Rewatching the Batman movies

[Morrus]

The death of Zod is justified in that movie.

No, he's depowered. His torture and execution is not needed. I could almost get behind it if he didn't crush the man's hand with super strength first. Superman shouldn't be making people scream in agony

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, he's depowered. His torture and execution is not needed. I could almost get behind it if he didn't crush the man's hand with super strength first. Superman shouldn't be making people scream in agony

I mean the new movie, not the old one. I suspect you're right about the old one.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't care to much about the details there's good Batman (1989, 1992, Darknight Trilogy etc) and bad batman (Batman and Robin).

 

[Imaculata]

I just showed the Keaton Batman to a friend of mine who had never seen it. She loved it. Keaton is great, but Jack really steals the show. The plot is a bit messy, but Nicholson is given so much freedom that he is a joy to watch. I wonder how many of his lines were improv. Also, the movie is gorgeous to look at, even if Gotham city seems to have only one set, and we are shown the Monarch Theater so many times. The music is still the definitive Batman theme for me, what a score! My favourite shot in the film is the Batwing flying up in front of the moon, it always makes me laugh. There are some very obvious miniatures during the end sequence but that's alright.

Watching these Burton films made me realize just how many scenes are repeated in the Nolan films.

The Joker doesn't care about money
In Tim Burton's Batman, we are shown the Joker throwing away money during the parade scene.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker burns a huge pile of money.

The Joker sends out a television message to the people of Gotham
In Burton's Batman, The Joker sends out a television message, challenging Batman to reveal his true face.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, The Joker does exactly the same. Threatening to kill more people unless Batman reveals himself.

Love interest learns Bruce's identity through a familiar phrase
In Burton's Batman Returns, Selina learns Bruce's secret identity through the phase: "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it." "But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it."
In Nolan's Batman Begins, Rachel learns of Bruce's secret identity through the phrase: "It is not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

The Batmobile transforms into other vehicle
In Burton's Batman Returns, the batmobile discards most of it's body to transform into a small pod.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, a destroyed batmobile self destructs after ejecting the batpod.

Joker falls to his death
In Burton's Batman, the Joker fall to his death (twice).
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker falls to his death, but Batman catches him.

The Joker walks into a mob meeting and kills a mobster
In Burton's Batman, The Joker electrocutes a mobster with a handshake and takes over their operation.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, The Joker kills a mobster with his pencil trick, and persuates them to join him.

Batman crashes during the final confrontation with the Joker
In Burton's Batman, the Batwing misses every shot at the Joker and crashes after being shot down.
In Nolan's the Dark Knight, Batman chooses to miss the Joker and crashes the Batpod.

I'm Batman!
Quoted both in Burton's Batman, and in Nolan's Batman Begins, and both to a random thug.

Batman takes his love interest to the Batcave
In Burton's Batman, he takes Vicky to the Batcave in the Batmobile, after saving her from the Joker.
In Nolan's Batman Begins, he takes Rachel to the Batcave in the Batmobile to save her life.
(Also, both love interests receive an antidote to a toxin central to the plot)

 

[ccs]

Watching these Burton films made me realize just how many scenes are repeated in the Nolan films.

The Joker doesn't care about money
In Tim Burton's Batman, we are shown the Joker throwing away money during the parade scene.
In Nolan's The Dark Knight, the Joker burns a huge pile of money.

True, they both have scenes involving $.
But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it. He's SPENDING it. He's baiting the trap. He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible. Wich in turn will draw out Batman.

 

[Imaculata]

True, they both have scenes involving $.
But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it. He's SPENDING it. He's baiting the trap. He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible. Wich in turn will draw out Batman.

The way I always read the parade scene, it is a bit of both. The Joker doesn't seem to care at all about the money that he is handing out, but he is of course using it to lure the unsuspecting public to their death, and to draw Batman out.

Similarly, in the Dark Knight, the Joker seems to be using his attack on Harvey Dent to draw Batman out. When Batman does show up, he doesn't seem the least bit surprised. Although arguably, Batman and commisioner Gordon are also using Harvey Dent to draw out the Joker.

Watching the Nolan Batman films, it feels like watching a bit of a remix of things we've seen before in the Burton Batman movies, although with a much more serious and grounded approach.

 

[Morrus]

True, they both have scenes involving $.
But in the Keaton movie Jokers not throwing it away because he doesn't care about it. He's SPENDING it. He's baiting the trap. He's trying to draw as many people into his Joker gas attack as possible. Wich in turn will draw out Batman.

In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?

 

[Imaculata]

In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?

I think you are misremembering. We are never shown a close up of the money in the parade scene, but according to official prop collectors, the money looks like normal dollar bills (but labeled Motion Picture Use Only on both sides). The Joker does have a ton of other products during the movie that bare his face.

