Were the nipples being on the costumes REALLY that horrific? I mean come on, is it REALLY that bad that the costumes' breast plates looked like the chest of the most perfectly sculpted men imaginable (and at last check you boys have nipples too)? Is it REALLY so god awful that everything Joel might have done ok or even well is negated cause he put nipples on Batman and Robin's suits?
It's been 18 freaking years, maybe it's time to step back and take a look at the costumes again and ask if it's REALLY as horrible as it has been made out to be. Was it the best idea? Probably not. Is it the worst abomination ever? Absolutely not. And I know that's like only one of a million complaints people have about B&R but come the freaking hell on.
By the way I'm not like singling out anyone here or trying to group you all together, lol. I'm just ranting in general.
The nipples look absurd and were unnecessary. Although they weren't that noticeable in Forever. And the fact that the body close-up shots of the heroes suiting up were very inappropriate. I realize that I might come across as hypocritical because of the sexual subtext in Returns, but I thought the way Schumacher handled these scenes were blatantly sexualised for a movie that was also marketed to kids.
But I'll give Schumacher some credit: at least he never made a movie where Batman gets people killed for no reason other than conveniently adopting an already broken moral code and take the blame for crimes he didn't commit. ;)
I'll give you the zoom ins on the suiting up. The ass shots especially. It was like something designed to get cheap laughs (it worked with me but that's beside the point lol) and kind of inappropriate.
What's so absurd about them, though? What if the suit Michael wore had them and they were there from the beginning? Would they have been so bad then?
You're lucky Michael had a sculpted muscle torso to begin with. They only went with that when they were FORCED to.
I didn't think much of the nipples until I saw everyone laughing about it on the internet. Yeah, they're not this movie's biggest flaw...
Quote from: Furstmobile on Mon, 4 May 2015, 12:19
You're lucky Michael had a sculpted muscle torso to begin with. They only went with that when they were FORCED to.
Why am I lucky? lol
The nipples are absurd, yes.
But you know what? I never f*cking noticed them until I saw the internet bitching. So I'm not bothered by them. The film doesn't draw attention to them, so why should we care?
Yeah, but me in the crowd that really didn't notice until the internet blew it up. I mean, I noticed before, I just didn't consider it a big deal.
Schumacher based the decision off of Greek sculptures. Honestly, there's no functional purpose to sculpted abs and pecs, but it just looks cool. It's simply a design decision. And if we're comparing the changes made to the suit made by Schumacher versus Nolan, I have no shame in admitting that I think Schumacher still hits closer to the mark.
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 5 May 2015, 22:09
Schumacher based the decision off of Greek sculptures. Honestly, there's no functional purpose to sculpted abs and pecs, but it just looks cool. It's simply a design decision. And if we're comparing the changes made to the suit made by Schumacher versus Nolan, I have no shame in admitting that I think Schumacher still hits closer to the mark.
This
I see the sculpted abs as part of the theming of the costume. But I think people compaling now is a one trick pony we'll have 4 batmovies (or atleast have batman in them) since Shumachers films, I think it's time to move on.
very well then....LETS GET REAL!
....was that over the top? I can never tell!
Quote from: galenj01 on Tue, 3 May 2016, 10:30
very well then....LETS GET REAL!
....was that over the top? I can never tell!
A lot of haters and critics actually like this line because they think it sums up the tone of both movies really well.
(https://linnetmoss.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1.jpg)
It's based on ancient armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_cuirass
Quote from: OutRiddled on Tue, 3 May 2016, 16:31
(https://linnetmoss.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1.jpg)
It's based on ancient armour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_cuirass
Gladiator moobs
I've always laughed at this complaint because it was there in Batman Forever and no one said A WORD. The reason why no one said anything is because that film was broadly accepted, so no one went LOOKING for something to criticize. Critics had been all over Batman Returns for being too dark and graphic in nature, so there was allot of treatment embracing for the first Schumacher film. That was what set the stage for Batman & Robin to go full out with the relaxed attitudes.
And honestly if you look at those two films, they are identical in treatment. What is really the saving grace in Forever is that it was a transitional piece from the Burton films, so Kilmer gave a pseudo-Keaton performance in the beginning for Batman to keep some continuity. That evolved with the picture to the point where he had made it his own by the finale. Add in Robin's origin with the family tragedy and that film had some more serious moments to counterbalance the daffy dialogue ("Holy metal Batman") along with the nipples and butt shots. But it was all there.
I honestly think what really threw Batman & Robin into the perception blender is the fact that Clooney was asked to play Batman against type established in those previous films and that lack of continuity (No vocal or personality changes in the cowl) really threw audiences for a loop. That took their attention off the star of the movie and THEN they started noticing other things in the film to complain about. But isn't that true of all films though? When we tend to like movies we give the flaws more latitude than we do when we don't like the movie. And that's really what Batman & Robin has fallen victim to. It's this attitude of, "Well we didn't like Clooney as Batman so we're going to pile on with everything else we overlooked in Forever."
Had Clooney played Batman in the A-typical form audiences were accustom to, we probably would have never heard word one about nipples, daffy one-liners, or the colorful backgrounds that everyone seem to enjoy with Forever. So I think much of the complaints for this film are pretty disingenuous. It's as people have said. They never noticed many of these issues when they saw the film, but jumped on board when they heard crying from the herd. I don't subscribe to that thinking. It's a mindless mob mentality predicated from a small group of people that influence a larger group who can't think for themselves that has taken on a life of it's own. If you never really noticed it to begin with, why validate it when someone else brings attention to it? All the Batman portrayals have had molded body suits depicting musculature over the actors body. In an age where people watch a show called "Naked and afraid", it seems not only hypocritical but shallow minded to complain about the suggestion of a nipple. God help us if Schumacher had actually gave it a realistic depiction. Oh the outrage. ::)
I never understood the outrage over the nipples. These suits can have detailed musculature and other anatomical features, not least of which being giant codpieces, but somehow nipples are what offended everybody? Cracker, please.
