Is Batman Returns still the darkest movie of the entire franchise?

[The Dark Knight]

Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.

I agree with you there.

[Wayne49]

It bemuses me when people state that Batman Returns is 'too dark' because the Penguin tries to drown the city's first-born sons.

Firstly, he fails!

Secondly, I guess the Old Testament of the Bible/the Exodus story is 'too dark' because a plague affects all of Egypt's first-born children.

And what about other kids' films/fairy tales (and remember, Batman Returns is partly a fairy tale)?  Pinocchio for instance ends with a bunch of kids being turned into mules, and we don't ever see them change back.  Apart from Pinocchio, the kids are likely to end up as work mules and die that way.

What about the books of Roald Dahl?  In The Witches, the children get permanently turned into mice (in the 1990 they are admittedly transformed back), and other children are kidnapped and can only be seen by their families via pictures that capture them getting older.  And in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory various naughty children are tortured and in some cases, disfigured.  In the 1970s movie adaptation we don't even get a scene reassuring us that none of the children were in fact killed (as if the permanent disfigurement and trauma of their experience wasn't enough).

So, is Batman Returns really that dark?  One might even argue that it's less dark than TDK, since Batman is at least seen to effectively 'win' by the climax, even if he does lose Selina, and he isn't still being hunted by the police for murder, or gone into semi-permanent solitary hiding.

Just to be fair to the original intent of this thread, Batman Returns was only being compared with the Batman franchise and not other conceptual pieces in story and film. I don't think anyone is ever lost on the surrealism that accompanies nearly all of Tim Burton's work. It's a style to be applauded on so many levels. He's absolutely unique in an era where so many copy one another. So there's nothing but praise from me regarding the skills and artistic vision of Tim Burton.

I think it's fair game to say superhero movies today have a far more deliberate direction in their story and have a  better understanding of it's target audience. Batman Returns might have had a fairy tale quality, which is inescapable from Tim Burton, but the subject matter did not really take into account it's audience. Another trait BR shares with B&R is the sexual innuendo. BR was more in the dialogue where B&R was visual subtext. So I think when you take the mood of the film and supplant it with the tone of the characters, then wrap it with the almighty bow of intent...well... Batman Returns comes off pretty dark.

I think it's safe to say the sexual dialogue took the fairy tale quality off the movie and made it far more edgy for younger audiences or parents in attendance with said youngsters. I'm sure there were more than a few parents that squirmed when the Penguin said, " Oh just the pussy I was looking for." Not the best line to put in a Batman film. So mixing that with a plan to kill little babies, likely gave more than a few kids nightmares (which  didn't make parents all too happy). Forget whether he was successful. Just the idea that an iconic Batman villain wanted to kill little children was weighty enough. Mix in his reasoning with abandonment and your strolling into some pretty heavy material for Batman audiences of 1992. So I think when we talk about "dark", what we're really alluding to is the expectations of content for a Batman film and it's audience.

I think you can take the Batman character and his villains to extreme situations under certain circumstances, but usually the bad guy is wanting to destroy on a universal level which gives it a more comic book annotation. Once you start dabbling with certain groups of people and explore the justification to bring them harm, I think you push the envelope of entertainment value for a number of people in the audience. As a business model, Batman will always translate into toy sells for the movie studios. So even if the makers want to expand the target audience and make a sweeping story that encompasses a far broader scope of age groups, I think they still have to remember the foundation they stand on. Exploring the intent to harm kids is really taboo for Batman films and should not be something writers evolve into a main story.

[Dagenspear]

It is uplifting, but remember that the Joker than refers to the 'Ace in the hole' who happens to be Harvey, the 'white knight' who turns to the dark side and whose crimes the 'dark knight' must take the wrap for.

Anyway, my point wasn't to say that TDK is a particularly dark film, but only that I don't think that Batman Returns is as dark as everyone says it is, or at least not for the reasons everyone says it is.

I understand, but that goes back to what I said about how there's going to be losses. There can't not be. But I don't see darkness in Bruce taking the fall for Harvey's crimes. That's pretty uplifting to me, a heroic act. I think in a lot of ways it's how the content is distributed in the movies, not the content itself. The Joker doesn't explain in detail how the people are going to die. The movie doesn't hang on Harvey dying for a minute. There is barely any sexual content at all in TDK. There's a very minimalist approach to it all. There's barely any blood. It's an un-vicious approach. Where Burton's sort of puts all of that right there. Even the way the physical appearances are are very heightened. It makes a lot more visual noise than the Nolan films, where they take a step back from it.

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

I think it's fair game to say superhero movies today have a far more deliberate direction in their story and have a  better understanding of it's target audience. Batman Returns might have had a fairy tale quality, which is inescapable from Tim Burton, but the subject matter did not really take into account it's audience. Another trait BR shares with B&R is the sexual innuendo. BR was more in the dialogue where B&R was visual subtext. So I think when you take the mood of the film and supplant it with the tone of the characters, then wrap it with the almighty bow of intent...well... Batman Returns comes off pretty dark.

Not to contradict my original point of this thread, but a large majority of superhero films are quite dark in nature. For all the talk about the "light-hearted and fun" nature of the MCU, a lot of people tend to overlook the horror that occurs to people on screen. For instance, Captain America: Civil War showed a couple getting killed as they were driving by, innocent bystanders accidentally getting killed during a terrorist attack, a man tortured and getting drowned to death, and a bombing that kills dozens of people attending a press conference. And that's in the first half hour!

But having said that, yes, Burton's Gothic fantasy vision certainly builds the film's creepy and tragic atmosphere. Whereas Civil War feels like your typical Hollywood blockbuster, particularly in terms of visuals.

