Batman-Online.com

For those that saw this back in '89(I wasn't born yet), do any of you remember anyone having a problem with Batman killing back then?

Now I'm not justifying or condemning Burton's decision to have Batman kill in his films, but it's something I've been wondering since with today's Batman fans, many of them don't consider this to be the "true" Batman since he's a murderer, but it didn't seem to be a problem with folks back then, and I'm assuming Batman hasn't killed in decades in the comics by that point(haven't read them, sorry). It does puzzle me how people seemed to dislike the inclusion of Joker being the murderer of the Waynes from day one, but they are fine with him going Charles Bronson Death Wish style on the bad guys he faces.

Discuss...

I saw it opening weekend and was in college at that time. I don't recall any remarks regarding how he handled really anyone in the film. You need some context here. Before this film was released, all society knew was Adam West as Batman (with all due respect to the serials). And there was a stigma attached to the character of Batman at that time because of the camp associated with the series. So the real obstacle here was selling Batman as a serious hero who audiences could accept in serious situations.

Conventional wisdom of the day suggested he had to be placed in tights. But how could you sell the hero seriously in tights since West was so married to that image? Those were the obstacles and on the lips of allot of people. Couple that with the very controversial selection of Keaton to play the lead role who was known for Mr. Mom and BeatleJuice and there was such an uproar that a petition was taken out to demand he be taken off the production. Thank God social media did not exist at this time. I still have the Wall Street Journal edition that reported this petition with an illustration of Keaton at the start of the article. During this time, if you made front page headlines on an industry newspaper, there was serious noise about that subject matter. So everyone was really wondering what in the world we were going to get with Mr. Mom in a bat costume.

So any thoughts of Batman "killing" someone or being connected with the death of someone was probably about as far off the mark as you could find. Batman '89 was about one thing and one thing only - Selling Batman as a new franchise to match the relevance of what Superman had done in 1978. Without social media, the world was not obsessed over character motivations or costume details like nipples. I think what stands out to me the most about Batman '89 is the first trailer. I can't BEGIN to explain to you how INSANE people went over the first sight and sound of Batman. Have you ever wondered why the phrase "I'm Batman" has been ingrained in our cultural consciousness as much as it has? This is why. The first time anyone saw or heard Batman was in this trailer and people freaked. He looked great. He sounded even better. And most importantly? He didn't look like Adam West in tights. He looked like Batman had just hopped off the comic page and become flesh and bone.

So in 1989, Batman getting the serious treatment was all anyone cared about and Burton delivered in spades. It was an amazing experience sitting in that theater and watching this hero come to life. The sold out crowd I saw this with, stood up and applauded at the end when Batman stood next to the Bat-signal. Our beloved hero had stepped outside of that long shadow of the '66 show and was now his own entity. I never heard (nor ever thought) about any of the deaths in that movie being anything more than incidental and consequential to the circumstances involved. The fact that Batman was bloodied and fighting to save Vicky Vale (in addition to his own life) only leant more credibility to his existence in 1989 and provided that much needed layer of edginess he never possessed in film. He was exactly what everyone had hoped for. And I'll say this again as I have in other threads. That suit concept really opened the door for the entire industry.

Being able to convey the hero in molded rubber completely changed the production standards of what you could do. That thinking was really outside the box for it's day and pushed designers to start looking beyond the standard ideas with tights. So I think it's reasonably fair to say Batman '89 really provided that first significant step towards creating the industry we have today.

I never cared about Batman killing people. But I didn't know anything about the comics until just a few years ago. Knowing what I know now I still don't care. The Burton Batman movies are quite faithful to what 1939 Batman was like when the character was created in regards to his morals, ethics and killing villains. He is a dark, angry, vengeful vigilante who comes close to being an anti-hero. In the Schumacher movies Batman evolves into a humanist and I'd say that's a good metaphor for how the character evolved in the comics.

Only when you think of the morally right, humanist Adam West Batman do you realise how drastic it all must have seemed to the general public back in 89-92 - especially blowing the strongman to bits with the bomb. Yes, the Burton films were based on the original comics. But I also think they were also reaction to the West show, even though elements of it were still evident - such as the Penguin's election. The Burton films were a game changer for the Batman brand. They made everyone realise the character could be portrayed in a different manner and be successful. Adam West was annoyed Keaton was taking the mantle, for starters. He wanted to reprise the role. In his mind, and an entire generation, he WAS Batman. But as the Penguin said, things change.

I never cared about it in the movies either. But when people try to say that Nolan's Batman didn't kill anyone, I have a problem with their reasoning.

If someone is going to kill, I'd much prefer them to intentionally do it. Otherwise they're just incompetent and far more dangerous.

Nice analyses Wayne49 and TDK. :)

Good comment too to you JMT. It makes me wonder if the influence on the 39 comic era was a conscious decision to pay tribute to Batman's 50th anniversary at the time when the film was released. 

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue, 13 Oct  2015, 06:16
I never cared about it in the movies either. But when people try to say that Nolan's Batman didn't kill anyone, I have a problem with their reasoning.

I've noticed that lots of people tend to use the scene of Batman smiling at the Strongman before sending him to hell in BR as their huge gripe. A scene that was used for a cheap laugh suddenly became a moral outcry, despite Batman was responsible for more deaths in the first film.

RE: the comics, you can always look up in the 'Comics in which Batman kills' thread that has archives of Batman offing villains, even as late as the 1980s. Though I have noticed that in a lot of these comics, Batman's moral conscience does not become a plot point. At least the ones I read anyway.

My recollection is that basically nobody had a problem with Burton's brutal Batman until the late 90's, when Internet Groupthink, Inc. took over.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 13 Oct  2015, 09:54
I've noticed that lots of people tend to use the scene of Batman smiling at the Strongman before sending him to hell in BR as their huge gripe. A scene that was used for a cheap laugh suddenly became a moral outcry, despite Batman was responsible for more deaths in the first film.

Indeed. The offing of the strongman is very much in line with Keaton's MO. In B89, he puts the swordsman down with one kick. He raises his gauntlet and down goes a Cathedral thug. You get the idea. A bomb was available and Keaton used it - ending the confrontation before it even began.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct  2015, 04:39
My recollection is that basically nobody had a problem with Burton's brutal Batman until the late 90's, when Internet Groupthink, Inc. took over.

Nope, nobody cared.  If they did, I guess they kept it to themselves.  I don't recall actually seeing anyone "die" in the 89 Batman movie.  And by that I mean draw their last breath.  Burton was quite clever in the way he filmed it.  Death was implied (how could the head thug live after falling from the bell tower?) but never shown.  Even the fat guy who got the quill stuck in his neck might've lived for all we know.  Heck, the death of Eckhardt got more screen time than the other onscreen deaths. 

Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 01:06

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct  2015, 04:39
My recollection is that basically nobody had a problem with Burton's brutal Batman until the late 90's, when Internet Groupthink, Inc. took over.

Nope, nobody cared.  If they did, I guess they kept it to themselves.  I don't recall actually seeing anyone "die" in the 89 Batman movie.

I'm so thankful B89 was made 27 years ago instead of today. The internet would have an enormous outcry over that, Jack Napier/Joker linked to Batman's past in a deeply significant way (Keaton spoiling that plot twist on live TV in this day and age would've been disastrous) and I bet people would've moaned about the Prince sings too, even if they suited the Joker's mood perfectly.

With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's. But Affleck cops it harder. People want explanations, but then they don't want excuses. It's bizarre. You show people instances of Batman killing in the comics, but then they say 'that's from way back when, it's irrelevant now'. But when Baleman retires in TDK Rises, they cite Bruce and Selina getting married in Superman Family #211. Hah.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 01:36
You show people instances of Batman killing in the comics, but then they say 'that's from way back when, it's irrelevant now'.

