As compelling as this scene is, I do have one gripe that has always bothered me about Batman trying to persuade Catwoman to turn Shreck over to the police. Catwoman declares that they are both above the law, but Batman disagrees. I find it a little hard to believe he'd say that because he ruthlessly killed criminals throughout the film. It was a contradictory line that didn't ring true to me. But perhaps one might argue that Batman didn't realize what he had become until he saw a reflection of himself in Selina and how her desire to get revenge was destroying her. In addition to wanting to find happiness with Selina since he sees her as his kindred spirit, maybe that's what Batman meant when he said "We're the same. Split right down to the centre". But I honestly think that's a bit too subtle if that's the case.
Having said that, if one chooses to recognize Batman Forever as a sequel to the Burton films, you could argue that movie fleshes out Bruce's sudden moral stance as he tries to discourage Dick Grayson from seeking revenge over Two-Face. In Forever, Bruce tells Dick that "the pain doesn't stop with Harvey, it grows. And it leads to taking your anger out on another face. And another. Until you wake up on one terrible morning and realize you've spent your whole life seeking revenge, and you won't remember why". He says this because he's speaking about his own experience, and he doesn't want Dick to go on the same path.
What do you all think? Did Batman adopt a moral code by the end of Batman Returns, or not?
Batman wasn't killing people out of anger, though. Those were thugs who intended to harm him or other people. Max was already defenseless, and Selina wanted to kill him out of revenge. That's where Batman's morals kicked in.
Though it may be contradictory, Batman saw Catwoman as a criminal as well. While sympathetic, he wouldn't allow her to just do as she pleases. Obviously, Batman did the same in the first movie with the Joker, but the instance of killing in revenge was in a much different light when Joker was the one who ruined Bruce's life so early on.
But that's the problem: Shreck ruined Catwoman's life too because his attempted murder sent her over the edge. Though I think I do see your point about the differences between the maniacal Joker and the defenseless Shreck. One was a psychotic menace who everyone knew was a threat and is capable of anything, whereas the other was a somewhat adored figure by the fooling public and didn't really pose a threat at large.
Yeah, I think we can chalk it up to Batman being imperfect, perhaps even a touch selfish. It's easier for him to renounce Catwoman's actions because he's not in the same situation, but when he himself was confronted with the Joker, he couldn't hold back.
Maybe part of it was realizing the line he crossed with killing The Joker and trying to save Selina - who he obviously loved - from falling into that abyss. He knew she was out of control at that point. The last stitch of her psyche had popped. So while he was able to keep from falling in, he knew if she stepped over that line there was no bringing her back and salvaging his dreams for him and her.
Or maybe he was just being self-righteous and "Do as I say, not as I do" and I'm just giving the bastard too much credit lol.
I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Dec 2014, 00:53
I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.
I guess Batman never expected nor wanted anyone he knew to become a reflection of himself. Whether or not it was intended, that idea of Bruce trying to stop someone he cares about from falling into that trap continued in BF. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from emulating him that way is something that the film deserves to get credit for. Critics might argue that Batman is still a hypocrite for killing Two-Face; much to Robin's satisfaction especially. And yeah, that might be true too. But it also allowed Robin to move on with his life - free from wanting revenge. Batman darkened his soul one more time to save another, I suppose. The complete opposite of what happened in the end of BR.
But then again, similar to what Catwoman said - it could've been just contrived BS and we're giving the writers too much credit than they deserve. :D
I'm revisiting this again because I recently read an old two-part issue where Batman's somewhat double standards were on display by the end of the story.
At the end of Batman #422, Batman's investigation of a serial killer who preyed on women came to an end when the sister of one of the victims took matters into her own hands. This is what Batman says to Robin at the end of the issue:
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmwO9Dkn.jpg&hash=1d147a434de3952be4cdb7c10590597925f0106b)
So why is this a bit hypocritical? Because this little storyline follows right after Ten Nights of the Beast, where Batman decides to lock KGBeast up underground and let him starve to death because he realized the Russian assassin was too dangerous to keep alive. Batman's actions in these stories kind of reminds me of his "Wrong on both counts!" line as he confronts Catwoman at the end of BR, despite the fact that Catwoman is half-right - the law doesn't apply to him!