Now that we have Batgirl straddling Batman in the new animated feature, "The Killing Joke" while he grabs her rear, I don't want to hear anything else about "bat-nipples". Schumacher's approach seems almost cartoonish by comparison. How far we have sunken...
I'm going to ask a controversial question here: is there a sense of homophobia among hardcore haters of the Schumacher costumes? Schumacher had been accused of projecting his own sexuality into the movies by some critics; even TNBA took a swing at him in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow2SVDpd8YA
Could be. If a straight alpha male director had done it, maybe the reaction would be different.
Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:34
Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.
But Rotten Tomatoes tells us they both suck, so we can't really say anything positive about them...right? :-\ ;)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 06:03
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:34
Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.
But Rotten Tomatoes tells us they both suck, so we can't really say anything positive about them...right? :-\ ;)
I'm meaning to get my hands on the 1:18 scale Hot Wheels BF Batmobile. It's my third favourite live action vehicle. First being the Burton car, then Affleck's.
My ranking of live action Batmobiles are:
- Furstmobile
- 1966
- Forever
- Batfleck's ride
- B&R
- Tumbler
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:19I'm going to ask a controversial question here: is there a sense of homophobia among hardcore haters of the Schumacher costumes? Schumacher had been accused of projecting his own sexuality into the movies by some critics
What I've never understood is why that line of inquiry is supposed to be off-limits.
Nobody bats an eye when you question whether or not his parents divorce when he was a child influenced him on a very deep, personal level.
It's no big deal at all to conjecture that Tim Burton's isolated, lonely childhood affected much of his early work and arguably still influences him somewhat today.
Schumacher is gay but for some reason we're not allowed to suggest how that subculture has influenced him as a filmmaker. Because something something homophobia.
It's just asinine.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 11:22
My ranking of live action Batmobiles are:
- Furstmobile
- 1966
- Forever
- Batfleck's ride
- B&R
- Tumbler
I can agree with this. And I like the first 5 a lot. That last one, I was glad when Joker blew it up.
My full order:
1. Burton's car
2. Affleck's car
3. Kilmer's car
4. West's car
5. Clooney's car
6. Bale's tank
-- Batmobiles
01. Kilmer- This may be sacrilege to some people but this is #1 on my list. I really dug the lines, the lights, the size of the Giant Freaking Flame of Doom coming out the back, the sharp bat-fins on it, the whole program. 1995 was a really inspired time for me as a Batman fan. I loved the comics and wanted them to BE comics, not movies. But, then as now, I wouldn't have minded if the Forever Batmobile had been ported to the comics.
02. Burton- As much as I love Furst's Batmobile, it's of a piece with Burton's films. I wouldn't have wanted to see this in a comic (apart from an Easter egg in Hush or something). This car is loud, mean and not to be messed with. This Batmobile is formative for me but I just don't have the same affection for it as I do the Forever car.
03. Clooney- I *LOVED* this car in 1997 and I still do now. I like the symbolism of Batman building a one-seat car. On a subconscious level, he still hasn't accepted Robin as his partner, which is an element of the movie. I dig the 1940's roadster-on-steroids thing Schumacher was going for. It really fits in well with that iteration of Gotham City. Wouldn't change a thing!
04. Affleck- I regard this as a step in the right direction. It has some of the utilitarian aspects of Nolan's Batmobile but it doesn't strive as hard to be realistic. Snyder was perfectly content to combine ideas from previous designs. In the modern era, this may be as good as it gets with a stylized type of Batmobile.
05. Bale- I've always struggled with this Batmobile. It's loud and aggressive, yes, but it's boxy and a bit too utilitarian for my tastes. Nolan's vision is very much form follows function and to me Batman is all about the stylization. Then again, what other choice did Nolan have? He had to distinguish his version of Batman from what came before. The Batmobile is a big part of forging his own identity. I understand the mentality; it's the final product I have issues with. To this day, I don't miss this Batmobile after the Joker blows it up and Batman tools around using the Batcycle. That feels more appropriate for this iteration of the character.
06. West- I admire the effort and vision behind this version of the Batmobile but it just eludes me. If I was ten years younger, I'm convinced this would be THE Batmobile in my imagination. But I'm not ten years younger and this Batmobile is fun on a nostalgic or kitchy level. It's fun for what it is but it's not really for me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 11:34
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:19I'm going to ask a controversial question here: is there a sense of homophobia among hardcore haters of the Schumacher costumes? Schumacher had been accused of projecting his own sexuality into the movies by some critics
What I've never understood is why that line of inquiry is supposed to be off-limits.
While we do live in an age of political correctness, I don't think it's entirely true that Schumacher's sexuality is prohibited when it comes to analysing its influence on his films. This analysis has this to say (bear in mind, it also suggests there is gay subtext in the 60s TV show too):
Quote
Since the Batman television show became synonymous with camp, and flamboyantly gay behavior later became described as campy, the association perpetuated. The idea was later reinforced by Joel Schumacher in "Batman Forever." The often mentioned nipples on the suits eroticized their leather costumes in the inane film. Robin does not become Batman's ward, and Batman meets him when he's a young, legally consenting adult. Chris O'Donnell's haircut is butch-styled, and Chase Meridian, the alleged female love interest, is marginalized throughout the film.