I think it's safe to say the sexual dialogue took the fairy tale quality off the movie and made it far more edgy for younger audiences or parents in attendance with said youngsters. I'm sure there were more than a few parents that squirmed when the Penguin said, " Oh just the pussy I was looking for." Not the best line to put in a Batman film. So mixing that with a plan to kill little babies, likely gave more than a few kids nightmares (which  didn't make parents all too happy). Forget whether he was successful. Just the idea that an iconic Batman villain wanted to kill little children was weighty enough. Mix in his reasoning with abandonment and your strolling into some pretty heavy material for Batman audiences of 1992. So I think when we talk about "dark", what we're really alluding to is the expectations of content for a Batman film and it's audience.

I'm thankful that BR was released twenty five years ago. If it were released today in this digital age, it would've been unfavourably described as an unconventional superhero film in comparison to something like the MCU, and I bet Danny DeVito wouldn't have gotten his recognition for his performance he deserved because it wouldn't be what fans expect from the Penguin. I bet his take would've been dismissed as "a disgusting perverted freak with mommy and daddy issues". And they'd have a point, but they'd also be overlooking at how multilayered the Penguin is. Suffice to say, the film would've received a greater backlash if came out today instead of 1992.

Exploring the intent to harm kids is really taboo for Batman films and should not be something writers evolve into a main story.

But let's remember that child abuse isn't a one-off thing that happened in BR. TDK had Two-Face pointing a gun at Gordon's son, and TDKR showed Talia nearly getting torn apart by convicts as she narrowly escaped the Pit when she was a child.

[The Dark Knight]

Sometimes it's not always about the content. It's about emotion. How you feel. And that is especially true for BR. The Elfman soundtrack is on the melancholy side, and the visuals are on the dark side. The plot has elements of darkness, to be sure. But it's not an overly bleak film devoid of humour, playfulness or charm. It has all those things. BR is my favorite film in the franchise, but I do think it's darkness is overplayed by some fans. And honestly, I have been guilty of doing that too in the past. And to be clear, I'm not underselling BR here. I'm saying it has a lot more going for it than being one note. The fairytale/social commentary nature of the film is why it works so well in the first place.

[The Laughing Fish]

Sometimes it's not always about the content. It's about emotion. How you feel. And that is especially true for BR. The Elfman soundtrack is on the melancholy side, and the visuals are on the dark side. The plot has elements of darkness, to be sure. But it's not an overly bleak film devoid of humour, playfulness or charm. It has all those things. BR is my favorite film in the franchise, but I do think it's darkness is overplayed by some fans.

BR definitely has its charm and fun, though personally I believe B89 was better in this area. After all, it's hard to top the Joker's black sense of humour.

I think the tragedy surrounding the main characters make BR unique unlike any other film in the genre. Batman saves the day, but he feels empty inside. Catwoman gets her revenge, but she's gone far off the deep end in terms of sanity. Penguin dies as he was born, discarded. Only the penguins mourn for him. Even Max Schreck, despite showing what a sociopath he is, sacrificed himself to spare his son chip from being taken hostage by Penguin, ultimately leading to his death.

Very emotional.

[The Dark Knight]

The ending of the film hits all the right notes, that's for sure. And the end credits music, with the black and white aesthetic, truly hits that cold and tragic vibe home. I think it's because we know this is THE END. The film is over and that's that. As you say, Penguin died alone as an outcast and Bruce/Selina go their seperate ways.

I know people here disagree with me, but I actually think BR has more atmosphere than B89.

[The Laughing Fish]

There was a video by some YouTuber called Jeremy Jahns who did a review looking on BR, and he made this strange claim that Catwoman's behaviour was promiscuous, for a lack of a better word. I don't think he was paying much attention if he truly believed that.

Catwoman was a rebellious vigilante who used sexuality as a weapon, taunting men for being impotent e.g. the mall cops at the Shreck convenience store, and seducing Batman to exploit the chinks in his armour and stab him. I guess one can claim that Catwoman's outfit and violence is a disturbing metaphor for bondage, but it's beyond me how Jahns could think she was a promiscuous.

[The Dark Knight]

After her transformation, Michellewoman didn't suppress herself in any way. But Michellewoman's focus was on Max. She wanted to destroy his company and finally kill him. Batman represented an obstacle against her crusade, so she needed him out of the way too. When she discovered Batman was Bruce Wayne her opposition to him was confused. But ultimately that didn't matter as much. She chose her hatred of Max over her love of Bruce. That's why she suited up in the first place.

[Catwoman]

I know people here disagree with me, but I actually think BR has more atmosphere than B89.

No disagreement from me. I don't think it's even close, either.

There was a video by some YouTuber called Jeremy Jahns who did a review looking on BR, and he made this strange claim that Catwoman's behaviour was promiscuous, for a lack of a better word. I don't think he was paying much attention if he truly believed that.

Catwoman was a rebellious vigilante who used sexuality as a weapon, taunting men for being impotent e.g. the mall cops at the Shreck convenience store, and seducing Batman to exploit the chinks in his armour and stab him. I guess one can claim that Catwoman's outfit and violence is a disturbing metaphor for bondage, but it's beyond me how Jahns could think she was a promiscuous.

Sounds like some millenial nolanite with a single functioning brain cell who's incapable of scratching (no pun intended) anything beyond it's very surface, let alone looking deeply enough to grasp anything as deep as Michelle's Catwoman. What a simple minded juvenile observation. He needs to be fed a laughing fish.