Now while Burton's Batman certainly has a lot of influence in the Golden Age comics, I can't help but feel that he has some influences with the 80s comics too, albeit arguably unintentional. Batman in that era did kill under desperate circumstances, but he still preaches that nobody can be above the law. Batman only kills in the films to stop mass-murderers and psychopaths but Gotham City accepts him as long as the ends justify the means, so to speak. It's not realistic, but then again, vigilantes could never co-operate with the law under any circumstances in the real world. With the exception of the Joker, Batman doesn't kill out of vengeance (but even then, you could argue that Batman did Gotham a huge favour by getting rid of that maniac). In that KGBeast storyline, Batman and Robin were co-operating with the CIA in an effort to protect President Reagan from getting assassinated, and stop KGBeast from continuing his plot to destroy the US's space program by wiping out its key members. Batman decides to end KGBeast for the sake of national security.
You could also argue that these two comics storylines can be treated as individual tales because Batman doesn't break his rule and preach morality in the same story. And most importantly, when Batman does kill in the 80s comics (at least the ones I've read) and in BR, his morality doesn't become an important plot point, unlike something in the Nolan movies.
Just my opinion. :-\
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 27 Jan 2015, 11:52
Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 9 Dec 2014, 00:53
I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.
I guess Batman never expected nor wanted anyone he knew to become a reflection of himself. Whether or not it was intended, that idea of Bruce trying to stop someone he cares about from falling into that trap continued in BF. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from emulating him that way is something that the film deserves to get credit for. Critics might argue that Batman is still a hypocrite for killing Two-Face; much to Robin's satisfaction especially. And yeah, that might be true too. But it also allowed Robin to move on with his life - free from wanting revenge. Batman darkened his soul one more time to save another, I suppose. The complete opposite of what happened in the end of BR.
But then again, similar to what Catwoman said - it could've been just contrived BS and we're giving the writers too much credit than they deserve. :D
Two-Face actually doesn't die there. And he wasn't intended to. It was always meant to be left open. But he does survive. We see his outfit in Arkham's area.
Tommy Lee's Two-Face is very much dead.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 10:15
Tommy Lee's Two-Face is very much dead.
It's likely he's in a coma, but his clothes were in the Arkham locker in Batman & Robin, showcasing that he's there.
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 13:22
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 14:08
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 13:22
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.
When did Joel Schumacher say that Two-Face's fate was left ambiguous? Was it in a DVD commentary?
I preferred that he did die because it would only undermine Batman's sacrifice to relieve Robin's desire for revenge.
Besides, I thought the scene more than heavily implies that Two-Face died from that height. Even for comic book fiction, a fall from that height is not survivable.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 28 Jun 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 14:08
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 13:22
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.
When did Joel Schumacher say that Two-Face's fate was left ambiguous? Was it in a DVD commentary?
I preferred that he did die because it would only undermine Batman's sacrifice to relieve Robin's desire for revenge.
Besides, I thought the scene more than heavily implies that Two-Face died from that height. Even for comic book fiction, a fall from that height is not survivable.
I believe it was in the commentary.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 14:08
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 13:22
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.
Could he not have had more than one suit? The deleted scene at the beginning shows Two face was already in arkham asylum and I believe it's stated early on in the film that he broke out of arkham so it's quite possible that suit was there before the events of Batman Forever.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 3 Jul 2015, 06:17
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 14:08
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jun 2015, 13:22
The jacket is a cameo and nothing more. A throwback to the previous film, providing connective tissue. Nobody survives a plunge into a watery grave full of rocks. The look on Robin's face said it all. And the cue name on the score is Two-Face's Demise.
So? The director himself said that it was left ambiguous purposefully. If his costume is there, he's alive. People survive ridiculous falls all the time. But it's likely he's in a coma. The look on Robin's face gives us very little clue about whether or not he's alive.
Could he not have had more than one suit? The deleted scene at the beginning shows Two face was already in arkham asylum and I believe it's stated early on in the film that he broke out of arkham so it's quite possible that suit was there before the events of Batman Forever.
That's a deleted scene.
I'm looking back to what JokerMeThis said earlier. If you can judge the scene by itself without thinking about BF for a moment, I think it can be easily argued that Batman wasn't pleading to Catwoman because he was arguing from a moral standpoint or concerned for Max Schreck's safety. He was simply worried that someone who he cared about was letting her rage tear her apart. Although I still find his objection over her remark about the law not applying to them unnecessary.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 3 Jul 2015, 16:49That's a deleted scene.
Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 30 Aug 2015, 23:20
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 3 Jul 2015, 16:49That's a deleted scene.
Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.
I'm sure that in the film Batman tells Chase that it was the second anniversary of their first fight when Two-Face did the bank robbery.
