need anybody else (that's why he was often off on some space mission in the old days, because otherwise he could've solved the JLA's problem by page six.)

I didn't care that Superman died because he was so utterly devoid of humanity that his fate was of no consequence to me. Because in the real world, we don't care about gods. In the Marvel cinema universe, Thor is not a god. We know this because Odin says, "We are not gods," so that's pretty much that. So we care about Thor. We care about Jesus because he was human. We care about Hercules because he's half human. But Cavill's Superman is treated like a god and acts like a god, helping where and when he sees fit, but largely outside of humanity, as if life is some great party to which he is not invited. He doesn't get us, he doesn't understand us, he doesn't see where his place in humanity is supposed to be. How am I supposed to care about someone who is so detached from the race among which he was raised?

Ultimately what it comes down to is that Marvel has set the tone and style for superhero films. The characters are consistently human (even when they're raccoons.) The films are replete with humor. (There are exactly two jokes in BvS and they're both in the trailers.) There is a sense of absurdity that you're dealing with people in costumes, but the stakes are real enough that you gloss over that, as opposed to BvS where Gotham manages to clear out an entire section because the heroes are going to have a grudge match.

Is BvS worth seeing in a movie theater? Not sure there is any point in telling you that because chances are you've already seen it. If you ARE going to see it, then yes, see it in a theater. It's big, it's splashy, it's insanely overblown, and your TV set is simply not large enough to contain it. But be prepared to see that the script does not serve one of its titular characters well, because as much as Luthor may declare that we're going to see a battle of light vs. dark, day vs. night, we don't really. At their core, Batman and Superman behave in identical fashion. They are both grim and gritty, both creatures of darkness. The only difference is that one of them cares too much and the other doesn't seem to care enough.

http://www.peterdavid.net/2016/03/28/batman-vs-superman-review-with-major-spoilers/#more-10645

Uber fan and comic book writer Kevin Smith, who even hosted the Dawn of the Justice League special with Geoff Johns, also wasn't kind on BvS:

Quote
"That didn't seem like Batman," he admitted about the movie's characterization of the Caped Crusader. "Certainly not the world's greatest Detective. More like Bat-Trump. The characterization is left of center...Batman's never like, if there's a 1% sh*t could go wrong, let's f***ing stab people."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/kevin-smith-reviews-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-says-it-lacked-humor-heart-joy-20160329?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Batman I know and love is a control freak. So in that regard, it seemed a lot like Batman to me. Seems like Affleck's Batman was just too dark for some people to handle.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 23:51
The Batman I know and love is a control freak. So in that regard, it seemed a lot like Batman to me. Seems like Affleck's Batman was just too dark for some people to handle.

To me he was as dark as Batman should be, and in particular for a version of Batman with his experience it was perfect.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Mar  2016, 21:17
Uber fan and comic book writer Kevin Smith, who even hosted the Dawn of the Justice League special with Geoff Johns, also wasn't kind on BvS:

Quote
"That didn't seem like Batman," he admitted about the movie's characterization of the Caped Crusader. "Certainly not the world's greatest Detective. More like Bat-Trump. The characterization is left of center...Batman's never like, if there's a 1% sh*t could go wrong, let's f***ing stab people."

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/kevin-smith-reviews-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-says-it-lacked-humor-heart-joy-20160329?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of politics here, so I'm not going to criticise anyone or say whether or not I agree with them.

But it is bemusing that Smith should compare his buddy Affleck's Batman to Donald Trump bearing in mind that Affleck is a staunch Democrat and once said the following "When I watch a guy [on film] I know is a big Republican, part of me thinks, I probably wouldn't like this."

A few Twitter reactions.

Jerry Ordway

QuoteSaw Batman v Superman tonight at the Milford CTRave cinema IMAX, in 3D,and I loved it more! Highly recommend that format,great 3D and sound

https://twitter.com/JerryOrdway/status/713213780432461825?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Dustin Nguyen

Quote#BatmanvSuperman was really really really, really amazing. #WonderWoman stole the whole damn show for real

https://twitter.com/duss005/status/713260391426469888

Mark Millar

QuoteBatman Vs Superman is my generation's Vietnam.

https://twitter.com/mrmarkmillar/status/715105226555060224

What did Mark Millar mean by that?

If he was being negative, I'm surprised, because I'd have thought that he was the one comic-book writer, after Frank Miller, who could most appreciate this film.

Gerry Conway (who was among the creators thanked in the credits)

QuoteGod, I hate this film. #BvS

https://twitter.com/gerryconway/status/713812775399587841

QuoteHey, Zack, I've been a "comic book guy" for 45 years and I call bullsh*t on your crap excuse for incompetent storytelling.

https://twitter.com/gerryconway/status/713782423721418752

Oh dear...talk about gratitude.  :-X

Dan Jurgens

QuoteI really enjoyed it. Glad to hear you did as well!

https://twitter.com/thedanjurgens/status/713524463115968512

Kurt Busiek

QuoteBATMAN VS. SUPERMAN eats pizza with a fork.

https://twitter.com/KurtBusiek/status/715654001212071938

Could the title be changed to "creators comment on the Batman movies" or something.

Done. Sorry, I should've changed the title ages ago. I think somebody else suggested it once, but I never got around to it.

This isn't a comic creator response, but here's what Michael Shannon had to say when asked who'd win the titular battle in the new movie:

QuoteI'm so utterly unconcerned with the outcome of that fight. So profoundly, utterly unconcerned. I can't even come up with a fake answer. I guess I have to root for Superman because he killed me, so I would hope that he would continue his killing spree and become like a serial killer Superman. That's a new take on Superman. We'd all be in a heap of trouble if Superman was a serial killer. He could just wipe us all out. But then he'd be lonely.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/batman-superman-who-would-win.html?mid=twitter_vulture

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  8 Apr  2016, 18:01
This isn't a comic creator response, but here's what Michael Shannon had to say when asked who'd win the titular battle in the new movie:

QuoteI'm so utterly unconcerned with the outcome of that fight. So profoundly, utterly unconcerned. I can't even come up with a fake answer. I guess I have to root for Superman because he killed me, so I would hope that he would continue his killing spree and become like a serial killer Superman. That's a new take on Superman. We'd all be in a heap of trouble if Superman was a serial killer. He could just wipe us all out. But then he'd be lonely.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/batman-superman-who-would-win.html?mid=twitter_vulture

His total apathy cracks me up!

Spending an eternity in Punxsutawney will do that to a man.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  8 Apr  2016, 18:40
Spending an eternity in Punxsutawney will do that to a man.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fr8R0YG0.jpg&hash=98e6e852d967b4e689bcf233fbb0c75ff07bfef4)

Mind = blown!

Mindy Newell (author of Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper) has written a scathing article about the characterisation of Batman in the new film. It sounds like she hasn't actually seen the movie, but still has some harsh views on it. I won't post the whole thing as it contains some political digressions and strong language, but those interested can read it here: http://www.comicmix.com/2016/04/11/mindy-newell-its-really-cool/

A longer quote from John Byrne regarding Batman 66, the Burton Batman and Batman Begins:

QuoteWhat did you think about the various incarnations of Batman in the movies and on TV?

JB: I've made no secret of how completely enamored I am of "Batman Begins". The rubber suit is still a distraction, but the guy living inside it is a Batman I know. I have been reading this guy's adventures for years. And, true, he never baked a giant birthday cake (so far as we know!), but he does smile. In fact, the single moment that won me over, in the trailer, was the twinkle in Bruce's eye as he asks "Does it come in black?"

That's Batman!

The four non-Adam West BATMAN films were not about Batman, tho the first was pretty good in its own right. Consider Keaton's Batman: the armored suit was, of course, not his choice, but right away we are presented with a character we have never seen in the comics (unless, perhaps, we invoke the "inflato-Batman" suit occasionally worn by Robin). Machine guns mounted on the Batmobile were not Keaton's doing, either, but they belong to no Batman we have seen since the earliest days of his publishing history -- a there a Batman who vanished completely within the first two years.

What about Bruce Wayne, then? Minor detail -- when has Bruce ever worn glasses? Major detail -- when has Bruce ever been the assemblage of ticks and mannerisms Keaton brought to the roll?

It is an actor's prerogative to bring his own insights to a performance, but he must begin with the established character. Playing Hamlet in a clown nose and fright wig might get people paying attention, but it would add nothing to the character.

The Adam West Batman movie WAS about Batman, but. . . . well, you know.

A TV show is a TV show is a TV show -- it exists on its own merits (or lack thereof), and really should not have any effect on the comic(s) from which it is derived. The greatest sin of the "Batman" series was that it planted ZAP! POW! BAM! apparently forever in the minds of journalists whose idea of originality is to crib what the last guy wrote.