I've seen some comments elsewhere on the 'net that say Burton shouldn't have looked at the the Golden Age as an inspiration for his approach on Batman. However, I haven't seen anyone complaining about TDK's filmmakers when they cited the Joker's Golden Age debut as an inspiration for their version of the character. Why is one director allowed to use inspiration from a particular era but the other can't? Very hypocritical.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 01:36
With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's.

Do you really think so?  I think it's fairly clear from the beginning of the '89 film that Gotham is in a serious state of decline; overrun by scumbags & nearly ruled by villainous types.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 06:50I've seen some comments elsewhere on the 'net that say Burton shouldn't have looked at the the Golden Age as an inspiration for his approach on Batman. However, I haven't seen anyone complaining about TDK's filmmakers when they cited the Joker's Golden Age debut as an inspiration for their version of the character. Why is one director allowed to use inspiration from a particular era but the other can't? Very hypocritical.

The Joker's character doesn't exactly drastically shift into completely different characterizations from one version to another. There are changes to be sure. But it's not like he's been made into not being a murderous clown in the version that's existed for the past 40 something years. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Yeah, I don't remember anyone seriously having an issue with Batman killing back in 1989. Oh, I'm sure there was some hardcore comic book reading fanboys crying foul, but by and large, I don't remember it even being brought up... I think most folks were too enamored with Burton's direction, Elfman's magnificent score, the performances, and to an extent, Prince's musical contributions than anything like wining about "OMG! Batman just killed that guy!1!!1"

Most people pretty much just rolled with it. Even at such a young age, I knew the Burton/Keaton Batman was not exactly the Batman that was being featured in DC Comics at the time, and I was completely fine with that. Much like Superman, the Post-Crisis Superman to be exact, in the comics at the time wasn't exactly the Superman featured in the Donner/Reeve films.

Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 08:14

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 Apr  2016, 01:36
With Affleck's Batman, you have a reasoning behind his behaviour. More so than Keaton's.

Do you really think so?  I think it's fairly clear from the beginning of the '89 film that Gotham is in a serious state of decline; overrun by scumbags & nearly ruled by villainous types.

Yes. There's nothing explicitly said as to why Keaton's Batman kills, though we can assume he flips his lid after finding out Joker killed his parents. But with Batfleck, he feels powerless after Superman arrives, and thus ups his game to compensate. But it doesn't really matter because I love both. In fact, they're my favourites from the saga. Both are dark, conflicted and internalised people who do whatever it takes to fight crime.

There definitely was some backlash from certain quarters of the comic community. However the majority of people were just happy to have a successful, dark version of Batman to serve as a palate cleanser after the sixties TV show. And the use of lethal force in the 1989 film is arguably mitigated by context anyway, at least to some extent.

I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film. So by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 13:21
I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film.

Yeah, I guess you can say I was one of them. I mean, I always had a liking to Batman. I remember having alot of the mid 1980's Superpowers toys, Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, The Joker, Darkseid, ect, but I think it's safe to say that Burton's 1989 Batman movie was what cemented me as a life long Bat guy for sure.

QuoteSo by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

I can see that. By 1992, Burton's take on Batman had become somewhat familiar by that point, which invited more vocal criticisms despite it being once again successful at the box office. At the same time, I think people were so starved for well-done cinematic portrayals of comic book heroes, that alot of the criticisms were once again drowned out by the sheer interest of the public. In 1995, Batman Forever was obviously a much lighter take on the property, that much was certain from all the promotion, and had one of the biggest opening weekends ever by that point. Unfortunately, what WB/Schumacher thought worked in 1995, wasn't the case in 1997. Sure, there were a decent amount of comic book-inspired properties that were not-as-widely-known that were translated to film in the 1990's, most notably THE CROW, and by the late 1990's, BLADE, but there was some that just went completely bust.

The 2000's bred an entirely different environment and mindset than what was happening in the 1990's. Studios were much more open and confident in actually making Superhero films, where in the 1990's, there appeared to be alot of skepticism and tip-toeing around.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 26 Apr  2016, 13:21
There definitely was some backlash from certain quarters of the comic community. However the majority of people were just happy to have a successful, dark version of Batman to serve as a palate cleanser after the sixties TV show. And the use of lethal force in the 1989 film is arguably mitigated by context anyway, at least to some extent.

I also think many fans got into the comics in the first place because of the 1989 film. So by time Batman Returns came out, they'd grown more familiar with the source material and had a better understanding of the character than Burton or Daniel Waters did. That was when the real backlash began.

There seems to have been a big backlash since the Nolan films came out.  One only has to skim through the 'Comic Creators' Comments' thread to see that, with so many artists and writers figuratively holding their nose at the Burton films and singing the praises of TDK trilogy for whatever reason.

It annoys me no end because it strikes me that many of these 'authorities' ( ::)) are repeating the same crap that we see from some of the die-hard Nolan fans: hating on all other Batman movies in order to elevate their Batman, and then more or less insisting that anyone who disagrees with them and prefers another incarnation of Batman is 'wrong'.

the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney. The difference is Nolan fans justify their Batman for doing it while condemning the rest. Pretty hypocritical when most of Afflecks killing was done in a dream sequence.

Indeed. Affleckman only outright kills people in the batwing and batmobile sequences. As you say, Keaton and Bale both did that, too.

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  2 May  2016, 13:47
the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney.

Further evidence of that unspeakable truth which none of us is openly willing to admit – that George Clooney was by far the best Batman.


The intense eyes, the square jaw, the pointy nipples. Has any other actor ever embodied the tortured essence of Batman quite so powerfully?

In all seriousness, Clooney still had one of the best Bruce-Alfred scenes of all time, even though most of it was because of Michael Gough and the dialogue that dived into Bruce's psyche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBJ93zhz2Cg

Joking aside, I think he was a good Bruce. He had the playboy part down effortlessly. And he had better chemistry with Gough and O'Donnell than Kilmer did. The scenes between him and Alfred are legitimately good, not just from an acting perspective but a writing standpoint too. Alfred's speech about Batman's quest essentially boiling down to an effort to control death is spot on.

It's weird, but the older I get the more I like Batman & Robin. Maybe it's just nostalgia, or maybe it's in my nature to defend things that are excessively maligned, but there's something about the movie I find appealing. It's a cheerful, upbeat Batman film, and how often do we see those these days?

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  2 May  2016, 13:47the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney. The difference is Nolan fans justify their Batman for doing it while condemning the rest. Pretty hypocritical when most of Afflecks killing was done in a dream sequence.

That's because Batman & Robin rocks. But Val Kilmer's Batman didn't really kill anyone either. And Affleck's killed in more than just a dream sequence. It's not a justification. It's a statement of intention. In TDKT, Batman never actively tries to or wants to kill people. That's the difference.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  2 May  2016, 14:24Indeed. Affleckman only outright kills people in the batwing and batmobile sequences. As you say, Keaton and Bale both did that, too.

Bale didn't do that purposefully. He also, for all intents and purposes as far as we know, kills pre-KGBeast. Not that doing it in machines changes culpability. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:11
Bale didn't do that purposefully.

Same result. He didn't intend to kill most people in the monastery either, but he did.

Yep. Intentional, unintentional, or just being reckless, we are left with the same result.

With Val Kilmer's Batman, I have to disagree that he didn't really kill. If we're looking at all of this in a literal sense, it's kinda difficult to argue the intent by him throwing several silver dollar's at Two-Face with such timing right when Harvey's coin was in mid-air. Given Harvey's psychosis, and his OCD in the coin deciding, I have a hard time believing that Kilmer's Batman didn't know what the outcome would be with Harvey standing on such a limited amount of space right above certain death.

I can certainly understand why he did it, perhaps in some ways to spare Robin of vengeance by murder, but the intent of his actions with the coins appear to be pretty conspicuous.

