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 agonyThe 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 agonyThe death of Zod is justified in that movie.
I mean the new movie, not the old one. I suspect you're right about the old one.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
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.
In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?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.
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.In fact, IIRC it wasn’t real money. It had a Joker face on it. Or am I misremembering?
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.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.
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?
Who says?Batman is supposed to be camp.
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.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
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
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.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?
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.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.
Insofar as "adults in tights" is campy? Sure.Batman is supposed to be camp.
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!!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!!