Batathon Time Lapse Video

[CarterOfMars]

I genuinely enjoy the Adam West film.  It makes me laugh an awful lot and West gives a fantastic comedic performance.  That moment at the end when he finally figures out that Miss Kitka is Catwoman and he has that look on his face (mostly hidden by a cowl) is genuine talent.  He's able to express so much without a word and with most of his face hidden.

And I don't find the Burton films to be completely serious movies.  You only have to look at the "Party Man" sequence.  Or the mime sequence.  Or the parade sequence.  Or a train driving down a street to kidnap children.  And a poodle that catches a Batarang (caught by a dog that jumps possibly 6 inches into the air while the Batarang is hitting full sized people in the face).  Or a villain that drives around in a duck.  These are as campy as anything in the West film.  Especially the Joker's henchmen, who are always dancing and performing.

As for me not liking the film Batman Returns while producing a great Batman Returns album, the two have nothing to do with one another.  The album was a job I was asked to produce.  I'm not about to turn down work, and I'm sure you can't blame me on that one.  I've worked on plenty of albums for movies that I cannot stand.  In fact at this very moment as I type this I'm listening to music for a project that I'm trying to make the best that it can be for a movie I've seen once and despised.  But that doesn't change the fact that I have work to do and there are fans of this and they deserve the best that can be achieved.  With Batman Returns it was the same thing.  I worked very hard to make that the best album it could be, going so far as to locate a missing reel of tape.  The results speak for themselves.

And you misinterpreted what I said.  I really like the Batman Returns score on it's own, separated away (very, very far away) from the movie for which it was written.

[DocLathropBrown]

With all due respect to your fine work on the Elfman score remasterings, Carter, I have to wonder how big a fan of Batman you really are.

Now, this is not to say if you dislike Burton's films is to not a be a Batman fan, but to lump them together with both the Schumacher films and the West film as if there is no distinct difference is lunacy. There's a large difference between humor that essentially mocks the character and humor that brings a sense of fun. Based on those accusations, you must find The Animated Series just as campy as the Adam West show. What you pointed out in Burton's films are no campier than the comic book itself. Which leads me to wonder how much of the comic book you've read.

I mean, really, I want to hear how you could possibly think it all runs together. As if there was no rediculousness in Christopher Nolan's films? Or Mask of the Phantasm? The Joker alone in MOTP is closer to Nicholson than to Ledger. If you really feel that way about the Burton films and it's not from some kind of Nolan bias/anti-Burton sentiment, than you don't truly understand the universe of Batman or the definition of camp. Or you never really watched the Burton films. And while I'll let comments about Batman Returns' absurdity slide (though it is not without its filmic merits), BATMAN leaves no grounds for accusations of camp.

[The Dark Knight]

With all due respect to your fine work on the Elfman score remasterings, Carter, I have to wonder how big a fan of Batman you really are.

Now, this is not to say if you dislike Burton's films is to not a be a Batman fan, but to lump them together with both the Schumacher films and the West film as if there is no distinct difference is lunacy. There's a large difference between humor that essentially mocks the character and humor that brings a sense of fun. Based on those accusations, you must find The Animated Series just as campy as the Adam West show. What you pointed out in Burton's films are no campier than the comic book itself. Which leads me to wonder how much of the comic book you've read.

I mean, really, I want to hear how you could possibly think it all runs together. As if there was no rediculousness in Christopher Nolan's films? Or Mask of the Phantasm? The Joker alone in MOTP is closer to Nicholson than to Ledger. If you really feel that way about the Burton films and it's not from some kind of Nolan bias/anti-Burton sentiment, than you don't truly understand the universe of Batman or the definition of camp. Or you never really watched the Burton films. And while I'll let comments about Batman Returns' absurdity slide (though it is not without its filmic merits), BATMAN leaves no grounds for accusations of camp.

Thanks for writing that, Doc. You said that in a controlled way that I couldn't have done.

I was going to post something an hour ago, but it went way overboard.

[DocLathropBrown]

Well, there's no need to resort to fighting, though. My time on SuperHeroHype as an active poster has left a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth toward internet arguing. If this turns into an argument, I'm walking away. But I seriously cannot understand how someone can lump the Burton films in with the others and be on the correct wavelength. And I don't mean to sound arrogant, as it's only an opinion in the end.