Beyond that, I will say that the Adam West show was more faithful to the underlying structure of the comic than anything until the "recent" animated series. Batman and Robin were at least good at what they did, and Batman was a great detective --something Tim Burton should have paid a wee bit more attention to!

In my opinion, I don't think that Tim Burton forgot the detective aspect in the first movie. Batman solves very cleverly the Joker poison mystery and do some detective research on Jack Napier=the joker.

JB: Unless there is a "director's cut" floating around that I am unaware of, I don't recall Batman doing much in the way of detective work in the Tim Burton movies. He spends a lot of time letting his computers sort things out for him, and he makes a couple of guesses that don't really spring from any logic. Nothing that requires him using detective skills tho -- especially not the Napier/Joker connection.

There he simply Recognizes the guy.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=4&T1=Byrnisms%3A+opinions+and+observations+of+JB#75

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 13:07
A longer quote from John Byrne regarding Batman 66, the Burton Batman and Batman Begins:

QuoteIn my opinion, I don't think that Tim Burton forgot the detective aspect in the first movie. Batman solves very cleverly the Joker poison mystery and do some detective research on Jack Napier=the joker.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/FAQ/listing.asp?ID=4&T1=Byrnisms%3A+opinions+and+observations+of+JB#75

I want to say that Bruce asks Alfred to get files on things and Alfred does, which isn't really detective work, I'd say. The other stuff is about as much as any other Batman does. Though I do think in Batman Begins, Bruce does more, or at least as much, as other versions. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

In Batman '89 it is clearly implied that Bruce tested the various chemical products The Joker had poisoned to determine which mixtures were in fact toxic.  That strikes me as far more sophisticated detective work, albeit of a forensic/scientific nature, than anything undertaken by Bruce in the other various Batman movies.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 19:16In Batman '89 it is clearly implied that Bruce tested the various chemical products The Joker had poisoned to determine which mixtures were in fact toxic.  That strikes me as far more sophisticated detective work, albeit of a forensic/scientific nature, than anything undertaken by Bruce in the other various Batman movies.

Not really. A different kind, yes. But not something better really, if that's what you're trying to say. Though I haven't thought that scientific examination is something that I'd count specifically as detective work perse. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 20:59

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 19:16In Batman '89 it is clearly implied that Bruce tested the various chemical products The Joker had poisoned to determine which mixtures were in fact toxic.  That strikes me as far more sophisticated detective work, albeit of a forensic/scientific nature, than anything undertaken by Bruce in the other various Batman movies.

Not really. A different kind, yes. But not something better really, if that's what you're trying to say. Though I haven't thought that scientific examination is something that I'd count specifically as detective work perse. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I like you Dagenspear but occasionally I think you unfairly put down the Burton movies, possibly as a means of elevating the Nolan films.  :-\

To be fair, Burton fans do the exact same thing: constantly slagging off Nolan's films to emphasise merits in Burton's.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 21:27I like you Dagenspear but occasionally I think you unfairly put down the Burton movies, possibly as a means of elevating the Nolan films.  :-\

There's no down putting by saying that it's not much different. I'd say putting down is saying that others aren't as sophisticated as one. Though there's no need to elevate the Nolan movies. I think some unfairly put those down here. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 22:09
To be fair, Burton fans do the exact same thing: constantly slagging off Nolan's films to emphasise merits in Burton's.

I like both.  I suspect most of you guys know that by now.  :)  But in my experience, looking across the web as a whole, most people, critics and fans alike, seem to put down the Burton films more often than they do the Nolan ones.

And my point to Dagenspear, who I know does like the Burton films, was simply to highlight that they do feature Bruce/Batman doing detective work, including testing The Joker products and researching files regarding Jack Napier and later, The Red Triangle Circus Gang.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 22:09
To be fair, Burton fans do the exact same thing: constantly slagging off Nolan's films to emphasise merits in Burton's.

It could be that...or quite simply, a lot of these Burton (and even non-Burton) fans genuinely didn't like the Nolan films and have issues with them. Some prefer Affleck and Snyder's take better, and there are some who don't like that version either. I've no doubt others feel the opposite, as much as I disagree. It happens, different strokes for different folks.

I thought I'd revisit Frank Miller's comments from two years ago as he expresses his distaste for all the Batman films:

Quote
PLAYBOY: There's a consensus that Daredevil and Elektra, two movies adapted from comics you wrote, were lousy. Do you agree with that opinion?

MILLER: When people come out with movies about characters I've worked on, I always hate them. I have my own ideas about what the characters are like. I mean, I can't watch a Batman movie. I've seen pieces of them, but I generally think, No, that's not him. And I walk out of the theater before it's over.

PLAYBOY: Does that include the Christopher Nolan Batman movies?

MILLER: It includes all of them. I'm not condemning what he does. I don't even understand it, except that he seems to think he owns the title Dark Knight. [laughs] He's about 20 years too late for that. It's been used.

PLAYBOY: Nolan's last two Batman movies each grossed more than $1 billion worldwide. Does any of that money make its way to you?

MILLER: No. If money's owed me, I wouldn't put it on him or any other author. To be sitting here whining and mewling and puking about that sort of thing...let other people do that.

Source: http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/19/frank-miller-walked-out-on-christopher-nolans-batman-movies/ (http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/19/frank-miller-walked-out-on-christopher-nolans-batman-movies/)

But back in 2005, this is what he said about Batman Begins:

Quote
"I thought they did a really, really good job. I mean, I walked out of that movie with a smile on my face; I thought it was a really strong interpretation of the character, and they knew what to borrow from and how much. I got a major kick out of the fact that they used that bit where he calls on the bats to attack the cops and that sort of thing, and I loved Gary Oldman's interpretation of exactly the Jim Gordon that I'd written in Batman: Year One. But it was [Christopher] Nolan's movie and [Christian] Bale's movie, and I just simply absorbed it and enjoyed the hell out of it."

Source: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2005/08/20/frank-miller-interview?page=2

So why did Miller, a decade later, suddenly disregarded everything about BB as with the rest of the other movies ? I suspect it could be either of these three reasons:

• He forgot about BB.
• He liked it the first time he watched it, but then he had a change of heart the second time.
• He was paid to give it a good review back in 2005. It's a cynical suggestion, but shills are common in Hollywood. Who knows, perhaps those in the industry who claimed to like B89 and BR when they first came out secretly didn't like them after all, and felt more comfortable to voice their distaste much later.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 27 Apr  2016, 09:35
It could be that...or quite simply, a lot of these Burton (and even non-Burton) fans genuinely didn't like the Nolan films and have issues with them. Some prefer Affleck and Snyder's take better, and there are some who don't like that version either. I've no doubt others feel the opposite, as much as I disagree. It happens, different strokes for different folks.

Yep. And again....it's personal. Burton and Nolan camps generally don't get on.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 22:42I like both.  I suspect most of you guys know that by now.  :)  But in my experience, looking across the web as a whole, most people, critics and fans alike, seem to put down the Burton films more often than they do the Nolan ones.

That was certainly true five years ago, but I've observed a very noticeable shift in attitude since 2012. The widespread hyperbole surrounding The Dark Knight trilogy has largely subsided since then. Of course there are still overzealous quarters of the fanbase who maintain the films' flawlessness, just like there are overzealous fans of Burton and Snyder who obtusely refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their films. But overall, I'd say the majority of casual cinemagoers have a more objective view of Nolan's films now than they did prior to 2012. I'm certainly seeing a lot more criticism of Nolan these days, as well as a lot more appreciation for Burton's films.

I remember as a kid when the Burton films were popular and it became trendy to dismiss the Adam West Batman. That prompted many fans of the sixties TV show to lash out at B89 and BR, and you still occasionally see some of them doing it on sites like 66Batman.com. Then when Batman Begins was released it became trendy to trash the Burton films, which spurred many Burton fans into defence mode where they became the most vocal critics of the TDK trilogy (admittedly I myself was one of these people for a while). Then after the DCEU reboot was announced it became fashionable to slag off Nolan's films, which is likely why many Nolan fans presently feel resentful towards Snyder's Batman. We've seen it all before - fans of one interpretation feel threatened by its successor. It's a behavioural pattern that should be familiar to long-time Batman enthusiasts, and it's unlikely to change any time soon. The next reboot will likely incur the resentment of the DCEU fans. And the cycle will continue ad infinitum.