In that same analysis, it quoted Alan Grant taking a swing at the director:
Quote
Well, the Batman I wrote for 13 years isn't gay. Denny O'Neil's Batman, Marv Wolfman's Batman, everybody's Batman all the way back to Bob Kane...none of them wrote him as a gay character. Only Joel Schumacher might have had an opposing view.
I find Grant's words to be in poor taste, by the way. Just because Kilmer and Clooney wore these bizarre costumes, that doesn't automatically make their portrayals gay. Especially when in Kilmer's case, he was seeking support - therapeutically and romantically - from Chase Meridian to overcome his burden as Batman.
Source: http://comicsbulletin.com/batman-gay/
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 17:38
I can agree with this. And I like the first 5 a lot. That last one, I was glad when Joker blew it up.
Same here. I prefer a Batmobile design with style, and the Tumbler doesn't have it.
The funny thing is, a lot of comics in the past didn't always feature a Batmobile that had bat motifs or had any style at all. In the early Golden Age comics, the Batmobile resembled an Oldsmobile, and in the 1970s, it resembled more of a Corvette.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmobilehistory.com%2F1941-pre-batmobile.jpg&hash=df9191d46189c656064e26d4b6028fe09d71dd18)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.batmobilehistory.com%2F1972-batmobile.jpg&hash=49cce8190dfe613449b9ef5996cf56b7391ea8b5)
http://www.batmobilehistory.com/1972-batmobile.jpg
But despite how ordinary they look for a comic book, they still have more style than the Tumbler.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 11:16While we do live in an age of political correctness, I don't think it's entirely true that Schumacher's sexuality is prohibited when it comes to analysing its influence on his films. This analysis has this to say (bear in mind, it also suggests there is gay subtext in the 60s TV show too):
And...
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 11:16In that same analysis, it quoted Alan Grant taking a swing at the director:
I wouldn't call that a "swing".
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 11:16I find Grant's words to be in poor taste, by the way. Just because Kilmer and Clooney wore these bizarre costumes, that doesn't automatically make their portrayals gay. Especially when in Kilmer's case, he was seeking support - therapeutically and romantically - from Chase Meridian to overcome his burden as Batman.
They also wore nipple suits with giant codpieces. The subtext is there for those inclined to view it that way.
My point was to say that analysis and interpretation are not "homophobic". The consensus seems to be "We shouldn't talk about that because muh homophobia" and it's just idiotic.
I one time saw a rather compelling essay about Bryan Singer's homosexuality actually working against him with Superman Returns because he didn't have a real context for understanding a romantic relationship between a man and a woman. I wish I'd bookmarked it but the bottom line was the writer said words to the effect of "Superman and Lois in that movie aren't really a romantic couple. They're what a gay man
THINKS heterosexual couples are like". It wasn't really meanspirited or anything. It was the writer saying that maybe not every director is cut out to tackle just any subject matter.
Mind you, the writer was still smeared anyway because the reactionaries out there have no understanding of subtlety and nuance. This, incidentally, is why most "online analysis" of anything are worthless to me. Most people are blithering idiots and they have all they can say grace over in just living their lives and treading water.
You see all the time people critique (or praise) the visuals of a movie or comic or whatever. That's really all they're intellectually equipped for. They can't tell you what something
MEANS but they can sure as you-know-what tell you what they think of how it
LOOKS.
And when that bunch of drooling, glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, cave-dwelling, knuckle-dragging freaking morons see someone analyze a Bryan Singer film or a Joel Schumacher film through the prism of how their lifestyle might affect and shape their creative decisions, this weird, primitive, borderline retarded reflexive action kicks in and they start carrying on about this and that "homophobia" or some such idiotic nonsense even though the writer they're slamming said nothing mean or hateful or anything.
Ahhhhh, feels good getting that off my chest.
Seriously though, the great thing about the Internet is how it's given everybody a
VOICE.
The bad thing about the Internet, though, is how it's given
EVERYbody a voice... including those who maybe don't deserve one.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:34
Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.
You know when Warner Bros. released B&R, they had already seen the final product and were ecstatic. Schumacher was already set up to start a third installment and there was absolutely NOTHING that suggested Joel had tripped over his own sexuality in making this film. He simply gave the public more of what it had asked for. And quite honestly it's been something of a joke to see the public crucify him for essentially listening to their requests. Forever was the vehicle that ushered in B&R. Val had nips and we had scores of camp lines littering that film. It's every bit the same movie B&R is. The only difference is it has a tragic moment within it with the origin of Robin. Perhaps that gave enough edge to the story that fans didn't notice what was being served to them.
But either way, in my eyes it was NEVER the travesty the internet era went on to paint it as. And honestly I think new generations picked up on the scorn and just laughed in unison without stopping to think if they should watch it on it's own merits instead of just following that herd mentality. It's a fun movie and really by no means a bad movie. It has it's moments when it could have been better, but most movies do. But in this age where we have grimacing heroes overacting their anguish in their hammy costumes, one has to wonder if Schumacher didn't have the right idea all along. At least Batman never had to turn to Robin and say... "Martha"...
Quote from: Wayne49 on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 20:45
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Jul 2016, 05:34
Good ol' Shoe deserves more respect. He made two entertaining films which can be enjoyed by people of all ages.
You know when Warner Bros. released B&R, they had already seen the final product and were ecstatic. Schumacher was already set up to start a third installment and there was absolutely NOTHING that suggested Joel had tripped over his own sexuality in making this film. He simply gave the public more of what it had asked for. And quite honestly it's been something of a joke to see the public crucify him for essentially listening to their requests. Forever was the vehicle that ushered in B&R. Val had nips and we had scores of camp lines littering that film. It's every bit the same movie B&R is. The only difference is it has a tragic moment within it with the origin of Robin. Perhaps that gave enough edge to the story that fans didn't notice what was being served to them.