There's a difference between what Burton and the others did. As I said, the 1966 series and film were having fun at the expense of the character. Is that a bad thing? It was bad for the character's legacy until Tim set audience perception straight in '89. But otherwise? Hell no. I adore the first season of the show and the film.

What Joel Schumacher did is set into two different catagories, as it's two different things. Joel truly didn't feel a desperate need to take the material seriously, but it wasn't the same as mocking the character. Even Batman & Robin doesn't camp it up in the same way as the '66 series/film. Forever is sillier than Burton's two but I wouldn't call it campy necessarily. It's true comedy factor comes from Jim Carrey and Tommy Jones trying to out-Joker Jack Nicholson and each other at the same time. Riddler and Two-Face aside, it's a completely serious film. Batman & Robin is married to the simplicity of the silver age Batman stories, but not any kind of camp factor. Humor and camp are not the same thing. Camp is a specific type of humor that generally mocks its subject matter. Unfortunately, to the uninitiated, Camp and general humor belnds together.

The comedy of Batman & Robin is different from the 60s series/film in the fact that there's nothing in it that makes fun of the Batman universe or its (the film's) own world. Batman making quips and appearing at charity benefits, Mr. Freeze making ice puns or unrealism (giant statues or gravity defying stunts) isn't campy. It's just a tone that goes against the popular conception of Batman at the time of its release. In the '60s material, the writing and tone mocks Batman outright. The characters and situations of that universe are dopey, and we all know it, but the characters don't. It's kind of a hard thing to describe, so I'll exemplify it.

In the '66 film, good examples of camp humor would be Batman's Utility Belt Transmitter running out of batteries (making Batman look inept at not making sure his equipment was up-to-snuff before going into action), or his belief that the Porpoise that ran into the Penguin's final torpedo did it to save them. He's serious about something rediculous, thus making him look stupid. That = camp. It still doesn't feel like I've explained it well enough, but, there you go. My attempt.

Camp more broadly is used in a general satire of the entire piece. In camp, nothing is played for true seriousness, it's all part of the joke. Along that line even, the Schumacher films aren't necessarily campy because there's plenty of serious material in there. The '66 movie is devoid of seriousness sans perhaps Batman's reaction to Kitka's reveal. But even then, that is meant to be ironically farcical. Again, it's a hard thing to explain, but it's easy enough to explain how the Burton films and even Schumacher's are not campy.

But a fantastical idea or unrealism is not cheese, nor is it camp. If it were, than the entirety of comic books (even modern ones) would have to be so. Going by that, there's plenty that's silly in Nolan's Batman films, such as the idea that Two Face could speak audibly with half of his lips missing, or that he could even stand the pain well enough to function. That Batman just has to turn the Batmobile lights and engine sound off for the police to completely lose sight of him when they're looking right at him. That Batman wouldn't get caught, or that he and Rachel could survive a fall from a penthouse without even bruises, but Two-Face dies from a height far shorter.

There's an inherent absurdity to Batman. The very idea that a man in a Bat costume would frighten anyone (especially in this day and age) is absurd. And the same for his villains, or Batman's ability to get away with what he does. The thing is that while Nolan tires to act as if the absurdity isn't there, Burton embraces and celebrates it. That's the only difference. If Burton's films are cheesy, than so are Nolan's. The only difference is that Burton's aren't afraid to be like a comic book and be fun/broad, and Nolan's try to masquerade as reality, which is at odds with the character.

[Seantastic]

Yea, gonna be honest, the fact that any Nolan film could be placed above ANY of the original 4 is beyond me.  The original 4 were comic book films about the character Batman, Nolan's are just crime movies that happen to include a guy in a suit which is like the Batsuit.  Michael Keaton is Batman, he played Batman that everyone loved till Nolan and bale came along and gave us what they have.  Keaton was atmospheric, he actually struck fear into the villians and had the aggression, whereas Bale, well Bale, Bale just seems weird.  Also, about Batman hardly being in BR, there was a post not too long ago about the percentages of Batman/film, and Burtons actually had a much higher percentage than Nolans.

Shame on you, Returns IS the definitive Batman film, and always will be /thread.