Engaging in certain behaviour and being ignorant of the consequences is foolish. Affleck's Batman hooks vehicles up to a chain and drags them around, knowing it's going to cause serious damage to the occupants. And he's fine with that, so it works. Bale on the other hand blows away parked cars, which were shown to have children sitting inside. In BB he argues he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, as if that makes him exempt. You can argue morals but if there's still a morgue full of bodies those morals don't mean squat.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 May  2016, 04:29Engaging in certain behaviour and being ignorant of the consequences is foolish. Affleck's Batman hooks vehicles up to a chain and drags them around, knowing it's going to cause serious damage to the occupants. And he's fine with that, so it works. Bale on the other hand blows away parked cars, which were shown to have children sitting inside. In BB he argues he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, as if that makes him exempt. You can argue morals but if there's still a morgue full of bodies those morals don't mean squat.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:25Same result. He didn't intend to kill most people in the monastery either, but he did.

There's a reason people are judged based on intention. It matters.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  3 May  2016, 03:52Yep. Intentional, unintentional, or just being reckless, we are left with the same result.

With Val Kilmer's Batman, I have to disagree that he didn't really kill. If we're looking at all of this in a literal sense, it's kinda difficult to argue the intent by him throwing several silver dollar's at Two-Face with such timing right when Harvey's coin was in mid-air. Given Harvey's psychosis, and his OCD in the coin deciding, I have a hard time believing that Kilmer's Batman didn't know what the outcome would be with Harvey standing on such a limited amount of space right above certain death.

I can certainly understand why he did it, perhaps in some ways to spare Robin of vengeance by murder, but the intent of his actions with the coins appear to be pretty conspicuous.

Intentions matter. Two-Face didn't die. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 04:50
Two-Face didn't die.

Really?  But we saw him plunge into a spike-filled abyss and slowly disappear underneath the water to presumably drown.  He ain't coming back from that...

So Val Kilmer's Batman, as relatively devoid as blood-lust as he may be, still killed Two-Face.  He knew that Two-Face would desperately scramble to catch his scarred coin once it got lost in the mix with the other coins thrown by himself, and that he would thus lose his balance.  In view of Harvey's severe mental illness, his death was entirely foreseeable at best and intentional at worst, and in a court of law, were the illness to be taken into account, it is highly probable Batman would be charged with murder, if not manslaughter.

And whilst I'd argue that Bale's Batman wasn't a murderer within the context of the monastery scene, since he didn't specifically intend to kill any of the League of Shadows, he still committed reckless manslaughter because it was entirely foreseeable that a few of them would end up losing their lives in the explosion.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  3 May  2016, 05:11Really?  But we saw him plunge into a spike-filled abyss and slowly disappear underneath the water to presumably drown.  He ain't coming back from that...

So Val Kilmer's Batman, as relatively devoid as blood-lust as he may be, still killed Two-Face.  He knew that Two-Face would desperately scramble to catch his scarred coin once it got lost in the mix with the other coins thrown by himself, and that he would thus lose his balance.  In view of Harvey's severe mental illness, his death was entirely foreseeable at best and intentional at worst, and in a court of law, were the illness to be taken into account, it is highly probable Batman would be charged with murder, if not manslaughter.

He fell. We never saw him die. The director said that it was meant ambiguously. His clothes are in Arkham in B&R, along with Riddler's, implying that he's there. He's likely in a coma. But not dead. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Get out of town with that 'Two-Face didn't die in BF' nonsense.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 05:59He fell. We never saw him die. The director said that it was meant ambiguously. His clothes are in Arkham in B&R, along with Riddler's, implying that he's there. He's likely in a coma. But not dead.

By that logic neither the Fire-Eater nor the Strongman in Batman Returns died.  There's certainly more to argue their survival than Two-Face's (so what if Two-Face's clothes were at Arkham, it's possible he had more than one suit, and the one in Arkham was placed there before his escape).

I find it hard to believe he's merely in a coma, since we saw Two-Face disappear under the water.  Unless someone got there within three minutes or so and fished him out, he would have drowned regardless of whether he was already unconscious.  Not to mention, there's no way anyone falling from that distance would have avoided all the spikes located at the bottom.  He would have likely had various parts of his body impaled, and were it not for the drowning, have bled to death

I seem to remember an article by Denny O'Neil (editor of the comic books at the time) in which he was frustrated by fans constantly asking him why doesn't Batman kill like in the movie. Just the opposite of now.

I can only go by what's shown in the actual film itself. Everything, and I do mean, everything, about Two-Face's fall naturally indicates to the viewer that he's fallen to his death. The height from where Two-Face was standing to the water/spikes below, the scream, Robin's non-verbal reaction, which most definitely comes across as someone who's in the process of witnessing the murderer of his parents and brother fall to his death, rather than "Oh, he's gonna feel that in the morning! Hurr durr!", to Two-Face's open hand symbolically  catching the coin, un-scarred side up ... yeah if that's supposed to be ambiguous then Schumacher did a piss poor job in establishing that.

Even a single line at the end of the film with Bruce & Chase about Two-Face surviving would have sufficed. What we are left to go on seems pretty final in that Two-Face kicked the bucket. Thanks to Batman.  ;)

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 04:50
I can certainly understand why he did it, perhaps in some ways to spare Robin of vengeance by murder, but the intent of his actions with the coins appear to be pretty conspicuous.

Intentions matter. Two-Face didn't die.
[/quote]

I saw the movie twice in the theatre and several times since.  I always took Two-Face's fall as a fall to his death.  It wasn't until I saw his clothing in Arkham (in Batman & Robin) that I had to rethink that.  Maybe he was still alive.  I do believe however that the intention in Batman Forever was that Two-Face was indeed dead... but somewhere between that film and B&R they did a back pedal, and decided to show Two-Face's clothing. 

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  3 May  2016, 06:11By that logic neither the Fire-Eater nor the Strongman in Batman Returns died.

Sure. But the strongman is the hardest to get away from. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon,  2 May  2016, 17:02
In all seriousness, Clooney still had one of the best Bruce-Alfred scenes of all time, even though most of it was because of Michael Gough and the dialogue that dived into Bruce's psyche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBJ93zhz2Cg

I said before, and I'll say it again, I thought Clooney played a good Bruce Wayne. When he spoke, I thought he played the role with sincerity and he worked well with Gough in those scenes reminiscing of the past and on Alfred's death bed.

If it weren't for the notorious rubber nipples, sexual references and bad puns, B&R could've been acclaimed as a great film for children's entertainment. Who knows?

Quote from: GBglide on Tue,  3 May  2016, 06:18
I seem to remember an article by Denny O'Neil (editor of the comic books at the time) in which he was frustrated by fans constantly asking him why doesn't Batman kill like in the movie. Just the opposite of now.

I've never read Knightquest, but maybe that's why Dennis O'Neil took the opportunity to write a story why Batman should never kill when somebody else replaced him following the Bane situation.

Quote from: KeatonisBatman on Tue,  3 May  2016, 08:03
I saw the movie twice in the theatre and several times since.  I always took Two-Face's fall as a fall to his death.  It wasn't until I saw his clothing in Arkham (in Batman & Robin) that I had to rethink that.  Maybe he was still alive.  I do believe however that the intention in Batman Forever was that Two-Face was indeed dead... but somewhere between that film and B&R they did a back pedal, and decided to show Two-Face's clothing. 

I disagree. If Schumacher wanted to convey the message that Two-Face was still alive, he would've tried to make it clearer e.g. showing a newspaper headline saying "Two-Face alive? Former DA sighted in Gotham City" or a line of dialogue or something. I don't really get the impression the costume's cameo is anything else other than an Easter Egg.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  3 May  2016, 10:34But the strongman is the hardest to get away from.