But either way, in my eyes it was NEVER the travesty the internet era went on to paint it as. And honestly I think new generations picked up on the scorn and just laughed in unison without stopping to think if they should watch it on it's own merits instead of just following that herd mentality. It's a fun movie and really by no means a bad movie. It has it's moments when it could have been better, but most movies do. But in this age where we have grimacing heroes overacting their anguish in their hammy costumes, one has to wonder if Schumacher didn't have the right idea all along. At least Batman never had to turn to Robin and say... "Martha"...
I feel that history is repeating itself with BvS, in a way. WB executives reportedly gave Snyder's 3 hour cut a standing ovation, before the film was cut down to 2 and a half hours. But now some critics and movie goers suddenly dismissed the film for its tone, despite otherwise embracing that dark tone in previous movies, and conveniently forget that the only Batman who has never killed was George Clooney.
I don't quite understand the furore over the Martha moment either. It's not anywhere as bad as, say, Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 21:06
I don't quite understand the furore over the Martha moment either. It's not anywhere as bad as, say, Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit.
For myself the "Martha" scene was such a leap of utter disbelief in reasoning because it violated it's own rules of engagement. Snyder had Batman colored as this hyper paranoid, obsessed, and considerably older version of our hero who was more than a little set in his ways and his view of perceived threats. Now here's a man that reasoned that if Superman was even a one percent risk to mankind, that was enough to eliminate him. Think about that. By Batman's own calculations, which he himself can't possibly meet, if Superman is 99% risk free, we still need to take him down to eliminate that one percent. Well that's insane reasoning. But I accepted that statement based on his STATE OF MIND and how they sold him (and his actions) for nearly TWO HOURS.
Now we enter a scene where Batman has managed to outwit (and is on the verge of eliminating) the perceived threat of Superman that he has not only obsessed over but has had dreams of an army bearing Superman's symbol taking him and the world out of commission...Batman's moment of reconciliation is upon him. He can soon breath easy again by eliminating that threat that has kept him in a mental frenzy since Superman's introduction to the world... but Superman utter's "Martha"... AND SUDDENLY BATMAN FEELS BETTER ABOUT HIM?
Here Superman has been trying to reason with him the whole movie and Batman is blind with rage. He's obsessed to kill him. But he utters 'Martha' (like Batman is unaware there was likely better than one percent chance someone in the world has a mother with his mom's name ) and he's suppose to feel different about the threat? If Lex's mother is named Martha, does Batman run to his aid? It was just a complete collapse in logic. The worst wasn't even that. Then he goes to save his mother and tells her he's Superman's friend. Dear Lord. But even there, Snyder isn't done. Now Batman is going to DEVOTE HIS LIFE to this man whom moments earlier he was devoted to killing? LOL! It just makes him look like a complete idiot and entirely removes the whole narrative the film has been selling to us about Wayne's damaged psyche. It's more like a hypnosis than a emotional scar. One word and he's fixed. That's so bad, I can't even find the words to express my disbelief.
And see that's why I like the Schumacher Batman from a creation process so much better. You don't have to like the treatment, but Joel was 100% focused on who the character was and what kind of tone he was setting. Schumacher understood the material and completely connected with the spirit of the comics from that golden age. Where other directors get their short hairs twisted is when they try to oversell the seriousness of the concept. Again... we're talking about a guy who dresses up in a Bat costume. You can decorate it with story points about his parents being killed, and toss all kinds of social messaging into the formula. But at the end of the day, you better come back home to the fact you're telling a comic book tale, not going on some psychological journey that can't be sustained by the lightness of the concept. I'm sorry, but both Nolan and Snyder took the concept just a bit too serious (Nolan more so at the end of his run and Snyder pretty much all the time). We love Batman because he looks great in his costume and he drives an extremely cool car. Sure that sounds shallow, but if Bruce Wayne just fought crime in a sweatsuit none of us would care how he got there.
There's a pageantry to the superhero experience. Sure, we can build them up and give them added dimension and perceived "weight" by injecting social and psychological themes. But ultimately you have to service the purpose in them existing in the first place. And that's to ENTERTAIN. Batman & Robin entertains on a grand scale, but it's also honest with the material. It doesn't take itself overly serious and some take that a bit too...personal. Schumacher did not insult the legacy of Batman, he embraced it. And I think the truth of that scared some die-hard fans who possibly take the concept a bit too serious in their lives.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 22:26For myself the "Martha" scene was such a leap of utter disbelief in reasoning because it violated it's own rules of engagement. Snyder had Batman colored as this hyper paranoid, obsessed, and considerably older version of our hero who was more than a little set in his ways and his view of perceived threats. Now here's a man that reasoned that if Superman was even a one percent risk to mankind, that was enough to eliminate him. Think about that. By Batman's own calculations, which he himself can't possibly meet, if Superman is 99% risk free, we still need to take him down to eliminate that one percent. Well that's insane reasoning. But I accepted that statement based on his STATE OF MIND and how they sold him (and his actions) for nearly TWO HOURS.
You find it hard to believe that a man who puts on a rubber bat costume and puts the stuffings out of people because his parents were murdered before his eyes might have his head turned when he hears his own mother's name from the lips from an avowed enemy?
Cool story, bro.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 31 Jul 2016, 23:46
You find it hard to believe that a man who puts on a rubber bat costume and puts the stuffings out of people because his parents were murdered before his eyes might have his head turned when he hears his own mother's name from the lips from an avowed enemy?
Cool story, bro.
Turn his head? LOL. Snyder had him born again. I wonder if he would have a change of heart if he realized Kal-el's mom was actually named Lara. Ooops!