Ultimately all the Batman films have flaws and strengths, but the general audience's willingness to acknowledge them is largely subject to trends. When the Burton films were popular the sixties Batman wasn't. Then when Nolan's films became popular the sixties Batman was re-evaluated, which resulted in the release of the DVD and Batman 66 comic. Now interest in both the Nolan films and the sixties Batman is waning and the Burton films are getting a re-evaluation. The consensus is essentially a pendulum that swings back and forth. Each interpretation gets its moment in the sun, as well as its moment in the dog house.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 27 Apr  2016, 12:53Yep. And again....it's personal. Burton and Nolan camps generally don't get on.

And that's incredibly sad. There are few things in this world more pathetic than comic book fan sectarianism.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 27 Apr  2016, 21:02
And that's incredibly sad. There are few things in this world more pathetic than comic book fan sectarianism.

As Keaton's Batman said, "it's not a perfect world."

I do think both sides would enjoy the other product if there wasn't so much angst.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 03:28
As Keaton's Batman said, "it's not a perfect world."

I do think both sides would enjoy the other product if there wasn't so much angst.

Not necessarily. Some people would still dislike certain movies regardless how popular they are. Let's call it a matter of personal taste.

Yes, however even if a Burton fan, for example, is willing to give the Nolan films a chance, they're not going to warm to them as readily if they're shouted down and mocked by the other side.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 10:47
Yes, however even if a Burton fan, for example, is willing to give the Nolan films a chance, they're not going to warm to them as readily if they're shouted down and mocked by the other side.

I agree with this.

I like the Nolan films a great deal but I instinctively turned against them a little when some Nolan-fans started acting as if Nolan's Batman was the 'one and only' Batman and that Burton's (IMHO equally valid) interpretation was vastly inferior.  As a huge fan of the Burton Batman films it really rubbed me the wrong way and caused me to feel a lot more defensive with respect to Batman '89 and Batman Returns, whilst also occasionally feeling more inclined to pick holes at TDK trilogy despite my overall regard for it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 10:47Yes, however even if a Burton fan, for example, is willing to give the Nolan films a chance, they're not going to warm to them as readily if they're shouted down and mocked by the other side.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 28 Apr  2016, 12:50I agree with this.

I like the Nolan films a great deal but I instinctively turned against them a little when some Nolan-fans started acting as if Nolan's Batman was the 'one and only' Batman and that Burton's (IMHO equally valid) interpretation was vastly inferior.  As a huge fan of the Burton Batman films it really rubbed me the wrong way and caused me to feel a lot more defensive with respect to Batman '89 and Batman Returns, whilst also occasionally feeling more inclined to pick holes at TDK trilogy despite my overall regard for it.

Ya'll choose how you react. If you allow the feelings of others to turn you away from something, it's not the fault of them. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 29 Apr  2016, 03:08Ya'll choose how you react. If you allow the feelings of others to turn you away from something, it's not the fault of them. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

Our tastes and personal responses to art our shaped by our experiences and responses to external factors.  That applies whoever we are.

I still have very high regard TDK trilogy but the sniffy way in which some of the trilogy's fans have acted towards the Burton films, caused me to subconsciously reassess Nolan's movies, partly because they often fall short of the same tough and unreasonable standards the Burton films are held to.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 29 Apr  2016, 06:33Our tastes and personal responses to art our shaped by our experiences and responses to external factors.  That applies whoever we are.

I still have very high regard TDK trilogy but the sniffy way in which some of the trilogy's fans have acted towards the Burton films, caused me to subconsciously reassess Nolan's movies, partly because they often fall short of the same tough and unreasonable standards the Burton films are held to.

I'm sorry, but no. People have a choice. Our tastes and responses are only shaped if we allow them to be, especially as adults. Nothing we do is anyone's fault but our own. Anything else is us shirking responsibility for our decisions. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Ty Templeton

Batman V Superman

Quote
https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-web.jpg?w=500&h=768

Wonder Woman is cool.  She's the only thing in the movie that makes you smile, or sit up, or discover yourself enjoying something.  I will greatly look forward to the Wonder Woman movie if it's anything like the twenty-three seconds of air-time she gets in this one.

It might have been a stronger movie if they hadn't dedicated so much of the film to advertising their next six movies and instead spent time building the characters, motivations and relationships of THIS one.

Sigh.

I miss the cinematic triumphs of Green Lantern and Jonah Hex.

https://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/bun-toon-v-hollywood-darn-the-justice/

EDIT
The Dark Knight Rises

Quote
https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-websize.jpg

Considering that DARK KNIGHT is one of my favorite movies ever, and Batman is one of my favorite characters ever, and that Inception was, like, an amazing movie, my level of disappointment with this bloated, pretentious, wrong-headed car wreck of a film is a heavy burden.

Please, if you enjoyed this movie, don't send me hate mail.  You'll never change my mind.

https://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/dark-knight-rising-in-four-panels/

Dedicating so much of the film to advertising their next six movies?

So much of the film?

This has got to one of the silliest myths of BvS. We get a set of USB videos which last maybe a minute or more, the sheer presence of Wonder Woman appearing a few times and that's about it. Hyperbole is the norm when it comes to describing this film. The seeds of the JL are there, but that's all they are. Seeds. They weren't strands tangling up the core conflict at the heart of the story, which was Superman's influence on the world and how Batman in particular reacted to it. The Knightmare will probably have a big part to play in the future, but right now, it fed into Bruce's paranoia about Superman. And given it's also Batman v Supermen related, it's on topic and on theme.

Not a comic creator as such, but here's an enlightening quote from Zack Snyder about how he would've made Batman Begins darker back in 2008:

QuoteEveryone says that about [Christopher Nolan's] Batman Begins. "Batman's dark." I'm like, okay, "No, Batman's cool." He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that's how that would go.

http://www.ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/2

Sort of reminds me of that old The Death of Batman fan film from a few years back...

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  2 May  2016, 16:45
But he doesn't, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that's how that would go.

::)  Oh dear...*sigh*

Zack Snyder does say some pretty f***ing stupid things a lot of the time, but at least unlike Nolan, he doesn't make lame cop-outs like acknowledging the hero breaking his moral code more than once, which totally undermines the moral conflict against his worst enemy in the middle of a trilogy...while trying to dodge the discrepancy at the same time.  :-[

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  3 May  2016, 10:39Zack Snyder does say some pretty f***ing stupid things a lot of the time, but at least unlike Nolan, he doesn't make lame cop-outs like acknowledging the hero breaking his moral code more than once, which totally undermines the moral conflict against his worst enemy in the middle of a trilogy...while trying to dodge the discrepancy at the same time.  :

How is acknowledging something you think that you did a cop out? Particularly when he didn't break it in the first one and the second was the whole point that he broke it, and none of that undermines the conflict, because he was never put in the same situation with his big enemy. There's no dodging involved. But there was no reason to even bring that up. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life! God bless everyone!

Neal Adams on Batman v Superman:

Quote"You really want to ask me that? Okay alright, I'll tell ya. I have held out such hope for that movie, because they tried to fix something of the last one, where you sit, everybody criticizes, uh, Superman practically destroys Metropolis fighting these Kryptonians when he could've taken them to the Sahara desert or to the moon or somewhere where you're not killing people, and so they're sitting there and basically saying okay, now Bruce Wayne Batman is blaming Superman for doing that, and so he wants to control him and to undo him. Unfortunately at the end, if we track the movie, he ends up killing him, duh! I mean it, is that the point we want to receive at the end. Now we know he's not dead, but the point is that if he challenged Superman and he's going to kill him, he kills him. It's just he uses some other weapon, ya know.

So what has happened that's good about the move? Well, they tried to fix the previous movie. Mmmmm they didn't exactly. They tried to do Frank Miller's Batman and they sort of did it, except it's not 20 or 30 years in tthe future, which is the only way you can do that movie. They brought it in the past so the first thing you see is Bruce Wayne with Gray in his temples. First thing, you don't want to see Bruce Wayne with gray in his temples. I can have gray in my temples cuz I've earned it, but he is supposed to be 29 years old. So suddenly we don't know how old he is. Suddenly we don't know where this is taking place in the history. Suddenly we're, by solving this problem you make more problems. Now the convoluted problems that are made start affecting your plot. Now you start asking questions like oh, who's the villain at the end (Doomsday), yeah, you throw in Doomsday and you go whoa whoa wait a second, can't we have Doomsday have his own film? We just lost that film.

Then we have Wonder Woman, who apparently can't do anything. I mean she doesn't do anything in the movie, she just looks good, ya know, but, and she does look very nice, those close-ups are fantastic, and she poses well, but she's got a lasso that I understand its latest power is to be able to control people, like she throws around somebody and they not only have to tell the truth but she controls them. Should've been the end of the movie. Wasn't, wasn't, so she was useless so why was she there? So now I'm given a teaser for a Wonder Woman movie that I want to see, I want all this to happen, but I can't understand why they keep on throwing it in in the wrong way, and so I'm not going to get it."

http://comicbook.com/2016/05/17/neal-adams-reveals-what-he-thought-of-batman-v-superman/

Interesting comments. I'm trying not to get too worked up about these things anymore, so all respect to Mr Adams. However I'll agree to disagree about his take on TDK Returns Batman not being 20-30 years into the future. It's not that, but the core spirit is retained. It seems to me Zach Snyder's world exists in current day. Bruce is an older man and is not supposed to be 29 years old. He's already been through that and now has the mental baggage, as shown by glancing at the old Robin suit.