Which would have put it nearly a year after the events of Returns, if the movies follow the same timeline as real life. Oct '93. Unless Forever was supposed to be in Oct '94 which means it would have happened in Oct '92 which means it would have been two months before the events of Return which means Batman wouldn't have been on a long hiatus which means it had to be '93 which means ignore everything I just said. lol.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 30 Aug 2015, 23:32
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 30 Aug 2015, 23:20
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 3 Jul 2015, 16:49That's a deleted scene.
Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.
I'm sure that in the film Batman tells Chase that it was the second anniversary of their first fight when Two-Face did the bank robbery.
Also if I'm not mistaken is it not stated in the film that Harvey escaped from Arkham? Anyhow just because his escape is only in a deleted scene doesn't mean it couldn't have fit into the continuity.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 30 Aug 2015, 23:32I'm sure that in the film Batman tells Chase that it was the second anniversary of their first fight when Two-Face did the bank robbery.
Gordon- "Two guards are dead. He's holding the third one hostage. We didn't didn't see this one coming."
Chase- "We should have though. The Second Bank of Gotham on..."
Batman- "The second anniversary of the day I captured him."
Yes, thank you, colors. I wasn't sure if Batman said the day of their first fight or the day he captured him. And since Two-Face was captured once, we can assume that he did escape from Arkham, riddler, even if the scene was deleted.
We don't know when exactly after the events in Returns was Harvey scarred, so we can only guess how much had passed. I think you must be right, Catwoman, even if there was no official timeline of the films.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 31 Aug 2015, 06:56
Yes, thank you, colors. I wasn't sure if Batman said the day of their first fight or the day he captured him. And since Two-Face was captured once, we can assume that he did escape from Arkham, riddler, even if the scene was deleted.
We don't know when exactly after the events in Returns was Harvey scarred, so we can only guess how much had passed. I think you must be right, Catwoman, even if there was no official timeline of the films.
If we want to argue semantics (and I know you're not Edd but someone above seems to believe it's impossible the two face suit could have arrived in Arkham prior to batman forever) it's certainly possible that Harvey's initial scarring or capture happen prior to the events of returns.
I see your point, Riddler. If we accept that Forever is in the same continuity as the previous films, and there's evidence for that, Two-Face could've been scarred and captured between the events of Batman and Batman Returns.
Also, it means that Wayne Enterprises and Arkham existed before, but they were not seen.
I wonder why Burton didn't do Arkham, it would have fit his style, but maybe it's a different question to the topic here.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 30 Aug 2015, 23:20
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 3 Jul 2015, 16:49That's a deleted scene.
Dialogue earlier in the movie makes it clear that this isn't the first time Batman's gone up against Two Face. It's at least the second, fittingly enough.
That's not exactly a confirmation that his clothes would be there. If he were to escape, wouldn't he take his clothes with him? His clothes in arkham were the same clothes he wore in the movie. Does he have multiple suits exactly the same hanging around?
I do think that Harvey was locked in arkham, but based on the film and not it's deleted scenes the impression I get is that he'd been escaped for a while, weeks, maybe even months. They don't discuss in the film Harvey having just broken out. The conversation they have sounds like he's been out for a little bit, hence Chase saying that they should have seen this coming.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life! God bless everyone!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 05:03That's not exactly a confirmation that his clothes would be there.
You speak words of solemn truth, kemo sabe.
Frankly I think this entire thing is getting waaaaay overanalyzed. Schumacher put those outfits in there as a wink to the audience. It's probably not meant to be analyzed too much.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 05:03If he were to escape, wouldn't he take his clothes with him? His clothes in arkham were the same clothes he wore in the movie. Does he have multiple suits exactly the same hanging around?
Would that be so hard to believe?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 05:03I do think that Harvey was locked in arkham, but based on the film and not it's deleted scenes the impression I get is that he'd been escaped for a while, weeks, maybe even months. They don't discuss in the film Harvey having just broken out. The conversation they have sounds like he's been out for a little bit, hence Chase saying that they should have seen this coming.
I like that in that it explains why Two Face chose that night to strike. If he can escape from Arkham at will, why wait to escape at all?
And my view of deleted scenes is they don't count. They're maybe useful for some things or interesting to think about. But they're of precisely zero canonical input. So inferring that Two Face escaped weeks or months before the movie starts is totally legit in my book.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 31 Aug 2015, 23:26
I see your point, Riddler. If we accept that Forever is in the same continuity as the previous films, and there's evidence for that, Two-Face could've been scarred and captured between the events of Batman and Batman Returns.
Also, it means that Wayne Enterprises and Arkham existed before, but they were not seen.
I wonder why Burton didn't do Arkham, it would have fit his style, but maybe it's a different question to the topic here.