He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 02:56
He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.
I'll tell you why that reasoning doesn't fit with me. Because Superman's perspective on Batman does not lend itself to this notion that speaking his mother's name should mean anything at that moment. And Batman is hardly in a state of mind to be shell-shocked by hearing that name since he has absolutely no bond with Superman to reach that deep and find that kind of connection strictly off a name. So it's not about the name that is the issue. It's how Batman reacts after the fact. Batman didn't spend the movie worrying about whether he had a mother. He considered Superman a threat because of what had already transpired in MOS. How does Superman having a mother remove that perceived threat for Batman when he says Superman is no good at 99% risk free?
The world's greatest detective is unmoved by anything Superman does or says, but is suddenly slapped awake by the utterance of a name with no context? Sorry. I get the intent to move the plot along, but the director spent the whole damn film showing Batman as some kind of hard-*ss that makes Dirty Harry look tame. To have him do a complete flip like that from really nothing just makes him look like a buffoon. Here's his mind set - "I don't trust him" - "I hate him" - "Does he bleed?" - "I'll make him bleed" - "Wait. Your mother's name is Martha?" - "Hello I'm Superman's friend." - "I'm going to devote my life to his name." That's what you have here. This pic below pretty well sums up how serious I can take his anger now.
Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 02:56
He might have said condescendingly "Who's Lara" and hopefully Clark could have croaked out it was his mom. I felt like the point we were supposed to get is Bruce saw Clark's humanity by realizing he had a mom, an earth-bound mom. The Martha thing was just to make it more dramatic though I wish one of their names had been different at this point because it's annoying as f*** the way people are so hung up on that aspect of it.
Well, this quote from Schumacher's Batman and Robin sums the situation up for me succinctly.
"Death and chance, stole your parents. But rather than become a victim, you have done everything in your power to control the fates. For what is Batman? If not an effort to master the chaos that sweeps our world. An attempt to control death, itself."
In some ways, Bruce saying "Martha won't die tonight" is him making up for his own mother's demise. He was too young to do anything as a child. But now? He's a grown man making sure it won't ever happen again. He's helping out a new ally, but make no mistake, it's relating to his own haunted past as well.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 03:39
How does Superman having a mother remove that perceived threat for Batman when he says Superman is no good at 99% risk free?
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 03:39
To have him do a complete flip like that from really nothing just makes him look like a buffoon. Here's his mind set - "I don't trust him" - "I hate him" - "Does he bleed?" - "I'll make him bleed" - "Wait. Your mother's name is Martha?" - "Hello I'm Superman's friend." - "I'm going to devote my life to his name." That's what you have here. This pic below pretty well sums up how serious I can take his anger now.
If you seriously think that Batman stopped his misguided anger at Superman because their mothers share the same name then I'm afraid that you missed the point about that scene completely.
Superman cried out "You're letting him ("him" as in Lex) kill Martha. Find him. Save Martha", and when Lois intervened, Batman realised that he had been emotionally manipulated by Lex all along. The fact that Superman pleading him to save his mother made Batman pause and understand that he was becoming everything he stood against. It made Batman realise that he was wrong; he wasn't about to kill a threat to protect the world from danger, he was about to kill a man in cold blood, thus making him no better than own parents' killer. He's be indirectly responsible for allowing his mother to die as well; which would be another huge failure because this was supposed to be very thing Batman was created in the first place - to prevent such tragedies from happening.
You might hate that Batman had such a deeply flawed mindset to begin, but the film establishes why he behaved this way. Batman had been going down a dark path where he had not only experienced the horrors of what happened in Metropolis, but also expressed bitterness about his own existence as a crimefighter. Not only did he lose Robin to the hands of the Joker, we can definitely infer that he had been betrayed by people who he had considered as good people, as says rebuts Alfred's claims about Superman is no enemy by saying "Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?". It's because of this growing disillusionment, together with witnessing the most shocking event in history that changed reality as the world knows it, makes Bruce making the same mistake as Wallace Keefe and anybody else who mistrusted Superman. If anything, I give the film credit for not trying cover up Batman's flaws like the Nolan films, where we're supposed to accept Batman's reasoning for killing Ra's al Ghul because innocent people were in danger...but we're lead to believe he's too "incorruptible" to kill the Joker despite the fact he was ready to blow up thousands of people?! And people complain about Batfleck?!
I like the end of the battle between Superman and Batman because it brought Bruce back from his insane mindset and began his journey to redemption. As Superman died to save the world, Bruce and Wonder Woman began to look for the other metahumans in memory of Clark, with an ashamed Bruce promising "I failed him in life. I will not fail him in death".
Look, I can understand the complaints about the serious tone of the movie. After all, I was bothered by how serious dreary the Nolan films were. But unlike those films, this film had a positive story arc going on when it comes to redemption. Nolan never gave me that satisfaction, and because of this, I can cut the film some slack.
Besides, this scene is nowhere near as moronic as Two-Face's sudden turn in The Dark Knight. This parody sums up that stupid hospital scene very nicely:
Quote
AARON ECKHART
You asshole, why did you kill my girlfriend?
HEATH LEDGER
I'm an agent of chaos. I just do things.
AARON ECKHART
Wow, that's some sophisticated characterization there. As soon as I get out of these surprisingly strong bandages, I'm going to kill you!
HEATH LEDGER
Look, you don't want to kill me for murdering her. You want to kill everyone else for failing to stop me from murdering her!
AARON ECKHART
That doesn't make any sense at all.