It's not secret that I wasn't a huge fan of the film, but I disagree with all of Neal Adams's comments. Batman ends up killing Superman? How? Bruce having gray temples is a problem? Why would Doomsday deserve his own film? He was just a gimmick villain to kill off Superman in the comics.

Dave Gibbons, who wrote his own Batman and Superman story in World's Finest, had this to say:

QuoteI feel what DC has done particularly with the Superman vs. Batman movie is they really have taken a misstep on it. I mean, I wrote a comic book called 'World's Finest', which was Superman vs. Batman, and what I homed in, and I am not saying this is the only take, but it might have helped, was you have Batman who is a dark hidden creature who lives in a dark evil city whose antagonist is a brightly colored clown. You got Superman who is a brightly colored figure, the yang if you like to Batman's yin, he lives in a bright hopeful city, but with a villain, an opponent, who is a dark grey scheming business man. So the whole universe's are completely complimentary. When I wrote my story, I got a lot of mileage out of crossing those over, and it turned out Luthor went to Gotham, and the Joker went to Metropolis, and the Joker wanted to black out Metropolis, and Luthor wanted to set Gotham on fire. So to me if you are doing Superman vs. Batman, the first thing, which is implied by the "vs," is there has to be a difference, and I think where the latest film suffered was because they were both these dark opaque angsty creatures.

I thought, I have to say that Ben Affleck's Batman was brilliant. I thought if he'd been in a Batman film on his own... I also think DC sort of lost their nerve because Superman Vs. Batman, which is basically Frank Miller's Dark Knight story, is enough for a movie without putting Doomsday in it, which is another complete Superman movie, without shoehorning The Flash and the Cyborg, and without Wonder Woman, she's a movie in her own right.

Perhaps at the moment, I'm less than 100% thrilled with DC. I'm certainly not coming down on Zack, but to my taste, they kind of missed the [inaudible] there. I think also Marvel have been really bold. They introduced the characters slowly, so when they put them all in a movie together, it gave me that same thrill as I had when a kid when they put all the characters into the Avengers. 'Wow! They're all in one comic!' And the latest Captain America [Civil War] movie, the bit when the two teams run toward each other with all their powers blazing was just 'Oh! Yeah! This is what comics are all about!' I think Marvel have done it with verve and wit. DC kind of missed out on that.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/watchmen-co-creator-dave-gibbons-slams-dc-batman-v-superman-a142211

Frank Miller on Ben Affleck's Batman:

QuoteTalking at MegaCon 2016 in Orlando this weekend, Miller wouldn't be dragged into sharing his thoughts on the mixed reception to the movie, but did mention that, "I was rooting for Batman." Saying that Ben Affleck and Warner Bros. are more than welcome to call him for his input on The Batman, the comic book creator went on to praise the actor's take on the character. "I liked it, he's a good actor. I mean, he's obviously very, very close to this material and plays it with great affection."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/the-dark-knight-returns-creator-frank-miller-weighs-in-on-ben-a142242

Most of us agreed that Ben Affleck did a great job and is one of the few unanimously praised aspects of BvS.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun,  1 May  2016, 00:28
Ty Templeton

The Dark Knight Rises

Quote
https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-websize.jpg

Considering that DARK KNIGHT is one of my favorite movies ever, and Batman is one of my favorite characters ever, and that Inception was, like, an amazing movie, my level of disappointment with this bloated, pretentious, wrong-headed car wreck of a film is a heavy burden.

Please, if you enjoyed this movie, don't send me hate mail.  You'll never change my mind.

https://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/dark-knight-rising-in-four-panels/

I'm coming back to this because I don't understand what this guy is talking about. I find it mind-boggling that he calls TDKR a bloated, pretentious mess, when that perfectly describes TDK just as well. I've noticed some people elsewhere on the internet having similar opinions, and it doesn't make many sense to me.

This is the cartoon that he drew to describe his distaste for the film.

(https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-websize.jpg)

His third point about how he found it hard to cheer for Batman because he's incompetent, and got people killed, was exactly the same problem I had with TDK. In fact, Bane exposing the truth about Harvey Dent is predicated on Batman's involvement in the Two-Face cover-up at the end of TDK. It goes to show that lying to the public was a terrible decision to begin with, so how come Templeton was never bothered by that movie's ending? If he's going to hold it against TDKR for being an overblown pretentious movie, then he should do the same for TDK, because I really don't see how the second movie was any better.

I have to disagree with his assessment on Anne Hathaway too. I liked her part, don't get me wrong, but she didn't have much to do to become the best Catwoman ever.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 17 May  2016, 22:07Neal Adams on Batman v Superman

I realize what the premise of this thread is but I don't think I need ideas on what's wrong with Batman v Superman given by some wackjob who thinks the Earth is expanding.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 24 Jul  2016, 07:42I'm coming back to this because I don't understand what this guy is talking about. I find it mind-boggling that he calls TDKR a bloated, pretentious mess, when that perfectly describes TDK just as well. I've noticed some people elsewhere on the internet having similar opinions, and it doesn't make many sense to me.

This is the cartoon that he drew to describe his distaste for the film.

(https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-websize.jpg)

His third point about how he found it hard to cheer for Batman because he's incompetent, and got people killed, was exactly the same problem I had with TDK. In fact, Bane exposing the truth about Harvey Dent is predicated on Batman's involvement in the Two-Face cover-up at the end of TDK. It goes to show that lying to the public was a terrible decision to begin with, so how come Templeton was never bothered by that movie's ending? If he's going to hold it against TDKR for being an overblown pretentious movie, then he should do the same for TDK, because I really don't see how the second movie was any better.

I have to disagree with his assessment on Anne Hathaway too. I liked her part, don't get me wrong, but she didn't have much to do to become the best Catwoman ever.

Bane revealing the truth about Harvey didn't cause anything. Of course lying was a bad move though. I don't know how that makes either of them bad. The entire strip is faulty, like Bane's dialogue being incomprehensible, when I understood it fine. Doing something isn't what makes a better Cawoman. Character does. But I wouldn't call her the best. One of the better adaptions yeah. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Paul Dini on Margot Robbie's portrayal as Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad:

Quote
Every clip that I've seen of Margot as Harley, she seems to have nailed it perfectly. When she's introducing herself to Katana, when she's walking around with the bat behind her shoulders, she just seems to have really channeled the true spirit of the character. Seeing that come alive is just amazing for me. I saw the shot yesterday of her and Joker in the therapy session getting ready to kiss, and I was just like, 'That's it, that's my girl.'

Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1541850/what-harley-quinns-creator-thinks-of-margot-robbies-suicide-squad-performance

Dan Slott has spent the last year complaining incessantly about the DCEU films, particularly BvS. Here are these pathetic tweets he made to describe the movie while touching upon the subject about human atrocities.

Quote from: Dan Slobb
Do NOT make me watch any of BvS again.

You know, there is a thing called the Geneva War Convention.

Quote from: Dan Slobb

Quote from: Henry
Actually, they're called the Geneva Conventions, which prevented and persecuted actual human atrocities.

And yet, BvS was still made. Go figure.

https://twitter.com/ComicBookDebate/status/783304415600119808

Now as many of you guys know, I have a strong distaste for Nolan's Batman. But unlike the utterly putrid excuse for a human being mentioned above, I don't stoop THAT low to compare films I don't appreciate to something like the Holocaust. Slobb (which I use to describe his odious personality) should take a really hard, good look at himself before criticising other people's work so obscenely. Because the last time I checked, I've seen how an overwhelming number of Spider-Man fans are extremely upset with how he writes their favourite character for Marvel Comics. He needs to figure out what he's doing wrong with his life, and sort himself out.

Here are excerpts by Dennis O'Neil, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan from the San Diego Comic Con panel in 2014.

O'Neill makes fun of the Batwing sequence in B89, apparently comparing it to a cartoon:

Quote
He shows up in a Batplane. Where does the Batplane come from? It comes from the Acme Corporation.