That's what you are trying to do with Two-Face. Trying to get away from the obvious. Going by your flimsy logic, Bane is still alive in TDK Rises because we don't see his body again after the cannons are fired. Two-Face hit a watery grave with spikes, designed to kill whoever falls into it. You arguing Two-Face survived this scenario stretches your credibility. If we didn't see The Joker's crushed body on the floor after his fall from the cathedral, you'd likely be saying how he still could be alive, too. Which I say such logic deserves to be laughed at. May Xenu bless you.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  3 May  2016, 10:50
I don't really get the impression the costume's cameo is anything else other than an Easter Egg.

That's how I always took it as well.

Nothing more than Schumacher giving a nudge nudge, wink wink, "Hey you remember these villains don't cha!?!" kinda easter egg.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  3 May  2016, 19:04
That's how I always took it as well.

Nothing more than Schumacher giving a nudge nudge, wink wink, "Hey you remember these villains don't cha!?!" kinda easter egg.

Considering how distinctive the Riddler and Two-Face's costume are, it was a great gag.  :)

Plus, like I said earlier, it's perfectly possible Two-Face had multiple suits, and this suit was from before his incarceration in Arkham (originally Batman Forever was to open with him escaping the asylum).

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  3 May  2016, 10:50

I disagree. If Schumacher wanted to convey the message that Two-Face was still alive, he would've tried to make it clearer e.g. showing a newspaper headline saying "Two-Face alive? Former DA sighted in Gotham City" or a line of dialogue or something. I don't really get the impression the costume's cameo is anything else other than an Easter Egg.

Well you don't have to disagree with me because I do think Two-Face died.  I'm just saying that the pristine Two-Face costume from Batman & Robin opens up discussion that maybe he didn't die.  It may in fact be an easter egg as you said.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  3 May  2016, 10:50I disagree. If Schumacher wanted to convey the message that Two-Face was still alive, he would've tried to make it clearer e.g. showing a newspaper headline saying "Two-Face alive? Former DA sighted in Gotham City" or a line of dialogue or something. I don't really get the impression the costume's cameo is anything else other than an Easter Egg.

Schumacher himself stated that the Two-Face's fate was left to be ambiguous. He didn't have to do anymore than what he did. If you're determined to view that Two-Face was killed, well that's boring and I don't know why that's something someone would specifically want, let alone argue with someone about.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 May  2016, 11:13That's what you are trying to do with Two-Face. Trying to get away from the obvious. Going by your flimsy logic, Bane is still alive in TDK Rises because we don't see his body again after the cannons are fired. Two-Face hit a watery grave with spikes, designed to kill whoever falls into it. You arguing Two-Face survived this scenario stretches your credibility. If we didn't see The Joker's crushed body on the floor after his fall from the cathedral, you'd likely be saying how he still could be alive, too. Which I say such logic deserves to be laughed at. May Xenu bless you.

You're taking this way too seriously. I agreed. They didn't die. That bomb was a great fake. What's the big deal? And there were no spikes where he landed. If you wanna belittle me or anyone over a movie where a character didn't die, then please just don't engage with me. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed,  4 May  2016, 04:02
They didn't die. That bomb was a great fake. What's the big deal?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2F1ffbe61e33603acd7ec82369c70b3e13%2Ftumblr_inline_mwqq5ukGIj1re0pj3.gif&hash=93dd4e34b92461b7ca29fdf554473b872e78897c)

SO two face either dies or becomes a vegetable? I can't imagine for the life of me how his body would be recovered let alone surviving
-the distance of the fall
-the fact that if the fall didn't kill him, he wasn't conscious and thus would have drowned
-Batman and Robin both remarking the island is a giant death trap. There's no way they'd go down there to attempt to save two face
-it's an island so emergency assistance couldn't get to him quickly
-if Harvey did manage to save himself, how did he end up in Arkham? That's a plot hole if you are making that argument.
-either way there is no way the suit he was wearing was the same one we saw in Batman and Robin. Edward Nygma was also not wearing the same suit we eventually saw in Batman and Robin when he was captured so presumably it had to be recovered from his lair (or perhaps claw island) which is likely the same way they got harvey's suit


With respect to Clooney I think most of us (basically anyone who saw his film and wants to actually DISCUSS it instead of simply saying it sucked) agree that his portrayal of Bruce Wayne was excellent, especially his scenes with Alfred. The man can act, nobody doubts that and most would admit he is a better actor than Kilmer, maybe even Keaton. He fails as Batman by default due to lack of effort although it's well documented he seemed to realize the film would be awful while it was filming so he hammed it up and acted based on how he thought it would fit into the film. I'm sure he'd have acted differently in a darker film but we will never know.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 17 May  2016, 16:46
SO two face either dies or becomes a vegetable? I can't imagine for the life of me how his body would be recovered let alone surviving
-the distance of the fall
-the fact that if the fall didn't kill him, he wasn't conscious and thus would have drowned
-Batman and Robin both remarking the island is a giant death trap. There's no way they'd go down there to attempt to save two face
-it's an island so emergency assistance couldn't get to him quickly
-if Harvey did manage to save himself, how did he end up in Arkham? That's a plot hole if you are making that argument.
-either way there is no way the suit he was wearing was the same one we saw in Batman and Robin. Edward Nygma was also not wearing the same suit we eventually saw in Batman and Robin when he was captured so presumably it had to be recovered from his lair (or perhaps claw island) which is likely the same way they got harvey's suit

Exactly right on all counts. There's no believable way anybody could seriously argue that Two-Face survived, unless you're rewriting the script in your mind.

Schumacher's stated intent is Two-Face's fall in the movie may or may not have resulted in his death. It's intentionally ambiguous. So if you want Two-Face to have died, he died. If you don't, then he didn't.

Why would his outfit be in Arkham Asylum if he died? Well, apart from the Easter Egg factor, there's the reality that Two-Face was no stranger to Arkham so it stands to reason that his suit would be there from previous incarcerations. Hell, maybe it was even part of his therapy there. So it could be left over from when he was alive.

The fire-breather from Batman Returns was indeed set on fire... while he was surrounded by snow and I think a fountain full of water as well. Yeah, he was probably grievously injured but it seems a bit much to say he definitely died from his injuries.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 21 Dec  2016, 20:23
Schumacher's stated intent is Two-Face's fall in the movie may or may not have resulted in his death. It's intentionally ambiguous. So if you want Two-Face to have died, he died. If you don't, then he didn't.

I think our fellow poster The Joker said it best seven months ago: if Two-Face's fate was supposed to be ambiguous, then Schumacher failed miserably. Besides, even if I wanted to imagine Two-Face was still alive, it's hard to ignore everything pointing out to the contrary, from Robin's spiteful reaction to the unscarred side of the coin landing on Two-Face's motionless hand, as it drowns into the water.

Quote from: mrrockey on Sun, 11 Oct  2015, 21:24
For those that saw this back in '89(I wasn't born yet), do any of you remember anyone having a problem with Batman killing back then?

Now I'm not justifying or condemning Burton's decision to have Batman kill in his films, but it's something I've been wondering since with today's Batman fans, many of them don't consider this to be the "true" Batman since he's a murderer, but it didn't seem to be a problem with folks back then, and I'm assuming Batman hasn't killed in decades in the comics by that point(haven't read them, sorry). It does puzzle me how people seemed to dislike the inclusion of Joker being the murderer of the Waynes from day one, but they are fine with him going Charles Bronson Death Wish style on the bad guys he faces.

Discuss...

I don't mind his killings in Burton's films. In the first film, in a lot of scenes he's trying to stay alive. The scene that comes to mind if the fight on top the cathedral. One guy just flat out misses him. Another guy is definitely fighting to kill him, so I do consider a lot of that scene, in loose terms, self-defense. He does murder the Joker, but I've always kind of liked that moment. "You know, sometimes I just kill myself!"

