Messages

Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

Burton comes across as timid though. My favorite part of his commentary for the first film was when he talked about the time he kept demanding too many takes from Jack Palance, and Palance would say "I've made a hundred movies, how many have you made?" and Burton described how intimidated he felt, as if his whole world shrunk.

About Batman Forever, I think the saddest thing about it is if it didn't have so much camp, the bad attempt at comedy apart from two or three scenes, and bad acting (especially Jones, who looked liked he was supposed to copy Nicholson's Joker but came across as a typical Power Rangers villain instead), I think it would have been a much better film. Because I can't help but feel inside it there is a good film there that just happens to be poorly told.

Forever could have been better than either Burton film if Schumacher was more on target; mainly he got two face totally wrong, I think if that character were portrayed more seriously, it would have allowed Carrey to flourish more in his natural comedic role. I did think robin was handled perfectly.

Agreed. If Two-Face was portrayed seriously, it could have brought balance to the film. It felt like they were so desperate to avoid any controversy like in Returns that they had to be "comical" as much as possible. Then again if the film at least had real wit, I wouldn't have mind if it took a lighter tone, but like I already said they tried too hard to be funny.

Another problem with the film is Val Kilmer as the lead. I know a lot of people claim that he would have been acting better if he had a better script. See, that might have been the case if he never came across as a prima donna. When I watched him as Batman, I never got the feeling Kilmer ever wanted to be in the film, apart from getting paid of course.

Not sure how many of you have listened to Tim Burton's commentaries but he goes through some pretty good trivia, stories and memories. Maybe typical of Burton, his remarks are a bit rambling and unfocused at times but that just gives them authenticity.

Burton comes across as timid though. My favorite part of his commentary for the first film was when he talked about the time he kept demanding too many takes from Jack Palance, and Palance would say "I've made a hundred movies, how many have you made?" and Burton described how intimidated he felt, as if his whole world shrunk.

About Batman Forever, I think the saddest thing about it is if it didn't have so much camp, the bad attempt at comedy apart from two or three scenes, and bad acting (especially Jones, who looked liked he was supposed to copy Nicholson's Joker but came across as a typical Power Rangers villain instead), I think it would have been a much better film. Because I can't help but feel inside it there is a good film there that just happens to be poorly told.

Nolan didn't capture Bane's personality either.

Maybe, but at least this version of Bane's voice made me laugh. Even when he was beating up Batman in the sewers he was cracking me up.  "Age has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you"? So cheesy!

On-topic, I'd like to see a film that that is an actual murder-mystery plot which Batman must solve, to show his detective abilities. I've always had an imagination of him facing off Calendar Man, Riddler or even Deadshot for this kind of idea.   

The Adventures of Batman and Robin (1995 Sega Genesis) - This was a very good 2D platformer, probably one of the last till games turned 3-Dimensional. But damn it was HARD. And long! I played this game when I was 11, but I didn't get to finish until I played 10 years later, and I had to use a cheat code to do it! The game had somepretty interesting pick-ups (batarangs could suddenly surge out electrical currents). But what I  the music itself was techno-inspired which I thought was strange since I was used to hear opera-style music in anything Batman related media (the composer is appreantly the same guy who would work on the Hitman games). Not the 2D background graphics were top quality at times.

The Adventures of Batman and Robin (1994 Super Nintendo) - Easier game than the Genesis one, but not quite as fun. But at least this one had a password system, unlike the Genesis game.

[throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become.]

I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become.

I realize what I'm about to say is a little beside the point of what we're talking about, but here it goes: I thought the way they presented the idea of Batman being a symbol that people could look up to was poorly done, as far as the first two films are concerned. Batman intends to become an "incorruptible" symbol, but not only do you barely see what sort of impact he has on the city, he ends up destroying the city every time he drives the Tumbler and Batpod. At least in movies like Raimi's Spider-Man or Donner's Superman, you are shown - not told - how people react to the hero's impact they're having on their cities. Worse, Batman ends up corrupting his symbol anyway by covering up the Dent murders (which I find absurd, wouldn't there be more people like Blake questioning why would a crime-fighter turn into cold-blooded maniac despite all the times he saved the city? But that's another topic itself...)

Come to think of it, I personally have a hard time believing that Alfred would ever support Bruce's crusade in the first place, that's how much Batman's recklessness and stupidity bothered me. I understood that Batman being the "aspiring symbol" was supposed to be a theme throughout this trilogy and while the idea itself is good, I honestly thought its execution was poor. If he wasn't such a driving wrecking ball, I would have agreed with you.

In TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.

Yeah, Bruce was out of shape, but his depression was because of his belief that Rachel would go back to him, until she died. Alfred, despite knowing the truth, kept it away from Bruce for eight bloody years. And as you know Bruce fell apart and became a recluse over time, yet Alfred conveniently decides to tell the truth about Rachel just when the city is on the brink of another crisis? Why not tell him a long time ago, if Bruce became shut inside and stopped living his life?

If Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him.

I have a hard time believing that because Nolan and company thought it was a good idea to have the vengeful Talia go to bed with her father's killer instead of just simply whacking him. Look, I don't mean to be snob, I know all movies have flaws and lapse in logic (I even criticize the Burton movies for this too, not only Nolan's) but personally I thought the three latest movies, not just this one, could have been better thought out, to say the least. Especially if they're supposedly "elevating the genre" like I keep hearing whenever I go. I have nothing against anyone who enjoyed these movies, but I was extremely disappointed with all of them.