Graham Nolan dismisses all the Batman films, and wasn't impressed by the Chris Nolan series:

Quote
They've never made a Batman movie. The Christopher Nolan movies, it's James Bond movies. If you substitute Batman for James Bond and Q for Morgan Freeman's character, it's the same story. We never see Batman as the world's greatest detective. He always solves everything with technology, and it's not even technology he created. It's given to him by some other guy. And that's the biggest beef I have with these Batman movies.

Dixon on his opinion of the best "Batman" movie ever made:

Quote
For my money, the best Batman and Robin movie ever made is 'Die Hard 3. You have Batman, Robin and The Riddler. It was much better than the crappy Riddler they made in the movie the same year.

Source: http://www.cbr.com/sdcc-oneil-dixon-jones-celebrate-batman-in-the-80s-and-90s/

Frank Miller (on Batman Begins)

QuoteI thought they did a really, really good job. I mean, I walked out of that movie with a smile on my face; I thought it was a really strong interpretation of the character, and they knew what to borrow from and how much. I got a major kick out of the fact that they used that bit where he calls on the bats to attack the cops and that sort of thing, and I loved Gary Oldman's interpretation of exactly the Jim Gordon that I'd written in Batman: Year One. But it was [Christopher] Nolan's movie and [Christian] Bale's movie, and I just simply absorbed it and enjoyed the hell out of it.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2005/08/20/frank-miller-interview?page=2

I quoted that Miller comment last year, but he seemingly had a change of heart later on as he dismissed all Batman films.

Quote
PLAYBOY: There's a consensus that Daredevil and Elektra, two movies adapted from comics you wrote, were lousy. Do you agree with that opinion?

MILLER: When people come out with movies about characters I've worked on, I always hate them. I have my own ideas about what the characters are like. I mean, I can't watch a Batman movie. I've seen pieces of them, but I generally think, No, that's not him. And I walk out of the theater before it's over.

PLAYBOY: Does that include the Christopher Nolan Batman movies?

MILLER: It includes all of them. I'm not condemning what he does. I don't even understand it, except that he seems to think he owns the title Dark Knight. [laughs] He's about 20 years too late for that. It's been used.

PLAYBOY: Nolan's last two Batman movies each grossed more than $1 billion worldwide. Does any of that money make its way to you?

MILLER: No. If money's owed me, I wouldn't put it on him or any other author. To be sitting here whining and mewling and puking about that sort of thing...let other people do that.

Source: http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/19/frank-miller-walked-out-on-christopher-nolans-batman-movies/ (http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/19/frank-miller-walked-out-on-christopher-nolans-batman-movies/)

As I mentioned a year ago, there are three possibilities why he didn't mentioned that he enjoyed BB:

• He forgot about it.
• He liked it the first time he watched it, but then he had a change of heart the second time.
• He was paid to give it a good review back in 2005. It's a cynical suggestion, but shills are common in Hollywood. Who knows, perhaps those in the industry who claimed to like B89 and BR when they first came out secretly didn't like them after all, and felt more comfortable to voice their distaste much later.

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2477.100

Despite Dennis O' Neil making fun of the Batwing sequence in a quote from Comic Con 2014, he wrote a retrospective article that more or less pays tribute to Burton's film in that same year:

Quote
About 25 years ago I was walking from a screening at a Third Avenue theater onto a bustling Manhattan street with a Time Warner executive. My companion thought the movie we'd just seen, a movie that would be opening in a few days, was too dark for a summer entertainment and so would probably fail. Later, another kind and generous exec told me that there had been a snafu in getting the comic book adaptation I'd written to market and that my royalties would probably be impacted by the screen version of the story beating the comics version to the public. He said he'd try to get me a little extra money to ease my loss. It was a very generous offer, but in the end, an unnecessary one. The royalties were quite satisfactory, thank you.

And the movie? A hit. A big, juicy and – okay, we'll admit it – dark hit.

It was directed by Tim Burton, starred Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton and was eponymously titled Batman. Short, punchy. Fit on any marquee inn town.

It wasn't Batman's first venture into theaters. In the 40s there had been two serials, aimed at the Saturday matinee kid audience, and in 1966, a comedic take on the character adapted from a television show. I guess that those efforts did whatever they were supposed to do. But the 1989 Batman... that was something else. I don't have the profit/loss statements – I guess those Warner folk misplaced my phone number, back then in the 80s – but I'll happily guess that the BurtonBat exceeded box office expectations, maybe by a long stretch.

Why do you think that is? Batman wasn't the first big production that took the superhero genre seriously. There had been the four Superman movies, with A-list directors and actors. And Supergirl. (I'm not counting Superman and the Mole Men, which sprung from yet another television program, nor the movies-of-the week, yet more television programming.)

But Burton's stuff seemed to me to have been a game changer. Again, why? Maybe because it was a tipping point, which is defined by the excellent writer who popularized the term as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point." The writer, Malcolm Gladwell, says that "...ideas and products and messages and behavior spreads like viruses do."

So maybe the idea of superheroes as a legitimate genre, equal to westerns and crime drama and the rest of the generic amusements, had been seeping into our collective psyche for years. But the genre wasn't quite validated until...voila – it was! Tim Burton and his collaborators delivered what audiences didn't realize they were waiting for – a movie that had enough familiar elements to be acceptable as mass entertainment, but was also not quite like anything that those audiences had seen before, which made it a novelty.

It was a winning combination, one that's unlikely ever to be repeated. And a bonus: I rewatched the movie last night and can report that is holds up well. After all these years, it still does the job. Does it darkly, but does it. Nice.

Source: http://www.comicmix.com/2014/06/26/dennis-oneil-tim-burton-and-the-bat/

It's surprising, I thought his view on Burton had completely dimmed nowadays.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 12:50
Here are excerpts by Dennis O'Neil, Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan from the San Diego Comic Con panel in 2014.

O'Neill makes fun of the Batwing sequence in B89, apparently comparing it to a cartoon:

Quote
He shows up in a Batplane. Where does the Batplane come from? It comes from the Acme Corporation.

This is O'Neil's opinion, and that's all well and good. But I find this viewpoint unimaginative and lazy. I don't even see it as a valid criticism. In this comic book film that features a character named Batman, Batman created his own suit. He also built his own car and plane. The plane, piloted by Batman, came out of the bat cave and it flew onwards to downtown Gotham. That's it. We don't need every single thing spelled out to us to make clear cut conclusions.

O'Neil certainly has some bizarre opinions for somebody who is a comic book writer, but judging by his retrospective review of B89, I don't quite think he meant to be malicious. It's a misguided comment for sure, but it's not malicious.

I think it's worth remembering that O'Neil's quote seems to only relate to the Batwing. And out of context, that line could be quippy but good natured. Or it could be part of a larger avalanche of bile and negativity.

I always got the impression that O'Neil was mildly satisfied with B89. It wasn't completely in line with his own view of the character... but then, neither is the modern version of Batman in comics either. So what's it worth?

I could be totally off base there. But I don't think I am.

And I think his picking on the Batwing thing could be a minor nitpicky remark he made about a movie he otherwise pretty much enjoys. But he has a few hang ups with a few things... which apparently includes the Batwing, for some weird reason.

QuoteI think it's worth remembering that O'Neil's quote seems to only relate to the Batwing. And out of context, that line could be quippy but good natured. Or it could be part of a larger avalanche of bile and negativity.

Can't know his intentions, but one can make fun of movies they enjoy in an affectionate manner. The whole parade/batwing sequence makes zero sense if the viewer is too analytical, but if they accept this is an atmospheric fantasy/pulp movie and just enjoy the ride, it's awesome.

I know this is for comic creators, but it might include quotes from others who have contributed to Batman in some way.

Marc Tyler Nobleman, author of Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman (discussed here (http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3558.0)) on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Quote

Speaking on the phone from his home in Maryland, Nobleman acknowledges that the film in which Finger finally got his overdue credit may not have been the most distinguished in the franchise. "That credit was the best part of the movie," he says.

source: BostonGlobe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2017/06/01/batman-bill-uncovers-little-known-superhero-origin-story/iae148WKcuP3WoIEbd5PnK/story.html)

No offense. But exactly when did Nobleman become an acknowledged and accepted authority on Batman? Was I taking a leak or something when that happened?

He did a good thing for Bill Finger's legacy and I'm not taking anything away from that. But guys like Graham Nolan, Paul Dini, Denny O'Neil, Michael Uslan or hell even Kevin Smith have bona fides that qualify their opinions above others. Nobody disputes that.

Nobleman? Seriously, what's his pedigree?

Again, not trying to trash talk you personally. I'm just a bit exasperated.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 17:27
No offense. But exactly when did Nobleman become an acknowledged and accepted authority on Batman? Was I taking a leak or something when that happened?

He did a good thing for Bill Finger's legacy and I'm not taking anything away from that. But guys like Graham Nolan, Paul Dini, Denny O'Neil, Michael Uslan or hell even Kevin Smith have bona fides that qualify their opinions above others. Nobody disputes that.