HEATH LEDGER
And yet, it's going to be your main character motivation for the rest of the movie. Now make with the murder, Sir Skins-A-Lot.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/thedarkknight.html
^Now THAT is pure f***ing bullsh*t. Absolute nonsense. If you can accept that, then what happened in BvS shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 12:31
If you seriously think that Batman stopped his misguided anger at Superman because their mothers share the same name then I'm afraid that you missed the point about that scene completely.
Superman cried out "You're letting him ("him" as in Lex) kill Martha. Find him. Save Martha", and when Lois intervened, Batman realised that he had been emotionally manipulated by Lex all along. The fact that Superman pleading him to save his mother made Batman pause and understand that he was becoming everything he stood against. It made Batman realise that he was wrong; he wasn't about to kill a threat to protect the world from danger, he was about to kill a man in cold blood, thus making him no better than own parents' killer. He's be indirectly responsible for allowing his mother to die as well; which would be another huge failure because this was supposed to be very thing Batman was created in the first place - to prevent such tragedies from happening.
I enjoyed reading your explanation and I think had the film carved out situations in the movie for Batman to arrive at that moment, I would be in lock step with your thinking. The problem here is Batman's reaction comes from nowhere. Yes, Superman says, "You're letting him kill Martha." Which by itself is an odd thing to say to someone you don't know. Why even say her first name when that is his mother? Wouldn't he prefer to tell Batman it IS his mother by title? But then Batman just stops, like that's a trigger word and appears stunned...he looks around as if blown back by the name and says, "What does that mean? Why did you say that name?" Then Superman continues, "Find him. Save Martha." Batman has a flashback and then screams again, "Why did you say that name!!"
Everything that comes after that, including Lois running in to explain "Martha", just feels like I'm being hit over the head with the obvious. I got the blinding inference from that initial scene, then I get a flashback, and now we have Lois there spelling it out. I don't think audiences are that dumb. So the whole scene feels very staged and forced to advance the narrative. I totally understand the implication here (to ad nauseam). But, for me, Batman doesn't arrive at it naturally. The name stuns him and when he finds out it's Superman's mom, he tosses the Kryptonite staff and becomes a new person. Had he been a young Batman who was still wrestling with his demons as a result of his inexperience and just being a young man, I could reason and accept that moment to advance the story.
But to be a grizzled veteran in this role with more than a few other tragedies under his belt, I can't possibly reason him walking around with a trauma fixation that is no better reasoned after all that time than to react so disoriented to the name. That's an enormous leap of logic to sell audiences. It played more like a poorly constructed plot device and audiences reacted accordingly. Which is why I say, knowing what the director WANTED to say, and demonstrating it are two different worlds. I believe as a director, you have to competently bring your audience onto that emotional ledge with the character. It can't just be a plot moment, it has to be a real emotionally charged moment because of the story responsibilities it carries. For myself, it almost came across as unintended humor the way he stepped back from hearing the name. It just didn't feel believable or remotely natural.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 17:53I enjoyed reading your explanation and I think had the film carved out situations in the movie for Batman to arrive at that moment, I would be in lock step with your thinking.
It did. Bruce was in denial for the entire movie up to that point. 1% chance, absolute certainty. His moment with Superman was his blinding realization that he, Batman, had been the bad guy all along.
No, it doesn't have scene after didactic scene of the character questioning his own motives (although Alfred did some of that) but this wasn't meant to be an organic evolution. It was supposed to be a sudden blast of understanding.
Or what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 2 Aug 2016, 03:10
Or what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.
Talking in terms I understand now.
lol
I don't drink.
I don't either anymore but I still qualify as an alcoholic.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 17:53
Yes, Superman says, "You're letting him kill Martha." Which by itself is an odd thing to say to someone you don't know. Why even say her first name when that is his mother? Wouldn't he prefer to tell Batman it IS his mother by title?
Admittedly, I thought it was a bit too convenient for Superman to call out the name Martha. But even then, I can accept it because it made Batman reflect the name deeply on an emotional level and come to terms with what he was really about to do and learned how Lex was using him. I'll say it again, he did not stop fighting Superman because their mothers share the same name.
That being said, Catwoman has a point that it would've been better off they never mentioned Martha's name, because the idea for this dramatic effect isn't worth the hassle if it was going to go over people's heads.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 17:53
Had he been a young Batman who was still wrestling with his demons as a result of his inexperience and just being a young man, I could reason and accept that moment to advance the story.
But here's the thing, even as an older man he's still haunted by his demons (literally, judging by the first nightmare in the family crypt). As I already explained, this is a man who has never gotten over his parents' violent deaths (similar to how Michael Keaton's Bruce was still traumatised by that incident), and still had to cope with more trauma along the way i.e. the death of Robin, painful betrayals and witnessing Metropolis getting torn apart by aliens from another world. Discovering that there are other beings in the universe that have powers to destroy the planet can make anyone paranoid, so this especially wasn't a normal situation for Bruce Wayne to cope with. Put that together with a disillusioned and volatile state of mind, is it really that surprising that Bruce had such a paranoid view of Superman in the first place? To borrow the phrase from the film, the feeling of powerlessness over time and every incident changed Bruce into something brutal and uncompromising.
As thecolorsblend already pointed out, Batman had been so caught up with fearing Superman as a threat, he didn't occur to him until that moment that he was acting the villain all along. Now, was this character arc perfect? Maybe. Maybe not. But the film does explore his character flaws and resolve them effectively. After all, the most compelling Batman stories are sometimes the ones where the character has his own psychological issues.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Mon, 1 Aug 2016, 17:53
It played more like a poorly constructed plot device and audiences reacted accordingly. Which is why I say, knowing what the director WANTED to say, and demonstrating it are two different worlds. I believe as a director, you have to competently bring your audience onto that emotional ledge with the character. It can't just be a plot moment, it has to be a real emotionally charged moment because of the story responsibilities it carries. For myself, it almost came across as unintended humor the way he stepped back from hearing the name. It just didn't feel believable or remotely natural.