I was a kid at the time, so I don't remember much of the controversies about the killing, the Joker killing his parents, and the Vicki Vale thing. But I can say that out of the three, the one that bothers me the most is the Vicki Vale scene. Not really because Alfred wouldn't let her in the cave, but because it's the worst scene in the movie and feels so tacked on and soap opera-ish.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue, 14 Mar  2017, 17:56
I was a kid at the time, so I don't remember much of the controversies about the killing, the Joker killing his parents, and the Vicki Vale thing. But I can say that out of the three, the one that bothers me the most is the Vicki Vale scene. Not really because Alfred wouldn't let her in the cave, but because it's the worst scene in the movie and feels so tacked on and soap opera-ish.

Welcome GoNerdYourself.

I don't mind that scene, but admittedly it's very soap opera the way it's acted. But I actually appreciate it for the fact it completes Vicki's journey into discovering who Bruce is. I thought Vicki was the most relatable character for people who never knew anything about Batman, as she is picking up the pieces together on who Bruce Wayne is and why he is doing the things he does. As soon as Knox shares the old news on the Waynes tragedy, that's when everything makes sense to Vicki and the rest of the audience.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 15 Mar  2017, 08:41

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Tue, 14 Mar  2017, 17:56
I was a kid at the time, so I don't remember much of the controversies about the killing, the Joker killing his parents, and the Vicki Vale thing. But I can say that out of the three, the one that bothers me the most is the Vicki Vale scene. Not really because Alfred wouldn't let her in the cave, but because it's the worst scene in the movie and feels so tacked on and soap opera-ish.

Welcome GoNerdYourself.

I don't mind that scene, but admittedly it's very soap opera the way it's acted. But I actually appreciate it for the fact it completes Vicki's journey into discovering who Bruce is. I thought Vicki was the most relatable character for people who never knew anything about Batman, as she is picking up the pieces together on who Bruce Wayne is and why he is doing the things he does. As soon as Knox shares the old news on the Waynes tragedy, that's when everything makes sense to Vicki and the rest of the audience.

I enjoy the scene with Bruce and Vicki in the Batcave because it lays out both of their agendas. Vicki wants to love Bruce. But Bruce can't really feel love in the same way that a regular, healthier person can.

"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

Sad, really.

Anyway, good scene.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 23 Mar  2017, 22:21
"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

That's right. He's literally the only man in the world operating from a cave underneath his mansion, dressing up as a bat. In Bruce's mind, that's what it takes to make a real difference. Anyone who attempts to clean up crime any other way is simply doing it wrong.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 23 Mar  2017, 22:21
I enjoy the scene with Bruce and Vicki in the Batcave because it lays out both of their agendas. Vicki wants to love Bruce. But Bruce can't really feel love in the same way that a regular, healthier person can.

"It's just something that I have to do... because nobody else can". That statement cannot be literally true. Surely tons of other people in the world, and many others in Gotham, are financially and physically capable of doing what we see Batman do in B89. But Bruce rationalizing the irrational there. What he's really saying is nobody else is as broken as he is to do what he does. Bruce can't fall in love with Vicki because he's a broken man acting out.

Sad, really.

Anyway, good scene.

Would you say that Bruce suffered from learned helplessness? I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand, it's a condition where somebody is unable to break through from their depression to the point they develop a habit of adopting painful stimuli, and they're incapable of learning how to adapt to situations and escape from their struggle. Bruce not being able to have a proper romantic relationship to fill that emptiness in his life seems to be a good example of that.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 24 Mar  2017, 12:14Would you say that Bruce suffered from learned helplessness? I'm not a psychologist, but from what I understand, it's a condition where somebody is unable to break through from their depression to the point they develop a habit of adopting painful stimuli, and they're incapable of learning how to adapt to situations and escape from their struggle. Bruce not being able to have a proper romantic relationship to fill that emptiness in his life seems to be a good example of that.

He does somewhat break through. I view the four movies as taking place all in the same universe so the character we first meet in B89 is the same guy in B&R.

He eventually moved to a healthier space. By the time B&R rolled around, I do believe  he was capable of falling in love with a woman and having a normal relationship with her. He simply had self-imposed responsibilities to the city which he believed were more important. Plus, I think by then he had come to enjoy being Batman. That was more interesting to him than marrying Julie Madison and settling down. But I do believe he either loved her or was capable of loving her.

Sure, it's canon, and elements of BF flow on quite well. But I personally don't view BF and B&R as the pure continuation of the Butonverse. For the life of me I just can't imagine Michael Keaton's Batman sliding down a museum's dinosaur's back and attending gala balls.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 25 Mar  2017, 01:43Sure, it's canon, and elements of BF flow on quite well. But I personally don't view BF and B&R as the pure continuation of the Butonverse. For the life of me I just can't imagine Michael Keaton's Batman sliding down a museum's dinosaur's back and attending gala balls.

This is where the recasting works really well for me. I can't picture that either... and so Val Kilmer and George Clooney allow me to absorb the stories without being distracted by the Keaton issue. The replacement in actors illustrates the growth the character has undergone.

I'm sure all four scripts and dialogues were tailored for the actors and likewise the actors tailored their acting based on the movies they were in. Keaton was a comedic actor before, had he stayed he either would have lightened up his role or the dialogue would be changed. Actually it seems well documented Joel Schumacher wanted Batman Forever to be darker, perhaps if Keaton were on board they would have lightened them up. A lot of people do think George Clooney would have done well if he were in a darker bat film, I don't know why they can easily picture Clooney as a serious Batman but not Keaton as a more comedic one?

Let's play alternate history for a second and pretend Christopher Reeves left the Superman role after the second film but the next two ended up the exact same way. People would be claiming Reeve wouldn't have done all those silly gags in the third film or embarrassing action shots in the fourth and likely blaming the actor change on those films not turning out well. Of course in reality we know that Reeves tailored his acting based on the films he did (similar to Kilmer and Clooney he played into the films he was in at the time) and people blame the studios instead of the main actor for the faults of Supes 3 and 4.


As far as the Batman killing issue, I hate how it's so often discussed (not here but mainly by Nolanites claiming his films are the best due to the lack of killing). I watched the Batman 1966 movie and he even killed in that one; The villains capture Bruce Wayne to lure Batman to save him and they put a trap for Batman at the bottom of the window he'd have to jump through which would fling him out the window and into the ocean where the Penguin had an exploding octopus. Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Here's the bottom line for me; Bob Kane could have easily nixed things like the Jokers death, the Jack Napier backstory, removal of Joe Chill, and Batman killing but he didn't. He also could have denounced the film the way many other creators do. Ronald Dahl and Peter Benchley for instance wreaked havoc on the set when their works were being adapted into movies. So since Kane endorsed Batman killing, why can't the fans?

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:21
Keaton was a comedic actor before, had he stayed he either would have lightened up his role or the dialogue would be changed. Actually it seems well
documented Joel Schumacher wanted Batman Forever to be darker, perhaps if Keaton were on board they would have lightened them up.

I think I read somewhere that Keaton did a lot of improvisations to the dialogue, and insisted that Batman ought to have less lines if he were supposed to be this creature of the night. It wouldn't surprise me, B89 had a lot of improvisations during production.

Whether or not Keaton simply hated the Schumacher's idea for a more comedic direction, or if he would prefer to make another film without Burton, is anyone's guess.

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:21
As far as the Batman killing issue, I hate how it's so often discussed (not here but mainly by Nolanites claiming his films are the best due to the lack of killing). I watched the Batman 1966 movie and he even killed in that one; The villains capture Bruce Wayne to lure Batman to save him and they put a trap for Batman at the bottom of the window he'd have to jump through which would fling him out the window and into the ocean where the Penguin had an exploding octopus. Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Here's the bottom line for me; Bob Kane could have easily nixed things like the Jokers death, the Jack Napier backstory, removal of Joe Chill, and Batman killing but he didn't. He also could have denounced the film the way many other creators do. Ronald Dahl and Peter Benchley for instance wreaked havoc on the set when their works were being adapted into movies. So since Kane endorsed Batman killing, why can't the fans?