Nobleman? Seriously, what's his pedigree?

Again, not trying to trash talk you personally. I'm just a bit exasperated.

The ones you mention have a long history with Batman, yes, and credited with a lot of things. But, most paid professionals who worked in previous Batman movies, directors and actors, are hardly Batman or comic book authorities, but when they do a comment related to these things, they are endlessly quoted/shared in social media e.g. why should we care what Bale thinks about superhero movies (link) (http://screenrant.com/christian-bale-batman-dark-knight-superhero-films/)? He's an actor paid to act, not to offer analyses and opinions. Or is it fame that makes opinions more valid? This isn't against Bale, you know what I'm saying.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting to know what he thinks about BvS.

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.

Steve Engelhart reckons that his work with Marshall Rogers for DC was used as a basis for a couple of Batman films. I should warn you all that this is a very long post, but I think it's worth reading.

These are his comments about the time he was approached to write a treatment for a dark live action Batman film, which eventually became B89.

Quote
Ten years after I wrote the "definitive Batman" for DETECTIVE COMICS, I got a call from DC Comics publisher Jenette Kahn. It seems that when those DETECTIVEs appeared, Mike Uslan, producer of the Swamp Thing film, told an interviewer they showed him, for the first time, how to do a Batman film for adults. (The Adam West "Holy Pow!" Batman was still the dominant image for the general public.)
In the ten years since, he had tried, first as an independent and later in association with Warner Brothers, to translate my story into a single film. A series of scripts involving Silver St. Cloud, Boss Thorne, and a truly insane Joker had been generated by Hollywood's finest writers, but somehow they weren't working. So now I was asked to return to the Batman.

When I got involved I was told that the Joker and the Penguin and Robin were all going to be in the picture. I argued that that was several characters too many, but was overruled, so my first treatment went that route. The Powers That Be not only liked it, but for the first time saw the Batman "picture" clearly enough to realize that two villains and a boy wonder were masking (so to speak) the Batman story, which is what it should be all about. So I got to do the second treatment with just the characters that eventually hit the screen: Bruce Wayne, the Batman, Silver St. Cloud, Boss Thorne, and the Joker.

When I was done we had all the elements in the right places, and most importantly, we had Batman's ambiance, the thing no one else could do. So screenwriter Sam Hamm and director Tim Burton took over, and three years later - after Silver and Boss Thorne had their names changed for various reasons - the one Batman movie everyone liked hit the screen. If I'd had any sense I'd have continued working in Hollywood then, but I was enjoying comics and games.

Obviously, I should have continued, since Warners later adapted DARK DETECTIVE II and III into The Dark Knight.

As you might've have guessed from that last sentence above, Engelhart goes on to make some very curious accusations over TDK for lifting characterisations and plot ideas from his unfinished Dark Detective arc.

Quote
When DC wanted to make the Batman movie from DARK DETECTIVE I, they said so, and (eventually) brought me in on the project because, they said, no one could adapt me as well as me. But afterward, they didn't want to give me any credit. So when they made a movie of DARK DETECTIVE II, they said nothing. And when I turned in DARK DETECTIVE III, it got worse. I'm afraid this is a sad story...

In DARK DETECTIVE II, I created a handsome, blond, upright politician who had become the significant other to the Batman's former girlfriend, and Marshall Rogers designed his look. There it is, up above - twice. And just to be clear, the one on the right came first.

In DARK DETECTIVE II, that handsome, blond, upright politician - Evan Gregory - was a brave guy who fought crime in Gotham City because it was the right thing to do. He thrust himself into a fight with the Joker to save the woman he loved, and paid a horrible price for it as his entire left side was damaged beyond repair. The man who had been noble and handsome became a mutilated cripple.

In the next segment, DARK DETECTIVE III, that handsome, blond, upright politician was extremely depressed over losing his left side and his woman. Then Two-Face came to him in his depression and had a heart-to-heart, in which Two-Face convinced him that life is meaningless, that the woman in his life is beyond his reach, and that that handsome, blond, upright politician should make a hundred-eighty degree turn to the dark side. Which he did.

In my version, it's Two-Face talking to another guy who's been heavily damaged on the left side, and who is another "golden boy" politician, so it makes sense that Two-Face could convince Evan Gregory. They share a bond. In the film version, it's the Joker talking to Harvey Dent. Those two have nothing in common, and Dent has hated the Joker the entire movie. It was a storyline in search of a reason to be there.

(DD3 was written two years after DD2, which is why the last half hour of The Dark Knight feels so tacked on. It didn't exist when they started the film.)

In Batman, they changed Silver St. Cloud to "Vicki Vale" and Boss Thorne to "Boss Grissom." In The Dark Knight, they changed Evan Gregory to "Harvey Dent" and Two-Face to the Joker. But the plot and the look are clear. The original Harvey Dent had a different origin, no Joker, and brown hair combed straight back.

To top it all off, they changed Dark Detective to "Dark Knight."

And let's not forget where the completely irrational Joker and the Batman with a sex life came from in the first place.

I figure 70 per cent of Batman was based on my stories and treatments. I'd peg The Dark Knight about the same, since all the main concepts are mine, though the usage of them was more free-form. As a writer, it's very satisfying to have created two Batman films, but it would have been nice to be treated like a human being, so I would sincerely hope that it'll never happen again. But there's still the unpublished Mad Hatter story in their drawer, and the unpublished Joker...

Sources:
http://www.steveenglehart.com/Film/Batman%20movie.html
http://www.steveenglehart.com/Film/Dark%20Knight%20movie.html

Just to be clear, Engelhart and Rogers conceived Dark Detective as a sequel to their 1970s Detective Comics run. The first six part mini-series, which Engelhart refers to as "Dark Detective 2", was released in 2005. The script for the next mini-series (as Engelhart dubs as Dark Detective 3) was finished, but the series never got to be released to the public because Marshall Rogers passed away, and the artwork remained unfinished to this day. But nowadays, Engelhart sells his DD3 scripts to fans who are willing to pay for them: http://www.steveenglehart.com/Comics/Dark%20Detective%20III.html

I took some time this week to read Dark Detective 2 this week. Here are a few more examples I connected that Engelhart didn't mention.

DD2 and TDK both featured a love triangle. The comics had Silver St Cloud, Batman and Evan Gregory, whereas the film had Rachel Dawes, Batman and Harvey Dent.

But the difference is the comics explores its love triangle much deeper with existing material. In Engelhart and Rogers' original Detective Comics run, Bruce and Silver were dating each other, but Silver decided to break up after discovering Bruce was Batman, because she couldn't cope with the fear of losing him if he didn't survive from his nightly duties one day. In Dark Detective, Silver moved on and was engaged with Senator Evan Gregory. Long story short though, Batman and Silver had been poisoned by the Scarecrow's fear toxin, and as they survived their own personal demon and fears, they realised they were still in love with each other, and rekindled their relationship. Later, Silver tells the truth to Evan, and calls off their engagement. In comparison, the film's love triangle is pretty shallow and there wasn't enough time to develop it because of too many plot points going on. Not to mention that Bruce's relationship with Rachel in the films was far less intimate compared to his comics counterpart and Silver.

The only thing these versions have in common is neither Gregory or Dent ever suspected Bruce is Batman. Of course, Dent never learned that Bruce was still in love with his fiance, unlike Gregory.

Batman fights off cops. In DD, Batman is no longer legitimised by the GCPD. He constantly fights off cops trying to arrest him. In the film, he starts fighting off cops to stop them from killing hostages and became an outlaw because of the Dent cover-up. For reasons unknown, Commissioner Gordon is nowhere to be seen in the comic.

Fundraiser ballroom scenes. In DD, the story features Bruce Wayne attending a fundraising party for Senator Gregory, who is running for Governor. In TDK, Bruce hosts fundraising party for Dent at his own penthouse. Another curious similarity in DD is Batman has a secret closet located at the hotel hosting the party, where he can change out of costume and vice versa. In TDK, Bruce enters through a panic room in front of a couple of onlookers, right before fighting the Joker. And yes, DD has Batman confronting the Joker at the party too.

Batman has support from a political figure. It's revealed at the start of DD that Senator Gregory wants to permit Batman with legal authority again, and is willing to use his help when the Joker had kidnapped Silver. In the film, Dent relies on Batman to get Lau to indict the Maroni mob, and forces his hand to go after the Joker instead of turning himself over to the police.