You want to talk about poorly constructed plot devices, once again, let's review Two-Face in The Dark Knight. That is the epitome of what you're talking about. That film never establishes Harvey Dent from suffering any mental illnesses before the hospital scene, and instead he is portrayed as a dedicated but arrogant lawyer, with a self-deprecating sense of humour and takes matters into his own hands to protect the woman he loves (albeit with restraint, as you see in his confrontation with the schizophrenic henchman). He even looks at his dad's lucky coin with fondness. In contrast to some of the comics, the coin was a symbol of his abusive childhood and manifested as a part of his diseased personality later on.
Yet, once he gets disfigured and Rachel dies, Harvey allows the Joker to manipulate him into starting a killing spree, and spares him...despite the fact the Joker was the same man who made an attempt on Rachel's life more than once and eventually succeeded in killing her. Despite the fact the Joker was the reason why Harvey took matters into his own hands in the first place.
Why, because the Joker makes some idiotic speech about chaos and how he doesn't plan anything (even though everything he does is precise and calculated)? Come on, THAT is a joke! It makes me laugh that people think they can ridicule BvS, but think this is better storytelling by comparison. Any sympathy for Eckhart's Two-Face was flushed down the toilet and made Tommy Lee Jones look better.
Anyway, I'm finishing this off. Back to talking about B&R.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 2 Aug 2016, 11:50
You want to talk about poorly constructed plot devices, once again, let's review Two-Face in The Dark Knight. That is the epitome of what you're talking about. That film never establishes Harvey Dent from suffering any mental illnesses before the hospital scene, and instead he is portrayed as a dedicated but arrogant lawyer, with a self-deprecating sense of humour and takes matters into his own hands to protect the woman he loves (albeit with restraint, as you see in his confrontation with the schizophrenic henchman). He even looks at his dad's lucky coin with fondness. In contrast to some of the comics, the coin was a symbol of his abusive childhood and manifested as a part of his diseased personality later on.
Yet, once he gets disfigured and Rachel dies, Harvey allows the Joker to manipulate him into starting a killing spree, and spares him...despite the fact the Joker was the same man who made an attempt on Rachel's life more than once and eventually succeeded in killing her. Despite the fact the Joker was the reason why Harvey took matters into his own hands in the first place.
Why, because the Joker makes some idiotic speech about chaos and how he doesn't plan anything (even though everything he does is precise and calculated)? Come on, THAT is a joke! It makes me laugh that people think they can ridicule BvS, but think this is better storytelling by comparison. Any sympathy for Eckhart's Two-Face was flushed down the toilet and made Tommy Lee Jones look better.
I 100% agree. Never liked Eckhart's Two-Face. At least Tommy Lee Jones is entertaining to watch.
I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 00:05I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.
I've come to rationalize it that Harvey was a casualty in the Joker's war on Gotham. In that context, Two-Face not being as fleshed out as I'd like is more legitimate.
The part that I think trips fans up is the lack of understanding that
this isn't Harvey or Two-Face's story. That may seem a bit Captain Obvious but saying it out loud helps a bit. "Oh, this isn't supposed to be a layered story about Dent's descent into madness. It's the story of how the Joker f**ked his s**t up real bad."
Understanding that has help me make better peace with TDK.
Yeah, that's right. Two-Face is an extension of the Joker. He caused chaos around the city by playing twisted games, and Dent was simply one of the casualties. Two-Face was tricked into thinking he had free will, when he was actually a pawn of the Joker. But this can only be achieved if there's an element of truth in what Joker said. Which is the most important aspect of all this.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 00:09
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 00:05I actually don't hate TDK's Two-Face anymore. I just prefer other takes.
I've come to rationalize it that Harvey was a casualty in the Joker's war on Gotham. In that context, Two-Face not being as fleshed out as I'd like is more legitimate.
The part that I think trips fans up is the lack of understanding that this isn't Harvey or Two-Face's story. That may seem a bit Captain Obvious but saying it out loud helps a bit. "Oh, this isn't supposed to be a layered story about Dent's descent into madness. It's the story of how the Joker f**ked his s**t up real bad."
Understanding that has help me make better peace with TDK.
To me, that only makes it even worse because Two-Face knows that Joker ruined his life...but he still lets him go. Sorry, but I just can't get behind the idea of his painfully misguided revenge at all. This is a plot device that I always hated, especially since it was made up so Batman could put the blame on himself to spare Harvey in the end. It would've been just as stupid if BTAS Rupert Thorne manipulated Harvey into taking his anger out on Batman, Gordon and failed law officials...even though Thorne was the one who was directly responsible for ruining him in the first place.
I know we had this discussion before, but I'll clear up one thing: I would've been okay with Harvey turning bad in the same movie if his transformation was actually believable. I wasn't looking for the definitive live action Two-Face to date, I was only expecting that his transformation to make some sense. The point I was really making was the comics and BTAS were written in a way where Harvey's turn to insanity was gradual and believable. In contrast, TDK was sudden, and illogical even by a psychotic's standards. I understand what Nolan was trying to go for, but it was so poorly done. Some people can complain about Batman in BvS all they want, but at least that movie showed us how Lex was taking advantage of a damaged Bruce Wayne who was too blind to see he was becoming the irredeemable villain until the end of the fight with Superman, and begins to redeem himself. But people regularly sh*t on this, yet praise TDK's laughable treatment with Two-Face? You might be saying "But TLF, you're not getting what I'm saying, Batfleck had an arc in BvS", and that may be, but I'd rather Two-Face have something similar to that, because I personally think trying to justify his role as a contrived plot device is a cop-out.
