log in or register to remove this ad

 

Rewatching the Batman movies

Ryujin

Adventurer
Sure, we are all allowed to have opinions, but he MUST be one thing. Right. Got it.

It is more accurate to say that the modern comic books are divergent from both the TV show and other comics. Batman... has not always been serious stuff. Dark, broody, of-questionable-mental-health-Batman is not the only Batman.



Sure, there's been detective Batman, vigilante Batman, patriotic Batman, and "Punisher" Batman. Despite your examples, however, there has really only been one consistently silly Batman and he was silly for adults, not kids. The covers don't really give away the story.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Sure, there's been detective Batman, vigilante Batman, patriotic Batman, and "Punisher" Batman. Despite your examples, however, there has really only been one consistently silly Batman and he was silly for adults, not kids. The covers don't really give away the story.

Dude. Batmite. BAT-MITE.

Fine, whatever. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Feel free to claim that everyone else has to make room for your opinion, but you may dismiss others. That's just great. Have fun with that.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
It is more accurate to say that the modern comic books are divergent from both the TV show and other comics.

Given the relative spans of time, it's really not. The campier aspects of the Batman comic reside in the 1950s and 1960s. They returned to darker, more adult roots in the 1970s and that's turning 50 now. The camp has become the minority and has been for about 30 years.
 

MGibster

Legend
It's amazing how growing older changes your perspective on things. When I was a child I loved the Adam West Batman series, by the time I was a teen I thought it as lame, and as I continued to grow older I came to appreciate West's version again for what it was. There are lots of different versions of Batman and many of them are pretty good.

I haven't watched the Batman movies from the 80s and 90s in recent years. I remember the media blitz the preceded the 1989 movie though having seen billboards with the Batman logo on it throughout Dallas and on t-shirts, hats, cups, and other objects months before I knew the movie was coming out and I don't think I had seen merchandising on that level since Return of the Jedi.

But that 1989 movie was very influential and without it we likely never would have had the best version of Batman ever, that from Batman the Animated Series.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
Dude. Batmite. BAT-MITE.

Fine, whatever. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Feel free to claim that everyone else has to make room for your opinion, but you may dismiss others. That's just great. Have fun with that.
"Consistently silly."

Bat-mite was a magical being like Mister Mxyzptlk and caused issues for Batman similar to the ones that Superman had to deal with, with Mister Mxyzptlk.
 
Last edited:


MGibster

Legend
Sure, I knew sitting there in the theater opening night what he aiming for.
Then & now my opinion is that he did a poor job of it.

Schumacher apologized for making a bad movie. He said he felt pressured to create a toy commercial instead of a movie.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Yes, the Batman thing definitely goes back and forth over the more than 80 years he's appeared in comics. Hell, he used guns in the wartime movie serials, runs cars off the road, etc..

Superman is far more rigid in his "no kill" rules, though he has also gone off the rails on rare occasions. That's one of the reasons I so dislike "Man of Steel"; it goes with the exception, rather than the rule.
I know, man. It sucks when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.


But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.

Of course, if Snyder really understood Superman, he'd have had him go to a diner and use his superpowers to beat up a trucker.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
I know, man. It sucks when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.


But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.

Of course, if Snyder really understood Superman, he'd have had him go to a diner and use his superpowers to beat up a trucker.
I see the Zod thing as a "he did it to himself." As to Rocky the trucker he punched Clark first, then got spun.

Snyder went dark.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I see the Zod thing as a "he did it to himself." As to Rocky the trucker he punched Clark first, then got spun.

Snyder went dark.
He did it to himself? :D

He crushed his own hand to pulp just to hear himself scream, and then threw himself down a pit, then collapsed a fortress on top of himself?

That's an interpretation, I guess.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
I know, man. It sucks when Superman cold-bloodedly depowers, tortures, and then executes Zod.


But in his defence, at least afterwards he collapses a fortress on top of him to make sure. After he grins and gets a victory kiss from his girlfriend.

Is Zod dead? That's unknown to us. That's called "ambiguously dead" and that's a staple of comics. The villain gets into a situation or is put into a situation in which you can't imagine he can survive - and yet does the next time the writers need him.

With Man of Steel, there's no ambiguity and it's a harsh death.

That's a pretty big difference.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Is Zod dead? That's unknown to us. That's called "ambiguously dead" and that's a staple of comics. The villain gets into a situation or is put into a situation in which you can't imagine he can survive - and yet does the next time the writers need him.
I don't want to repeat myself but...

That's an interpretation, I guess.

So we've got "Zod killed himself" and "Zod isn't dead". Who's next? :D
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
He did it to himself? :D

He crushed his own hand to pulp just to hear himself scream, and then threw himself down a pit, then collapsed a fortress on top of himself?

That's an interpretation, I guess.
It's a classic case of him being fooled into making himself irrelevant and then being removed from the scene. Dead? Alive? No longer a danger.
 



Orius

Adventurer
Of course, if Snyder really understood Superman, he'd have had him go to a diner and use his superpowers to beat up a trucker.

My old man always thought that scene was funny, but I think it's one of Superman II's many faults. Petty does not suit the Man of Steel.
 

trappedslider

Adventurer
so, I was googling how many times superman has killed and one of the headlines was "Manslaughter of Steel" lol


 


Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
I think the biggest problem with that Man of Steel "Kill" was that ... we didn't know enough about this Superman to know whether he would go so far or not. The emotional impact on him killing someone would be bigger if he had seen a movie or two where he went out of his way to not do it.

The death of Zod is justified in that movie. He won't surrender, and he is just as strong and dangerous as Superman - he can't safely subdue him and give him to the authorities. The whole reason Superman doesn't kill generally is because he's... super. He is far beyond his enemies physically. But beating up and killing weaker people isn't exactly a hard thing to do in his situation, by usually going out of his way to avoid killing people, he is showing moral superiority. But against Zod, his only way to save people his to kill him.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top