There is a difference between the two characters' disfigurements. As Engelhart mentioned, Gregory had his entire left side damaged. To be specific, his left arm and leg have been severed by scythe when he tried to go after Silver when she was kept hostage in the Joker's hideout, an abandoned home set up with death traps. In the film, Dent tried to keep Rachel safe from the Joker, but got his left side of his face burned following a series of convoluted circumstances thanks to the Joker.

That planned character development for Evan Gregory as he meets Two-Face and becoming a villain does make a lot of sense and I would've liked to read that in a comic. It would've made another aspect of Two-Face's mythology rich: seeing a mirror image of somebody else who was exactly like Harvey Dent. Ambitious, politically-driven, brave, idealistic - until their lives was destroyed by fate, and thus, the only thing to do next is to embrace the darkness and exact vengeance against everybody. A vicious cycle of emptiness and hatred repeats itself once more. Sounds like working as a lawyer and a Senator in Gotham City will always lead to tragedy, and an indicator alone that the town can never be reformed.

Joker makes threats, and murders people via unconventional means. In DD, the Joker challenges Senator Gregory and announces his intention to run for Governor, and threatens to kill those who refuse to support him. He proceeds to do so to his unsuspecting victims e.g. audio CDs laced with Joker venom. In TDK, he announces he'll start killing spree if Batman doesn't turn himself in, and does so by bombing unsuspecting victims, tainting drinks with acid and so on. Another similarity is a victim sees the Joker's calling card before they die in a bomb explosion: Two-Face's clone in DD (long story, don't ask), and a judge in TDK.

Keep in mind though, TDK isn't a shot-by-shot ripoff of Engelhart's mini-series. There are differences, particularly the plot overall. But I understand why Engelhart would feel aggrieved that his work was used as an influence without getting any recognition for it.
Sadly, as Alan Moore once said, comics have become storyboard for films, and I suspect a lot of artists don't get compensated if ideas from their work get adapted. Particularly as something as obscure as Dark Detective.

You got to admit though, you can't help but laugh when Engelhart compares the likeness between Gregory and actor Aaron Eckhart.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steveenglehart.com%2FFilm%2FFilm%2520images%2FHarvey%2520Dent.jpg&hash=278c348aa3b232c93ad6a800d13337140ba5dd7b)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steveenglehart.com%2FFilm%2FFilm%2520images%2FEvan%2520Gregory.jpg&hash=2152b53df5ad8ab57fd66eb696b8b734eb891e99)

Mark Millar has expressed his distaste for BvS multiple times, this is his latest.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De4DuDHUEAA-m4t.jpg:large)

Way to undermine the integrity of all the lives lost in the Vietnam War by comparing your trivial dislike of a movie, Millar, you incomprehensible moron.

Besides, he should take a good look at himself in the mirror, because that piece of garbage Kick-Ass could easily be compared to child abuse. After all, it does feature a ten year old girl, who kills people and gets beaten up by a GROWN MAN. Pathetic excuse for a film, possibly even more pathetic excuse for a comic. Talk about living in glass houses.

I've never heard of Jamal Igle before, but he did work for DC Comics at one stage. Some of his writing credits include working on Superman, Green Lantern, Nightwing and Supergirl. He's a BvS detractor, and this was his "insightful" criticism of the helipad scene between Superman and Lex:

Quote
Superman, at that point, had nothing to do with Luthor's plan. A plan, which makes zero sense. If his plan was to stop Darkseid, who he claims is the real threat, why send him to kill Batman? Why create Doomsday? It's a stupid plan.

Source: https://twitter.com/JAMALIGLE/status/991136235652435968

;D

There's no animated GIF in the world that could convey the utter disbelief at Igle's blatant misunderstanding of Lex's plan. Either he has never watched the film and jumped on the hate bandwagon...or he has watched it, but didn't pay any attention to what was going on. Regardless, you have to laugh at the utter ignorance and stupidity of what he wrote. Even people who hated the film could understand that undermining Superman was the whole point of Lex's plan.

The talking down and mild ridicule Igle got from fan replies in that Twitter thread was totally deserved.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 24 Oct  2018, 11:09I've never heard of Jamal Igle before

You're not missing much.

Quote from: Jamal Igle on Wed, 24 Oct  2018, 11:09Superman, at that point, had nothing to do with Luthor's plan. A plan, which makes zero sense. If his plan was to stop Darkseid, who he claims is the real threat, why send him to kill Batman? Why create Doomsday? It's a stupid plan.

Igle is missing the point, either on purpose or by accident. Either way, it's hard to know how all those scenes of Lex explaining his hatred of Superman went by him. But I've kept a close enough eye on Igle over the years to know that he's not exactly the deepest well on the farm.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 13:07
Mark Millar has expressed his distaste for BvS multiple times, this is his latest.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De4DuDHUEAA-m4t.jpg:large)

Way to undermine the integrity of all the lives lost in the Vietnam War by comparing your trivial dislike of a movie, Millar, you incomprehensible moron.

Besides, he should take a good look at himself in the mirror, because that piece of garbage Kick-Ass could easily be compared to child abuse. After all, it does feature a ten year old girl, who kills people and gets beaten up by a GROWN MAN. Pathetic excuse for a film, possibly even more pathetic excuse for a comic. Talk about living in glass houses.

This Mark Millar is even more screwed up than I thought. He had allegedly wrote a treatment of Wonder Woman getting raped for a storyline.

Quote
I pitched this to DC for a laugh years back. The idea was that, like Death of Superman, we had Rape of Wonder Woman; a twenty-two page rape scene that opened up into a gatefold at the end just like Superman did.

Source: http://lostmediaarchive.wikia.com/wiki/The_Rape_of_Wonder_Woman_(Unreleased_Mark_Millar_Comic_Book_Script)

I've heard of his obsession with women and girls getting sexually assaulted or facing threats of such abuse in the comics he writes. And this disturbed man has the nerve to post such hyperbolic condemnation of BvS? If degenerates like Millar are that successful, it's no wonder why the comics industry is dying.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 14 Jan  2019, 11:05

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 13:07
Mark Millar has expressed his distaste for BvS multiple times, this is his latest.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De4DuDHUEAA-m4t.jpg:large)

Way to undermine the integrity of all the lives lost in the Vietnam War by comparing your trivial dislike of a movie, Millar, you incomprehensible moron.

Besides, he should take a good look at himself in the mirror, because that piece of garbage Kick-Ass could easily be compared to child abuse. After all, it does feature a ten year old girl, who kills people and gets beaten up by a GROWN MAN. Pathetic excuse for a film, possibly even more pathetic excuse for a comic. Talk about living in glass houses.

This Mark Millar is even more screwed up than I thought. He had allegedly wrote a treatment of Wonder Woman getting raped for a storyline.

Quote
I pitched this to DC for a laugh years back. The idea was that, like Death of Superman, we had Rape of Wonder Woman; a twenty-two page rape scene that opened up into a gatefold at the end just like Superman did.

Source: http://lostmediaarchive.wikia.com/wiki/The_Rape_of_Wonder_Woman_(Unreleased_Mark_Millar_Comic_Book_Script)

I've heard of his obsession with women and girls getting sexually assaulted or facing threats of such abuse in the comics he writes. And this disturbed man has the nerve to post such hyperbolic condemnation of BvS? If degenerates like Millar are that successful, it's no wonder why the comics industry is dying.

Honestly, the main reason the comic biz is dying is probably because people like Millar and Igle run it. And I'm not talking about their joyous personalities either.

I mean that literally people like them run the industry. Instead of hiring someone with legit publishing experience and an understanding of how periodicals should work, artists and writers tend to get those jobs. They may be incredibly talented in their crafts too. I'm not knocking them either way.

But if you look at the book publishing world, the talent generally writes the books and the management generally publishes the books.

Same thing with the world of talk radio. The talent always has a microphone near his mouth while the management handles the day-to-day business of running the program.

But in comics, it isn't that way. In comics, some jerkwad who doesn't know the first thing about publishing comics but who can draw one helluva poster is too often tasked with keeping a given book publishing on schedule. It's a completely insane system and I think it's a minor miracle that the industry is even still around.

Then again, it could just be inertia.

Either way, the comic industry is nuts.

Steve Englehart shared his thoughts on the 1989 film in a piece he wrote for 13thDimension.com last June:

QuoteNicholson is a legitimate legend, and Basinger was far better than she's remembered as being, but I really want to applaud Michael Keaton.

The story I heard at the time was, no "major" actor wanted to do a movie with a mask over his face, so director Tim Burton turned to his Beetlejuice star by default. However, it went down, Keaton really was the "definitive Batman" I'd written.

His characteristic dark internal tension was perfectly centered and perfectly under control, but the audience could always feel it. For my money, Christian Bale looked like Batman on the outside but Keaton looked like Batman on the inside, which is where Batman lives.

https://13thdimension.com/batman-89-an-appreciation-by-steve-englehart/

Keaton fans should make good use of that last sentence the next time haters trash his performance.