Also, there is a line in the film where the Joker says he'd like to have his face on a one dollar bill.

 

[Morrus]

I think you are misremembering. We are never shown a close up of the money in the parade scene, but according to official prop collectors, the money looks like normal dollar bills (but labeled Motion Picture Use Only on both sides). The Joker does have a ton of other products during the movie that bare his face.

Also, there is a line in the film where the Joker says he'd like to have his face on a one dollar bill.

Ah, found it. It's in the novelization, and the original script, but not actually shown onscreen. It's the punchline to the line you refer to where earlier in the film he says he wants his face on the one-dollar bill. Apparently it is in a brief deleted scene.

Here's part of the film's script:

ANGLE ON MAN IN CROWD

Looking at his money. The green comes off on his hands.

MAN
What is this stuff?

TIGHT ON MONEY

A hand rubs the green dye off and we see underneath.
JOKER MONEY, with JOKER'S FACE on the one-dollar bill.

BACK TO SCENE

CROWD
(CHORUS OF ANGER)
This stuff is fake!

 

[Imaculata]

Oh wow, I never knew!

 

[Bohandas]

Batman Forever. Not as much of a departure as I remember. Mainly it’s set design and vehicles. Brooding is exchanged for camp. Val Kilmer is doing a decent Keaton impersonation. The villains are a pair of annoying cackling clowns trying to out-cackle each other. Not a good film, but not as awful as....

Batman & Robin. My goodness. There isn’t a single good thing to say about this film. Camp dialled up another notch. It’s utterly awful.

What did you guys think?

Batman is supposed to be camp.

 

[Morrus]

Batman is supposed to be camp.

Who says?

 

[Bohandas]

Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness

 

[Morrus]

Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness

Batman is whatever the current writer or film maker decides it is. It’s been camp; it’s been dark; it’s been gothic; it’s been 60s flair; it’s been horror; it’s been noir; it’s been action. It’s been around for 80 years and has been reinterpreted dozens of times. It’s not ‘supposed’ to be anything.

 

[Rikka66]

Well, I mean traditionally Batman is campy. The original TV and movie adaptations were the ones with Adam West in the title role. Viewed in this context, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin and be seen as a happy medium between excessive camp and excessive seriousness

Even people who prefer a campy Batman don't find Batman and Robin a happy medium.

 

[Mercurius]

This last couple of weeks I’ve rewatched the Burtonverse Batman movies

It’s pretty much what I remember. Same pattern as most movie series — Alien, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. Starts strong then descends into farce.

Batman (1989). Still a great film. The atmosphere, the way Gotham has character, the supporting characters, Jack. It has flaws, but it’s a great film.

Batman Returns. Very different in look and feel to Batman, but still good.

Batman Forever. Not as much of a departure as I remember. Mainly it’s set design and vehicles. Brooding is exchanged for camp. Val Kilmer is doing a decent Keaton impersonation. The villains are a pair of annoying cackling clowns trying to out-cackle each other. Not a good film, but not as awful as....

Batman & Robin. My goodness. There isn’t a single good thing to say about this film. Camp dialled up another notch. It’s utterly awful.

What did you guys think?

I feel similarly. One way of ranking films is how often one re-watches them. I saw the first three in the theater, have re-watched the first several times over the last 30 years, the second once or twice, but never bothered re-watching the third. As for the fourth, never saw it and see no reason to bother.

 

[Imaculata]

Batman and Robin was one of the few movies where I found myself and family looking at each other in disbelief during the first few minutes of the film as the horror of George Clooney as Batman unfolded before our very eyes.

It is also one of the few times I've actually wanted to leave the theater. Give me Adam West any day over that disaster.

 

[ART!]

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.

After he murders Zod during a battle that decimates metropolis there's a scene of him gettin' stern with a general about spying on him and a joke about Supes being "hot", and then Calrk is riding his bike to work through what we can only assume is a recovered?!? Metropolis. So, yeah - no follow-through.

Batman is supposed to be camp.

Insofar as "adults in tights" is campy? Sure.

 

[Eric V]

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.

In fact, I believe that Clark killing Zod is the birth of the no killing rule...people need to remember that this is a brand-new Superman; by the time he kills Zod, he is literally only hours away from having thrown his first punch. This is all new to him!!

 

[Ryujin]

In fact, I believe that Clark killing Zod is the birth of the no killing rule...people need to remember that this is a brand-new Superman; by the time he kills Zod, he is literally only hours away from having thrown his first punch. This is all new to him!!

If that was the case, it was incredibly poorly telegraphed. There's also the bit about thousands of regular humans presumably being dead (as supported by the B v. S movie), but he only cried over Zod.