RE: 1966, I don't remember that. But I do remember a scene where the Penguin tried to ambush the Batcave with his goons, and Batman and Robin had unwittingly killed some goons when making contact caused them to evaporate.

RE: Bob Kane, despite being the author of the Golden Age comics where Batman kills, there is this stubborn attitude by some people who suggest that period was a bastardisation and doesn't have any relevance in Batman's history. Which is utterly idiotic. Not only that was the character's debut, he had killed many times in the comics over the years, particularly in the 70s and 80s. Never mind the films. But you'd be surprised at how people will ignore or even twist the facts, as long there's a film has Batman paying lip service to something he supposedly believes in.

I guess another reason is the reception towards Kane's legacy seems to be a touchy topic of discussion among fans. The whole backstory about Kane obtaining full creator credit at the expense of Bill Finger, despite Finger's contributions made the character to what he is today, has left a bad taste in the mouth. So that might explain why some people disregard his approval and involvement in the Burton films.

Finally, I've concluded that if a large number of critics and comics creators throw their support or contempt for a film, it helps to sway popular consensus. For instance, the same people who complained about Burton and Snyder for Batman killing and how they deconstructed him on screen, never said a word about Nolan doing the same thing, and that certainly influences people into thinking Nolan's take was free of wrongdoing. If somebody as respected like Denny O'Neil says "Christopher Nolan understood Batman more than I did", people will believe it because he's seen as somebody with credibility. Of course, when you watch the film and you realise Batman is nothing more than an irresponsible, James Bond knock-off with unreliable moral stances, one would question what the hell O'Neil is even talking about. Now, O'Neil still has an appreciation for Burton's films, but if he like many other comics artists and writers overwhelmingly respected them, it wouldn't surprise me that would influence on some people's reaction for them.

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:21
Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 12 May  2017, 20:55

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:21
Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.

Yep. The worst thing West's Batman did was leave parachutes on the road after doing Emergency Bat-Turns. When it came to being a model citizen, West's Batman walked the talk. And for that he must be praised. He's very consistent.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 12 May  2017, 20:55

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:21
Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.

I just watched it the other day and I could be wrong but I'm about 90% sure the bad guys capture Bruce Wayne with the assumption that Batman would come save him. They discuss the foot trap in front of Bruce obviously having no clue he is Batman and this is how Bruce escapes; the bad guys assume he'll just be a damsel in distress and talk about their plans for Batman freely around Bruce.

The villains did intend to use Bruce as bait to lure Batman into a trap, but Bruce was either absent or unconscious from Penguin's knockout gas whenever the particulars of the plan were discussed. He didn't know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus.

I know this focuses on BvS, but the following relates to people's attitude towards Batman killing on screen.

A month ago, Jay Oliva, known for directing The Dark Knight Returns animated adaptation and did storyboard work on BvS, got into an argument  with detractors about Zack Snyder's vision on Twitter, and Batman killing in the film became the main talking point. This detractor's tweet is indicative to the moronic attitude about the topic:

Quote
A Batman who kills is no Batman in my opinion. And I know you're gonna say he killed in other live action films but at least they mentioned his one rule and didn't just step all over it.

https://twitter.com/drdr47811/status/987874884947730432

::)

Thankfully, several other people with common sense replied to refute that idiocy.

Quote
Batman has  killed in other movies but as soon as Snyder did it, it's the worse thing ever. That makes zero sense.

Quote
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that a Batman that kills is "no Batman", and then proceed to justify other instances of him doing the same, by basically saying "well, at least they payed lip service to his rule." You do know that mentioning it doesn't erase the act, right?

What's more, you said that they mentioning the rule and doing the opposite is an example of them not stepping over it. But logic tell us it's the opposite: mentioning his rule and have him killing anyways is the epitome example of stepping over his rule. Makes sense?

Quote
So, you want a hypocrite Batman.

Quote
That's make it infinitely worse. That makes him a hypocrite. He's going to kill you then lie about it.

Quote
So you didnt like Keaton's Batman and Bale's Batman either because they killed too

Quote
That makes no sense. You're saying it's better to be hypocritical & turn his "rule" into lip service than actually show him aware he's changed & breaking his rule bc the world itself changed & give us a story of redemption where he ends the film with a renewed sense of hope?

Quote from: mrrockey on Sun, 11 Oct  2015, 21:24
For those that saw this back in '89(I wasn't born yet), do any of you remember anyone having a problem with Batman killing back then?

Now I'm not justifying or condemning Burton's decision to have Batman kill in his films, but it's something I've been wondering since with today's Batman fans, many of them don't consider this to be the "true" Batman since he's a murderer, but it didn't seem to be a problem with folks back then, and I'm assuming Batman hasn't killed in decades in the comics by that point(haven't read them, sorry). It does puzzle me how people seemed to dislike the inclusion of Joker being the murderer of the Waynes from day one, but they are fine with him going Charles Bronson Death Wish style on the bad guys he faces.

Discuss...

I wasn't around when the film came out so I can't give a real answer to that question. However, I personally don't have a problem with it in the 89 film. I think the real problem here is just ignorance. I'm sure most of the people that complain about Batman killing in this film are oblivious to the fact the the film was based on Bob Kane/Bill Finger's take on the character. So I don't know why this is still a debate. The characterization of Batman in the 89 film is based on a period where he killed people, used a hand gun, and had machine guns attatched to the Batwing. Keaton's Batman in the first film is pretty faithful to the sorce material. Batman doesn't do anything that can't be immeadiately referenced in the Golden Age, so I'm unsure as to why this is even an issue. If the filmmakers have stated that the 89 film is based on a specific version of the character, it's unfair to then use the rules and morals of a different incarnation of said character against the film imo.

As far as I am concerned, Batman isn't telling himself 'I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight.' His primary focus is protecting the city. And if that means using an explosive device, so be it. If he enters into an encounter where it becomes apparent lethal force is required, he will act accordingly - Ray Charles always being a good example. But I don't foresee him ever whacking nobody punks like Nick and Eddie in cold blood. That's why the killer Batman meme is so false. It's the exaggerated idea that Batman is a bloodthirsty serial killer who gets a kick out of taking life.

If people want to express their distaste for the idea of Batman killing, I'd respect them A LOT more if they were consistent. What these idiots don't understand is Hollywood thinks Batman's rule is ridiculous if the movies are meant to be dark. If you really don't want Batman to kill in live action, apply that criteria against all of the films, and the producers will finally get the message.

And no, you hypocritical idiots, a rule isn't a rule if it gets broken all the time for plot convenience. Don't ever tolerate lip service.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 29 Dec  2018, 21:18
As far as I am concerned, Batman isn't telling himself 'I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight.' His primary focus is protecting the city. And if that means using an explosive device, so be it. If he enters into an encounter where it becomes apparent lethal force is required, he will act accordingly - Ray Charles always being a good example. But I don't foresee him ever whacking nobody punks like Nick and Eddie in cold blood. That's why the killer Batman meme is so false. It's the exaggerated idea that Batman is a bloodthirsty serial killer who gets a kick out of taking life.

True for the most part except for the Joker. He flat out says "I'm going to kill you" which shows that killing him was a premeditated act. Again, I don't have a problem with that either. If the Pre-Robin Batman was put in that situation he'd react the same way.

A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 30 Dec  2018, 19:56
A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

The explosion that ensued following the strongman's plunge down the hole is ambiguous at best. First off, the guy could've taken the bomb out of his pants before it went kablooey.

But even if he didn't, that was a pretty wimpy explosion. There's no reason to assume he died from that. He might not have even been too horribly injured.

Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

The examples of Batman taking people out permanently raised so far are rather easy to defend.

No. I don't recall anyone having a problem with Batman killing back in 1989.