If Nolan wanted it to feel natural, he should have had him be adamant about Bruce being Batsy in BB, and then start to question his motives in TDK, then it leads into TDKR where he's against it. But we didn't get any kind of character arch with that! So to the viewers, it feels like one minute he supports him, and then the next he doesn't. It just feels wayy out of character from what we know about this series. A complete 180! Oh, and what happened there in the middle of the movie? He just upright leaves Bruce to try and prove a point, but we never see any reaction from him when Bruce is presumed missing or dead? Hell, not only do we not see a reaction, but we don't see him at all until the VERY end! For someone who is supposed to be loyal to Bruce, and even steered him along the way when Bruce doubted himself, he really jumped ship when it was his time to doubt. It felt completely selfish on his part, which didn't feel true to his character, yet, there it is.

Nolan probably thought if Alfred reacted to Bruce disappearing, as well as even having him involved in helping Bruce's return to Gotham, it might have somehow spoiled the "surprise" in the end. And this is one of the many reasons why I really have no patience for Nolan's movies. He seems so determined to use plot twists to surprise the audience that it ends up creating sudden out-of-character moments and hurts the story. Alfred in one movie goes from saying "Endure. You could be the outcast. Gotham needs you!" to suddenly having a change of heart in the next one saying "Leaving you is the only way to get you to understand...you're not Batman anymore." Why the hell would Alfred even try to talk Bruce out of coming back from retirement when a new threat like Bane appears?

The Talia subplot was laughable too, especially her inadequate attempt to destroy Bruce Wayne. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to make her plot her revenge against Bruce by going to bed with him ( ), and have him sent to prison where there is a strong chance he could escape, and not simply demand Bane to just kill him and be done with it?!

Guess nobody is anticipating the new Iron Man yet? Personally I like the look of this second trailer, the last one was alright but didn't excite liked it seemed to excite others on the 'net. I have very little regard for Iron Man 2, but judging from this preview the only way is up.

I'd like a live action TV series too, but only if the budget is big enough to guarantee a quality show. I wouldn't like it to copy that Arrow TV show, which from what I've watched so far it has decent production but mediocre, almost soap opera-like acting.

[already]

The thing that bothers me about the "it's what sets him apart from his enemies" BS is that it just doesn't make sense. Batman wears a mask; his enemies often wear masks. Batman commits B&E and even acts of robbery; so do his enemies. Call me crazy but Batman has a hell of a lot in common with them whether he kills or not.

Another thing is the supposed inhumanity of it. For starters, I've never understood how beating somebody to within an inch of his life with batarangs and karate kicks is somehow more "humane" than just snapping his neck and being done with it.

Invariably somebody will use the "Batman isn't the Punisher" straw man. Like any straw man, it presupposes that a Batman who is willing to kill must therefore rack up a body count similar to the Punisher's. I don't think that's the case. It's nothing to the Punisher to blow some purse-snatcher's head off. He would do that and sleep like a baby that night. But I can't imagine circumstances where Batman would ever do that. It's just unnecessary.

But even apart from all of that stuff, Batman takes the law into his own hands on virtually everything else. From the initial investigation of a crime to gathering evidence to interviewing witnesses to making arrests, Batman has no hesitation about doing almost all of the job all by himself. It therefore seems completely arbitrary for him to stop short of killing perps who deserve it just because "it would make him no better than they are". Um, from where I sit, he's already no "better" than they are, and that's whether we go by the number of laws broken or by the (lack of) morality underlying either of their methods. So what exactly is the problem with wiping out some murderous scumbag? I for one would have absolutely no problem with Batman using lethal force, if only against people who have taken lives themselves.

I agree with everything above. I think the problem, though, is people want to have it both ways. They want darker stories where times are cynical, violent, and chaotic, but they still want to have a Batman who believes even the worst can be rehabilitated. I think this is because if Batman kills, then it reminds everybody how unrealistic it is that the police would work with a vigilante who is above the law.

No sequel but apparently a prequel is coming; year zero. Might be interesting but kind of sucks because it means there wont be batman.

Actually, there are plans to release a Volume 2 for this year after all:

Gary Frank Confirms "Batman: Earth One" Vol. 2 For 2013

Mon, November 19th, 2012 at 2:45pm PST
Comic Books
Steve Sunu, Staff Writer/Reviews Editor


Geoff Johns and Gary Frank have a second volume of "Batman: Earth One" in the works for 2013.

This year, DC Comics launched its long-awaited "Batman: Earth One" graphic novel by Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns and fan-favorite artist Gary Frank. The original graphic novel detailed the very beginnings of the Caped Crusader, and it should come as no surprise that Johns and Frank plan to reunite for a second volume to continue the adventures of a fledgling Batman. While in conversation on Twitter, Johns tweeted "Batman: Earth One" was one of Barnes & Noble's "Best Quirky, Beautiful, Different Books of 2012," tagging Frank in the post.

"Honored 'Batman: Earth One' by me and the amazing [Gary Frank] was chose as one of Barnes & Noble's best of 2012!" Johns said via Twitter.

Frank's reply to Johns was at first coy about a second volume, seeming to indicate there wouldn't be one.

"It's just a shame that there won't be a Vol. 2...." Frank tweeted, before continuing, "...until next year!!!" Frank further elaborated, stating Johns is "cooking up a great chapter 2."

The second volume of "Batman: Earth One" would match the franchise in volumes with J. Michael Straczynski and Shane Davis' "Superman: Earth One," the second volume of which released this month.

"Batman: Earth One Volume 2" is set for release 2013.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42275

I enjoyed Earth One, it had that grit and feel like it could be adapted into a movie. The only complaint I have about it is the creepy use of using children as murder victims.

I still got a laugh at Batman's failure at the start of the book though.