Truth be told, I'd tolerate TDK's Two-Face a little better if Batman and Gordon told Gotham the truth about Harvey, but even then I'd still say his transformation is a point of contention for me. I'd rather they just kill Harvey off altogether because as it stands, I'd not only regard him as the worst villain in that series, but THE worst villain out of all Batman movies to date. Ugh.
I get your point, but I've started to let my anger go in relation to the Nolan crowd. I'm enjoying Batman on my own terms. I'm opening my heart to the spirit of the films, even if they're not my thing. Dent wanted to kill the Joker, but after the explosion, he put his faith in the coin. Just like the comic book character. Once the coin made the decision to spare the Joker, that was it. He accepted its decision and moved on to other people, namely Gordon and the dirty cops. I'm willing to roll with that. The Joker turned Dent insane, while he was still seeking a form of justice based on rationalism.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 00:45
Yeah, that's right. Two-Face is an extension of the Joker. He caused chaos around the city by playing twisted games, and Dent was simply one of the casualties. Two-Face was tricked into thinking he had free will, when he was actually a pawn of the Joker.
This raises an interesting point about the perception of free will. One of the central themes in The Dark Knight is the conflict between order and chaos, between control and freedom. Dent's a fascinating character because he presents an outward paradigm of order: a yin-yang symbol split neatly down the centre, with good and bad coexisting. But inwardly he's completely out of control. He can't make important decisions, instead relying on the toss of a coin to guide his actions. Perhaps the most extreme example of his lack of self-assertion was in Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, where he literally couldn't go to the bathroom without his tarot cards making the decision for him. His very instincts became subservient to external direction from fate itself. Nolan's take on the character omits several elements from the comics, but it gets this particular aspect right. By contrast, Schumacher's Two-Face asserts arguably too much self-control when he flips his coin repeatedly to get the outcome he desires. As soon as he does that, his coin – and everything is symbolises – becomes subservient to his will.
Schumacher did a better job depicting the split personality aspect of Dent, along with his binary fixation. Nolan did a better job of conveying the pathos of his transition from hero to villain, and also his fatalistic dependency on the coin to determine his actions. The Batman: The Animated Series version was the best IMO, because it covered more or less every aspect of the character. But as far as live action incarnations are concerned, I rank Eckhart as the best to date. I know some people complain about him not being Two-Face for enough of the films running time, but I feel that's like complaining about Nicholson's Joker dying at the end of Batman 89. We're living in the age of the shared universe where long-form storytelling structures have conditioned us to expect open-ended narratives. It doesn't matter if a character is depicted satisfactorily these days, because we know they'll return in a later film. But when Batman 89 and The Dark Knight were made, audiences expected complete self-contained narratives with beginnings, middles and endings. As others have said, TDK is not the story of Two-Face. But arguably it is the story of Harvey Dent. Two-Face is merely the dark final chapter of that story. And his death is the fitting conclusion.
Schumacher only really depicted Dent in two scenes: his opening monologue with the security guard and the scene where he thanks Batman for reminding him to flip his coin. Throughout the rest of the film he's completely Two-Face. By contrast, Nolan was more interested in Harvey. In Schumacher's film you get Two-Face with echoes of Harvey. In Nolan's you get Harvey with echoes of Two-Face. Neither is perfect, and preference will likely depend on which take you find most interesting: Two-Face the rampaging villain or Harvey Dent the fallen hero. I find the latter more appealing and I think Nolan's interpretation worked beautifully in the context of his trilogy.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 10 Aug 2016, 12:41
Dent wanted to kill the Joker, but after the explosion, he put his faith in the coin. Just like the comic book character.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/WkpXYXd90jPK8/giphy.gif)
Putting all his faith into the coin removes himself from the equation, in his eyes. Yes, he's the one pulling the trigger, but he others himself from the outcome. He's a slave to the coin, just as Wesker puts all the blame onto Scarface. On your point about TDK Dent dying, I think it was also for the best. This incarnation had a grudge that only went so far. He wanted to bring unbiased justice to Gordon and his unit of dirty cops. What does he do after that? Confronting Gordon and his family was the endgame, regardless if Dent survived past that encounter. He became a broken man who was willing to kill children, just so Gordon could feel his pain of loss. To the point he flipped the coin on himself to commit suicide, even though he was denied of this wish.
Dent sees Rachel and himself as victims of fate and other people's mistakes. As long as he can continue blaming fate and other people for his actions – i.e. by flipping the coin and shifting responsibility for Rachel's death onto others – he can continue to see himself as an innocent victim. Even at the end, I don't think Eckhart's Two-Face ever saw himself as a villain. He still thought he was the hero pursuing justice.
And I agree that he needed to die when he did. When you factor in the more realistic portrayal of his injuries, combined with how mentally and emotionally broken he was, it becomes clear he was on borrowed time anyway. His whole crusade to avenge Rachel was basically a suicide mission.
Indeed. Life has no purpose for him, so he puts it into the coin.
I love Jack, and he's my favourite Joker. But I now feel Ledger truly was his successor. Perhaps because it feels like a modern update on a classic. Both meet the mob and kill one of the members. Both have disregard for cash - one throws it away and the other burns it. Both stare down Batman charging at them in vehicles, which crash. Both use makeup but for different purposes. Both announce crimes on TV. Both share an interest in Bruce's girlfriend, and both have a final battle atop a building, and fall over the edge.
It's these similarities that I admire, but it's all nonetheless in stark contrast due to Ledger's tonal difference of being a grungy, long haired lout. Sadly, we haven't seen enough from Leto to make a judgement. Perhaps that will be the solo Batman film.