At some point this weekend, I'll try to transcribe some comic pros remarks about Batman Forever. These are hot takes made just after seeing the movie for the first time. And some of them are kind of surprising.

Here's an interesting extended discussion between Denny O'Neil and Daniel Fingeroth at a 25th anniversary screening of Batman '89. O'Neil gives his opinion on the film, talks about his involvement with the comic adaptation and novelisation, answers questions regarding Batman killing and which Batman actor is his favourite, and shares some of his hopes for the then-upcoming Batman v Superman film.

Comic pros share their hot takes on Batman Forever moments after seeing it in back in 1995. This is what they thought of BF at the time. Transcribed from Wizard #49, September 1995, pg. 21.

-- Marla Alquiza
I attended the Hollywood premiere and it was like the Academy Awards. I went to get popcorn, and ahead of me in line was Cindy Crawford. Then I went to the bathroom, and Wesley Snipes is beside me talking around me to Steven Baldwin. When I left, I bumped into Quincy Jones. They were all like regular people, and they were talking about the movie! The audience loved it, and I thought it was great. It never let up, and Val Kilmer makes a much better Batman than Michael Keaton.

-- Kurt Busiek
I'd rather see them try to adapt the source material than the medium -- the medium won't translate. Emphasizing bright colors over character concepts and plot logic seems pretty contemptuous of the material to me. I kept checking my watch to see when it was going to end.

-- Peter David
There were some fundamental weaknesses in the script that the direction and acting couldn't surmount. But they produced exactly the movie they set out to produce. They wanted to save the Batman franchise and make him more friendly than in the first two. Batman Forever is much more evocative of the TV show. The script also managed the amazing feat of taking Two-Face and making him one-note.

-- Dan Jurgens
It was pretty enjoyable, but I thought Val Kilmer was too wooden, especially as Bruce Wayne. To me, Michael Keaton had more of a twinkle in his eye. But Robin was a breath of fresh air. He showed how important Robin is to the legend of Batman. Without Robin, this movie would have been awful. And I loved the mention of Metropolis! ... Overall, it was a lot of fun and less claustrophobic than the first two.

-- Ron Marz
It was much better than Batman Returns, but it suffered from the same problem: It was eye candy. Visually, it was great but the story was a mess. But it's probably as good as we can from a major Hollywood movie with huge licensing needs. It's a juggernaut.

-- Heidi MacDonald
The movie is really beyond good or bad, it kind of just happens. I felt like I'd been trapped in a a pinball machine. Val Kilmer was the Batman of my dreams; the scenes of him plummeting, cape billowing, were excellent. For the first time, I actually got a sense of Batman's power and heroism.

-- Brian Pulido
It was like being in an amusement park. It had killer camera moves, lighting, art direction and costumes. The cast was great. Nicole Kidman may make a good Lady Death, and Joel Schumacher can direct [an] Evil Ernie [movie] any time.

-- Alex Ross
I enjoyed the movie's look, it was very exciting and beautiful. The circus just blew me away, with the huge statues and everything. I was very entertained, but if I'd stopped to think about the plot, I'd have gone insane. The only negative is that the Batman movies affect how the entire industry decides to make superhero films. They don't respect the material or realize that these movies don't have to be huge-budget epics. It could have been like Batman: Year One and been made on a shoestring budget, too.

-- Mark Waid
I loved it! I haven't enjoyed a comics movie so much since Superman: The Movie. Sure, you have to turn your brain off at the door. But unlike the first two, this one had a plot, and I'm appreciative. I thought the Riddler's master plan was over the top and not something we'd do in a comic book, but chances are too great that you could go into a comic shop, throw a stick, and hit a comic with a sillier Master Plan. I'm going again, I liked it so much.

Great find, colors. I've never seen any of these quotes before now. I can't say I'm surprised that Waid loved the movie, considering his own creative sensibilities have always been firmly aligned with the Silver Age. Most of the other responses seem fairly measured: they liked the visuals, but thought it lacked substance. A lot of fans on this site would disagree with that appraisal, but it's pretty typical of the wider consensus.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 11 Jan  2020, 20:09
Great find, colors. I've never seen any of these quotes before now. I can't say I'm surprised that Waid loved the movie, considering his own creative sensibilities have always been firmly aligned with the Silver Age. Most of the other responses seem fairly measured: they liked the visuals, but thought it lacked substance. A lot of fans on this site would disagree with that appraisal, but it's pretty typical of the wider consensus.

It's strange to think how controversial BF was back in 1995. It was starting to become okay for comic book fans to have quibbles and misgivings with Burton's films. That would happen even more in subsequent years, as we all know. But at that time, it was so common that it was assumed by a lot of fans before BF came out that change is good. The movie fans saw in 1995 was ultimately regarded as a lateral move: Some things were better than Burton, other things were worse but most things were no improvement at all.

I think fans have since reevaluated BF and it's more appreciated now. I maintain that if BF came out for the first time today, $1 billion worldwide is virtually guaranteed. There's a strong argument that Schumacher's REAL problem is that he was way too far ahead of his time.

You're probably right about BF being more warmly received if released today than in the nineties. Modern critics would have lauded its humour and celebrated its perceived homoerotic undertones. In fact if anything, modern critics would probably have criticised it for not being gay enough. I think they'd still take issue with the performance of Tommy Lee Jones, and they'd have criticised the casting for its lack of people of colour in prominent roles. But overall, I expect they'd have liked it. And no critic nowadays would have dared criticise Alicia Silverstone for her portrayal of Batgirl in Batman & Robin. Instead they'd have highlighted her as one of the film's strengths.

To be fair though, the majority of critics back in the nineties liked BF too. Even now, it's rated 61% 'Fresh' with Top Critics on Rotten Tomatoes.


A few years ago I calculated that if you were to exclude the post-1995 reviews from the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate and count only the original reviews, then Batman Forever would have an RT score of about 69% (this has probably changed since then with the addition of more old reviews). That's the same rating Joker has. Now obviously I'm not saying it would be as acclaimed as Joker if released today. Not by a long shot. But the modern negativity surrounding the film does seem to have been exacerbated by later reviewers and bloggers whose evaluations penetrate no deeper than the usual bat-nipple/campiness/bat-ass complaints. With this year being the 25th anniversary, it's high time the movie was re-evaluated on a larger scale.

I probably have a higher opinion of BF than most, since whenever I watch it nowadays I usually watch fan edits like the Red Book or Virtual Workprint cuts. The ideal scenario would be for Warner Bros to release an official edit done in a similar style to celebrate the film's 25th anniversary. That would allow a wider audience to get acquainted with the film's hidden strengths. But we know this won't happen, since WB doesn't give a toss about the older Batman movies. Still, we'll have to make sure we celebrate the anniversary here on Batman-Online when the summer arrives. Hopefully the site will be up and running properly by then so we can post some features on the subject.

As for the idea of Batman Forever reaching a billion in 2020 – BF made $184,031,112 domestically in 1995. According to Forbes, that would be around $381.2 million today:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2019/10/21/box-office-where-joker-currently-ranks-amongst-all-dc-films/#778b4a1627ad

It made 45.3% of its global takings outside the US. But that percentage would be a lot higher today owing to the expansion of overseas markets in the past 25 years. Especially China. For example, Spider-Man: Far From Home made 65.5% of its WW cume from overseas markets last year. Its domestic takings were $390.5 million, which is only $10 million more than BF's US gross when adjusted for inflation. And Far From Home grossed $1,131,927,996 WW. So based on its adjusted domestic gross, and assuming BF had a similar 35:65% domestic/overseas box office split as Far From Home (it might not have been as popular overseas as SM:FFH, but for now let's assume it would be), then BF would stand an excellent chance of passing $1 billion WW in 2020.

Jason Fabok went on Twitter to reveal artwork of his Burton-inspired Batman for the upcoming Three Jokers story.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUdLjG-WAAYMaej?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Quote from: Jason Fabok
I based the look on Killing Joke (LOTS of visual nods to it in this book) Batman 89 and the Animated Series.  Those are the books that set the standard for what Batman looked like for me growing up.  It just feels classic.

https://www.twitter.com/JasonFabok/status/1245055495523708930

Quote from: Jason Fabok
Batman 89 is my favorite batman...so I put lots of nods to it in this story.  I figured, what the hell, it makes me feel good.

https://www.twitter.com/JasonFabok/status/1245048450712035328

As much as I love any artist showing their appreciation for Burton's Batman, I get a little wary over Fabok teaming with nostalgiaholic Geoff Johns to make Three Jokers. I guess Johns must have been an influence.