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

Course all of this was in those pre-internet days, so if there were a vocal minority who disliked Batman killing, it wasn't going to get a ton of traction. Similar to the hoopla Keaton got when he was cast as Batman. Sure, there was a negative article, and Keaton received hate mail, but I doubt 98% of the people back in 1988/1989 honestly cared. Superhero movies were very hit and miss, and the general public's investment was just not there. For most people, the trailer looked good, the hype was strong, the movie was released, people liked it, Keaton was accepted. Pretty much it.

From my perspective, that's how it when down back in 1989.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 03:49

No. I don't recall anyone having a problem with Batman killing back in 1989.

From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

Course all of this was in those pre-internet days, so if there were a vocal minority who disliked Batman killing, it wasn't going to get a ton of traction. Similar to the hoopla Keaton got when he was cast as Batman. Sure, there was a negative article, and Keaton received hate mail, but I doubt 98% of the people back in 1988/1989 honestly cared. Superhero movies were very hit and miss, and the general public's investment was just not there. For most people, the trailer looked good, the hype was strong, the movie was released, people liked it, Keaton was accepted. Pretty much it.

From my perspective, that's how it when down back in 1989.

That's my memory of it took. I think the controversy over Keaton gets overstated a lot. But whatever backlash there was mostly vanished after the first trailer. Kind of like Ledger as the Joker, once people had a basic idea of what the film would be like, the opposition pretty much evaporated all by itself.

One thing I find interesting today is how NOBODY is willing to go on the record as a Keaton-hater back in 1988 and the first half of 1989. Everybody acknowledges that there was some opposition there but nobody seems willing to admit that they were ever one of them.

I take the dearth of anybody doing a public mea culpa over that stuff as evidence of how great a job Keaton did with the part.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 02:06

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 30 Dec  2018, 19:56
A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

The explosion that ensued following the strongman's plunge down the hole is ambiguous at best. First off, the guy could've taken the bomb out of his pants before it went kablooey.

But even if he didn't, that was a pretty wimpy explosion. There's no reason to assume he died from that. He might not have even been too horribly injured.

Frankly, I have to disagree. If Burton wanted to show the Strongman had survived, he would've done so. The explosion might've evaporated rather quickly, but you can see the fire erupting before it turns to smoke. The shrapnel would've fatally injured the Strongman.

I reckon the firebreather who Batman set on fire with the Batmobile had a better chance to survive, as he could've easily rolled into the snow to put the flames out. Although judging from the severity of the flames, he'd likely suffer from third degree burns for the rest of his life.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 02:06
The examples of Batman taking people out permanently raised so far are rather easy to defend.

One particular death I dispute that Batman is responsible for is the Penguin's. At best, Batman might've tried to scare Cobblepot into thinking he was turning his kamikaze penguins against him, but he couldn't have anticipated it would result in that accidental fall. I'd say Cobblepot created his own demise.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 05:58
That's my memory of it took. I think the controversy over Keaton gets overstated a lot. But whatever backlash there was mostly vanished after the first trailer. Kind of like Ledger as the Joker, once people had a basic idea of what the film would be like, the opposition pretty much evaporated all by itself.

One thing I find interesting today is how NOBODY is willing to go on the record as a Keaton-hater back in 1988 and the first half of 1989. Everybody acknowledges that there was some opposition there but nobody seems willing to admit that they were ever one of them.

I take the dearth of anybody doing a public mea culpa over that stuff as evidence of how great a job Keaton did with the part.

That's very true, and the Ledger casting being chastised, then later praised, similar to Keaton, is an astute observation that does have it's parallel's with one another.

It's funny, but if we're talking strictly the more modern live action Batman's, Keaton & Affleck no doubt are the top two in receiving fanboy ire and later praise. I don't remember Val Kilmer being considered 'controversial', nor Clooney or Bale, and for my money, Keaton & Affleck are right up there for the absolute best.

With the role of the Joker, it sure seems like that outside of Nicholson (who I think was regarded as a good choice right from the jump), that part just invites dissatisfaction and conspiracy theories. If only initially. The negative reception Ledger got upon being cast is well documented, but I also recall these amusing theories that Ledger's Joker wasn't actually going to be THE Joker, and that he was essentially going to be a stand in for the REAL Joker who would appear later in the film. This was the sort of stuff that was being spewed out prior to the 1st trailer for The Dark Knight. Fast forward to Suicide Squad, and Leto was getting the same thing. That he wasn't really THE Joker, but rather .... Jason Todd of all people? Now, I've seen recent articles that, lo and behold, are spouting off the same crazy theory about Joaquin Phoenix's Joker!

Rinse and repeat.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 02:06
Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I wouldn't call the weapon Batman had used a spear gun. It was a gun that fired two bolas; one had wrapped around the Joker's ankle and the other had wrapped around the gargoyle. Still, I thought Batman had a more direct role in Joker's death than the Penguin's death.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 03:49
From what I can recall, the focus of people's attention to Burton's Batman was how the film effectively updated what the public's consciousness of Batman was. This wasn't your dad's Batman (Adam West), and while I personally loved the 1966 show (and remember watching it religiously when it began airing again on The Family Channel if memory serves), Burton's Batman felt VERY modern and updated. The hype, Keaton, Nicholson, and spectacle of it all was what people concerned themselves with.

This is how I remember it. I honestly can't say I remember seeing a single person complaining about Batman killing the bad guys until, I don't know, maybe a decade or so later.

Personally, it never bugged me. I actually want to see the main villain die. It helps bring closure to the story (something I long for that in franchise films these days), can lead to operatic finales like the one in Batman Returns, and if done right, it can be feel rewarding to the audience. The bad guy got what he deserved.

Actually, one thing I wish I'd mentioned before is how much things have changed. And also, how were fans perceived (and were perceived by) the wider culture.

It may be easy to forget now. But there was a time when comic book fans usually had pretty low expectations of comic book films. For a lot of them, it was enough that the character's look was similar to his comics counterpart. That may sound like low standards. But you have to remember that there was a time when The Culture (eg, the mainstream, the straights, the normies, whatever you want to call them) looked askance at comic books and comic book fans. My sense of things is that slasher movie aficionados were more widely accepted back in the 80's and most of the 90's than we were.

So yes, people (probably) died because of Batman's actions in the Burton films. But back then, it's not that fans were necessarily okay with stuff like that. Rather, they were simply trying to focus on the big picture. And back in the 80's and 90's, the big picture was "Batman isn't Adam West". That was the battle they were most concerned about. When B89 came out, fans were happy to have a darker version of Batman on film. Nevermind that there's nothing wrong with West. Because that wasn't the core audience's attitude back in 1989.

They wanted a dark Batman. They were concerned about getting a Batman movie starring a comedian like Bill Murray or something. Tim Burton gave them a dark Batman movie. So in the general mind of fans, it was Mission Accomplished.

Again, it may seem like no big shucks these days. But things were different back in the 80's and 90's. If Batman took somebody's life in a movie, well, fans tended to be a little pragmatic about it. Stuff like that was regarded as a "flaw" in an otherwise credible presentation of a dark Batman. They were prepared to look the other way on some issues. That would change in time but back then, that's how it was.

In today's world, you have people throwing tantrums because the lead villain's name in Infinity War is pronounced THAN-KNOWS rather than THAY-KNOWS. That's how much things have changed. Fans today can argue around the margins about irrelevant minutiae.

But back in 1989, fans weren't prepared to have hissy fits over "small" issues of Batman killing his foes. Not in a time and place when a dark Batman movie (A) existed and (B) had become very successful. Nobody wanted to rock the boat.

I'm prepared to say that fans were concerned over Batman taking life in the movies. If you go back and read old letter columns from BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS, you'll see letter hacks occasionally mention that very subject. But my memory of it is that most of them mentioned it in passing, as an aside, a small quibble. It wasn't a deal-breaker for them back then because they knew they couldn't afford for it to be.