Given that Burton's Batman was not afraid to kill off maniacs, I don't think that Arkham Asylum would've been necessary. The rationale behind Burton's Batman was that it was heavily inspired by the early Golden Age era, where Batman was depicted as being lethal. As a matter of fact, Arkham Asylum didn't even feature in the comics until the 1970s.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 1 Sep 2015, 07:58
Given that Burton's Batman was not afraid to kill off maniacs, I don't think that Arkham Asylum would've been necessary. The rationale behind Burton's Batman was that it was heavily inspired by the early Golden Age era, where Batman was depicted as being lethal. As a matter of fact, Arkham Asylum didn't even feature in the comics until the 1970s.
Yes, that makes great sense. I thought it was a little amusing that the doctor in Arkham in Batman Forever was called Burton. :)
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 31 Aug 2015, 06:56
I think you must be right, Catwoman
I'm always right.
Fascinating discussion but one that really reminds me of the fundamental flaws within the concept itself. Even if we took the stated examples in Returns and in effect "fixed' them so that Batman wasn't killing anyone, there are still major issues with the morality (or context of said morality) as it applies to his choice to impose it on others.
If we look at Batman, or really any hero in this genre, there is essentially a person with a self-motivated desire to go into society and impose their definition of "justice". We have elected officials in this country that are hated by both sides for standing on a perceived principle. Imagine how the world would be if a disguised person, or group of people, imposed their own brand of justice without a voice from the community? Honestly we suspend allot of our rationality when we watch these movies. We make great leaps of faith in stating, " He's Batman." So we bring with that reasoning a whole host of ideas that says we are "familiar" with this person so we understand what he's really trying to do. If we're going to try and apply real life principles to this story, you have to already understand society would NEVER celebrate these people because they have no first hand context to offer them that kind of inclusion to do as they wish. Especially in this day and age of PC extremists.
So as much as I would love to get into those points about inconsistencies in how Batman dispenses "justice", the truth is the glaring flaws that permeate his very existence trumps all of that reasoning. You have ONE person imposing HIS definition of right and wrong based on HIS interpretation of events. We have people doing that today and they are masked. We call them terrorists. So it's very hard to draw a line in reality and reason Batman would get a pass from society for his intentions since that world does not get a first hand accounting which offers ten fold more context than people on the street who have none.
And yes, in watching these films, you have to accept the reality as it is sold to you. That's part of the suspension of disbelief. You are accepting the reasoning of that world to take the ride. So maybe the real question in this discussion should be is Burton violating those parameters in what he is selling as the morality of Batman? I really don't think so, because in Burton's universe, Batman never makes a statement of what he won't do to achieve justice. He is a broken spirit looking for satisfaction to the injustice served him. So I believe Burton is essentially saying Batman is that figure that allows Bruce Wayne to dispense the same terror right back at the group that inflicted it upon him. If people have to die in the pursuit of that mission, I think Batman is indifferent to that outcome because in his mind, it's the consequence of those people choosing that life to inflict pain on others.
The latest leaks for Batgirl and Flash rebooting Keaton's Batman timeline and the disappointing Batman '89 comics have made me lament a missed opportunity. It's bad enough that Sam Hamm's comics had very little in common with the Burtonverse, aside from Joe Quinones' art and the Easter eggs; don't even get me started with that final conversation that Bruce and Selina had in Issue #6. But to have Keaton's Batman history getting retconned and largely ignore a lot of the plot points from the Burton era makes his return very hollow. The last confrontation between those two characters had in BR could've easily been expanded upon, and how that ending might've shaped Bruce's state of mind in the present day. Instead, it will likely be ignored, as if it never happened.
Whatever Keaton's next film appearances have to offer, I somehow don't think they will resonate as this scene from BF.
https://youtu.be/Mv_jw_VYRjY
BTW, for those who are interested: A few weeks ago, it was rumoured that Batgirl had a few test screenings. Unsurprisingly, Keaton's Batman is a different version, and it's likely it will have little to nothing in common with the Batman we all grew up. While it's rumoured that Pfeiffer's Catwoman is referenced at some stage, it is stated that Batkeaton and Batgirl both have no-kill rules, implying that Batman never had a dark past. Another rumour I heard is that Keaton is only in the movie for five minutes.
Shortly after my last post, history would record that Batgirl was shelved, and Keaton's future was cut down and wrapped up in a disastrous flop that was The Flash. Keaton's Batman story, as far as I'm concerned, ended in 1992. But I definitely don't mind the idea of Forever as a spiritual connection and conclusion to that era, if that makes sense.