Messages

I doubt most actresses could have gone as dark and intense as Pfeiffer and especially that, if they had, they would have still remained as likeable as she did.

So she would have been not as good but I don't know that it would make that much difference in reaction, I don't know that she was that controversial but most would have been eh she's just a big celebrity entertainer so they would have thought her casting and starring OK followup to huge star/celebrity Nicholson as Joker.

Edit: Madonna with her image as Catwoman might have avoided a little controversy as it may have made it a little clearer before release that this wasn't an all-ages, appropriate-for-little-kids take but I think most of the actual marketing we did get already conveyed that so there would probably be still be some surprise and backlash.

I can't say I'm a big fan of the Nostalgia Critic, but it might interest some of our site members to know that he's doing a 'Dark Knight Month' in which he'll be reviewing Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Batman 89 and Mask of the Phantasm. Here's the first video.

A few of the complaints are petty but he seems to admit that. Although I guess he didn't get that the hurting the family name was supposed to be uncomfortable and unpleasant.

Holmes was questionable for being (not long before) on Dawson's Creek (I like teen angst and yet hate that) but I thought despite that she did pretty well in the role. Really don't get the view that Murphy was too young as Scarecrow, I thought he and all the villains were great challenges and contrasts to Batman. Though I wish Scarecrow had returned and been even better in the sequel.

The references to Silverstone Batgirl are oddly appropriate in that in '05 some people oddly did think it was still too soon after B&R.

I'm not a big fan of non-chronological but BB made it work really well except that on rewatch the 7 mostly missing years feels pretty excessive.

I've seen others complain about too much praise/goodness of Thomas and I don't think it's excessive or inappropriate.

I'm pretty sure Nolan would have called the film just Batman (or maybe The Batman) if he could, The Dark Knight sounds much more like a sequel/follow-up to/progression of Batman than Batman Begins. But Batman Begins is still a fine, even still grand title the movie lives up to.

Rewatching the film a few weeks ago, it's great how it (like Superman) manages to be both grounded and pretty grand/epic.

I didn't like the movie, it mostly felt like just watching The King of Comedy, also with some Taxi Driver, again and also too much was random.

Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist and Killer Croc and probably Penguin and Clayface would be underwhelming as the and probably even one of two villains in a two-hour + movie so there is something to the dismissiveness. So probably would be Poison Ivy unless you went pretty far in to fantasy which Nolan didn't want to do.

It's cool that Waters and Burton developed such interest and sympathy for Catwoman and the Penguin, while still making the latter a definite villain, too bad they, or at least Waters, didn't get more for Batman.

I think Waters and the interviewer had an unacknowledged disagreement about Vicki Vale, Waters considering her kind of boring and obligatory (I agree) and the interviewer thinking it was unfair and maybe sexist to consider the B89 love interest/story boring.

I don't think Nolan has attacked BR and OTOH it seems harsh for Waters to consider him more like Max than like Bruce.

I thought with both Nicholson in B89 and Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy they were notably too old playing their characters.

Not really surprising, except that Gordon was there more than I remember. You still kind of, despite the previous films, expect Batman to be the main focus so Joker having a little more than him makes him seem really more dominant.

It's pretty hard to even think of going lighter or goofier than B&R, it makes sense that even if it was a success after it, for some balance, they would go a little darker like with Scarecrow or Man-Bat or Scarface.

But if not that, Mad Hatter and yes Clayface seem the biggest villains who could fit a light movie. A story with Mad Hatter and mind control, but in a light, family-friendly story does seem a plausible follow-up, he could be played by Robin Williams, Martin Short or maybe Steve Martin. Good idea with the police somehow seeming bad, getting involved in stealing.

I could also see past villains like Catwoman or Riddler returning (Catwoman pretty different from in BR), enough time had passed that that happening could seem exciting, more so than seeing just new villains, you could even if you will de-canonize the Burton films to allow getting Schumacher versions of Catwoman, the Joker, the Penguin. Or, if it was after rather than at the same time as The Mummy, Poison Ivy returning but teaming up with Ra's Al Ghul (Antonio Banderas or Pierce Brosnan).

I've pretty much always thought BF Riddler was an at least interesting character, themes, story.

His praise of Kilmer Bruce is OK, though I think a lot of the character themes including wanting romantic relationship were pretty much already done, better, by Keaton and I actually think the cut resolution of Bruce doesn't have to feel guilty, it's not his fault, the parents wanted to go to the movies anyway, is too easy and underwhelming (that he feels survivor guilt, and or more so responsibility, regardless of the specifics is actually better).

how would some people with a YouTube channel might react to Catwoman and the theme surrounding her in BR? I have sneaky feeling that they wouldn't take it too well. I reckon they would complain how Burton made Batman get emasculated by Catwoman, and how he got "humiliated" by her when failed to talk her out of taking revenge over Shreck at the end of the movie. Now while I do believe critics do misrepresent people on purpose to promote their agenda, unfortunately, I've seen a loud minority of fools who are sexist bigots on YouTube, and do take issue with a female character.

Maybe. The biggest complaint would probably just be, again, that she just gets too much time and focus rather than Batman, and that could be combined with claiming she seems to beat, not be won over by Batman, but I think most would still be pretty charmed by and interested in her.

While many people thought Eisenberg was miscast in the role and didn't care for his mannerisms, I don't think BR's Penguin would've been accepted if BR was  a brand new movie that came out today. Mainly because from what I can tell, people have this inflexible, yet inconsistent perception of what they think comic book characters should be e.g. Batman should be dark but not THAT dark, but it's still okay if he does that because he says this, Superman should be bright and fun, Joker should be dark and mysterious, Penguin should be sophisticated and a gentleman mob boss, blah blah blah. Burton may have modeled the Penguin as a darker equivalent to John Merrick from The Elephant Man, and as brilliant as that may have been, I think loud naysayers with an internet connection would've attacked Burton for not getting the character...while hypocritically giving other interpretations that deviated from the comics a pass.

Reactions to the Penguin would probably be about the same (maybe a bit less shock after Ledger The Joker being both non-sophisticated and monstrous in his way, but Penguin still feels pretty shocking type of monster).

In general, with years of MCU and away from Nolan films, there is still as much sense that superheroes are and should be for whole family viewing than in 1992.

OTOH the whole run for mayor plot would probably be regarded as much smarter than it was back then (it may have gotten more screentime), not a weird waste of time or just weirdly trying to redo a plot from the TV show but smart digs about disliked politicians from either side (Burton would have been more asked about it, there also could have been more polarizing dislike from those who felt their side was being targeted).

Last but not least, I can see people complaining online and accuse Burton and the production team of racism for casting actors of ethnic backgrounds in less than flattering roles e.g. the Native American actor who played the rapist who Catwoman attacked. Going by the accusations towards Antisemitism in The New York Times back in 1992, I could see today's outrage culture use that agenda to condemn BR in a broader scale than print media ever could.

There would have been not just puzzlement but real anger about Billy Dee Williams Harvey Dent not returning (though I think even Burton would, if he made the movie now, probably be series-thinking-enough to bring back him and Vicki Vale).