Their priority was Batman as a grim avenger of the night. That was their focus. And protecting that might entail making other compromises, such as accepting a movie where Batman was a grim avenger of the night who occasionally killed his enemies.

It's only been relatively recently that Hollywood has begun creating more comics-accurate depictions of these characters. Fans today can argue over whether Sam Raimi created a more faithful adaptation of Spider-Man than Mark Webb. They have that luxury.

But back in the 80's, that was simply out of scope for fandom of that time. Fans of that period were simply happy if a movie was vaguely similar to the comics at all; they mostly didn't want to split hairs over the finer elements of the source material.

^ Well put. Context is indeed essential.

Modern viewers need to take into account that Batman 89 was grown in the soil of eighties action cinema; a landscape fertilised with the bullet-riddled corpses of a million dead henchmen. The most successful recent superhero movie at that time was RoboCop, in which the gun-toting hero racks up a body count that would put a slasher villain to shame. Batman 89 needed to compete against that in order to be taken seriously. Back then it was less about being a good 'comic book movie' than a good 'action movie'. CBMs weren't generally acknowledged as a separate genre in the eighties, so any superhero films had to fit into either the sci-fi or action genres. And being an eighties action movie meant lots of guns and a high body count.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 30 Dec  2018, 19:56
A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

I think Batman knew he wasn't going to get win against him, and the strongman had the attitude showing it, so Batman on-upped him. Plus this Batman wasnt exactly "there". I think Catwoman really woke him up at the end of the film (as to where was/heading towards) thus why he tried to stop Catowman from killing Shrek

Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Thu, 10 Jan  2019, 16:25
I think Batman knew he wasn't going to get win against him, and the strongman had the attitude showing it, so Batman on-upped him. Plus this Batman wasnt exactly "there". I think Catwoman really woke him up at the end of the film (as to where was/heading towards) thus why he tried to stop Catowman from killing Shrek

Not saying you're wrong, but what always bothered me about that ending with Catwoman is Batman suddenly dismissing her claim the law doesn't apply to them, despite the fact he has killed out of revenge and with impunity. When he says "wrong on both counts", it didn't ring true to me because we don't actually see him looking back at his past violent actions with regret. It just suddenly happens.

It's why I keep saying Forever, for all its faults, should be given credit for building from that moment and explore why Batman wants to spare anybody wanting to kill for revenge.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue,  1 Jan  2019, 07:42

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 31 Dec  2018, 02:06
Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I wouldn't call the weapon Batman had used a spear gun. It was a gun that fired two bolas; one had wrapped around the Joker's ankle and the other had wrapped around the gargoyle. Still, I thought Batman had a more direct role in Joker's death than the Penguin's death.

I may have to take back my original comment regarding the speargun.

It occurred to me right now that the Bola gun and the speargun were in fact the same. I was always under the impression they were two different guns, but after having another look at the weapons and gadgets I listed in that thread on the Misc. Burton sub-forum, the gun can be changed to fit different accessories. I'm surprised I didn't pick this up earlier on.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, colors.  :-[

I saw this film for the first time on Christmas day in 1991 on BBC1 when it premiered on UK TV
I can remember it like it was yesterday :)

I had seen the Adam West Batman movie a day or two before and quite enjoyed it, but up until that fateful day Superman was my favourite hero due to the excellent Christopher Reeve movies.

I remember Batman coming out a few years before but was too young to see it in the cinema. Although I was bout the toys for Christmas 89. (Batmobile/Batwing/Batman/Joker/Bob the goon)

I moved into a new home in 91 and was very happy to find a poster hanging on my bedroom room wall by the previous owner of Michael Keaton as Batman in the Batcave :)

I used to just lay on the bed staring at it ad imaging what the movie would be like.
The evening I saw Batman for the first time my entire life was changed. Batman instantly became my favourite hero and has remained so since. I was completely blown away. The best filmic experience I've ever had. I had no problem with the killing because the film didn't tell me that what Batman was doing was wrong.

It was only some years later 95-ish that I started reading the seminal Batman graphic novels that I realised Batman's aversion to guns taking of life.


 

Quote from: Max Eckhardt on Thu, 13 Jun  2019, 07:25
I saw this film for the first time on Christmas day in 1991 on BBC1 when it premiered on UK TV

I'm actually posting an article about that soon

I found this meme on Reddit. Keep in mind, it was posted on a Subreddit that seems to take the piss out of everything DC, so I wouldn't worry about this being anti-Burton.

(https://preview.redd.it/sxgzhkfz5dw11.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=017d1c14542e9574c733521a63794f2325f0dd1b)

As much as I loved Under the Red Hood, his resistance to kill due to a fear of permanently giving into his bloodthirsty tendencies doesn't quite hold up if you think too much about it. The problem is that while it might be understandable he has this personal dilemma, the other problem is he is essentially allowing Joker and co to escape and do more harm again. The writers really take away the nuance between murder outright and justifiable homicide too, though I don't necessarily blame them because this is a DC Comics edit. But no matter how hard they try justify Batman's unwillingness to kill under any circumstances, you'd have to really ignore the other side of the problem to fully buy into this reasoning.

Now that we'll finally get Robin in the upcoming Batman '89 comics, I anticipate the potential moral dilemmas Keaton's Batman will have, and whether or not it will be done better than what Schumacher gave us in BF.

100% agree! Bruce's story in Forever is the best part of the film for me and since there is more of it in the Schumacher cut then I'm all for it.

I think the problem is this, The early 90s Burton-Era does have an issue with endings going full throttle with little time to adjust. Batman has this (a bit) but Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns goes full speed ahead with a little adjustment, they just kind of happen (mind you Returns and Edward have some of my favorite 3rd acts.)

I think it also may go down to the writing. Like Bruce being fully consumed by Batman by this point but it's not really discussed just alluded. I would have loved if they showed the hall where he had the benefit in 89 but dark and empty with the sound of the wind howling before cutting to Bruce in his study, this way you get that flip of 89.

I almost wonder if it was Bruce finding out that Salina was Catwoman that woke him up (It doesn't appear he killed the Organ Grinder but he at least planned on killing Penguin (in the same way Penguin killed the ice princess *something I just realized now*). It does bring up interesting conversations tho!

Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sun, 11 Jul  2021, 14:10
I think it also may go down to the writing. Like Bruce being fully consumed by Batman by this point but it's not really discussed just alluded.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Batman being the cause of deaths on the battlefield, but from the point of view of an individual's psychology, rather than the effect those choices on society, Batman is absolutely right. If you do something once, it gives you permission to do it again. Ever fed, never satisfied. Never fed, ever satisfied. Life experience has taught me that lesson over the years. The mental wrestle of having darkness but not letting it totally consume him is what makes Batman such an interesting character. And if he does go over the edge, it comes at a price.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 11 Jul  2021, 10:28As much as I loved Under the Red Hood, his resistance to kill due to a fear of permanently giving into his bloodthirsty tendencies doesn't quite hold up if you think too much about it. The problem is that while it might be understandable he has this personal dilemma, the other problem is he is essentially allowing Joker and co to escape and do more harm again. The writers really take away the nuance between murder outright and justifiable homicide too, though I don't necessarily blame them because this is a DC Comics edit. But no matter how hard they try justify Batman's unwillingness to kill under any circumstances, you'd have to really ignore the other side of the problem to fully buy into this reasoning.

I think it's only a real problem if you want to see it as one. How does it not hold up? Murder isn't the same as someone committing atrocities.

In spite of the edit not fully representing the scene, as there is more nuance to the moment he actually dies. But in the context of the developed intention of the character, that I remember, Bruce punches Joker over the ledge, with seemingly no intention for him to not die. In legal terms, I think, at worst it was murder, I think, at best it's manslaughter, maybe, structure wise.