Rewatching the Batman movies

the Jester · Oct 14, 2020

Ryujin said:
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.

The thing that made me realize that they'd really missed who Superman is in Man of Steel was the scene where he steals clothes off a line.

Him killing Zod to save everyone around him? That I can see- a regrettable necessity to prevent massive loss of life.

Him stealing clothing for the sake of convenience? Oof.

ART! · Oct 14, 2020

Khelon Testudo said:
It's a shame. Clooney could have been a great Batman with the right director/script.

Ryujin said:
He certainly could have been a great Bruce Wayne. Not sure about Batman.

If the history of Batman movies has proved anything, it's that anyone can play Batman. The trick is making Bruce Wayne interesting. I guess it's because the mask and suit do so much to create the Bat-persona, but you need the motivation and drive in the Bruce portrayal for it to make any sense.

For me, Michael Keaton remains the most interesting Bruce Wayne performance - he's a weird, complicated, intense dude.

This might be my favorite moment from any Batman movie (from Batman Returns):

Like, how long was he sitting there...brooding...waiting...alone...for the signal? He has nothing else. It's a neat take on the character.

I kind of despise DeVito's Penguin in Batman Returns. It's very Burton-esque, but doesn't work for me in this Bat-universe, and seems like only half-way to where Burton would like to take it, or to where the film/setting/studio will let him take it. Plus, it distracts from the Selina and Bruce/Selina stuff, which is the best stuff in the movie for me. I really wanted Catwoman to be the only villain, and focus on those tragedies.

trappedslider · Oct 14, 2020

Ryujin · Oct 14, 2020

ART! said:
If the history of Batman movies has proved anything, it's that anyone can play Batman. The trick is making Bruce Wayne interesting. I guess it's because the mask and suit do so much to create the Bat-persona, but you need the motivation and drive in the Bruce portrayal for it to make any sense.

For me, Michael Keaton remains the most interesting Bruce Wayne performance - he's a weird, complicated, intense dude.

This might be my favorite moment from any Batman movie (from Batman Returns):

Like, how long was he sitting there...brooding...waiting...alone...for the signal? He has nothing else. It's a neat take on the character.

I kind of despise DeVito's Penguin in Batman Returns. It's very Burton-esque, but doesn't work for me in this Bat-universe, and seems like only half-way to where Burton would like to take it, or to where the film/setting/studio will let him take it. Plus, it distracts from the Selina and Bruce/Selina stuff, which is the best stuff in the movie for me. I really wanted Catwoman to be the only villain, and focus on those tragedies.

I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman must be divergent characters. For all of the growling, Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan understood this. Keaton understood it, with his crazy-eyed looks.

Clooney is Clooney, with or without the mask. Clooney can be Bruce Wayne because, throw a few more billion dollars at him, and he is Bruce Wayne. He doesn't really do well at stepping outside of his own skin though, so he can't be Batman. It's like Will Smith playing Deadshot. He puts on all of the high tech gear, costume, and a dozen firearms, and becomes.... Will Smith. (Robbie put him to shame in that dog of a movie)

ART! · Oct 14, 2020

Ryujin said:
I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman must be divergent characters. For all of the growling, Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan understood this. Keaton understood it, with his crazy-eyed looks.

Clooney is Clooney, with or without the mask. Clooney can be Bruce Wayne because, throw a few more billion dollars at him, and he is Bruce Wayne. He doesn't really do well at stepping outside of his own skin though, so he can't be Batman. It's like Will Smith playing Deadshot. He puts on all of the high tech gear, costume, and a dozen firearms, and becomes.... Will Smith. (Robbie put him to shame in that dog of a movie)

I see your point, but I will counter that Clooney's take on the character is in the spirit of the movie he's in, and thereby closer to Adam West's - and so the two persona's aren't different. I think that's intentional, although it's a little clouded by - as you observe - Clooney is always Clooney. But then all the other costumed characters in the movie are the same way - single personas in and out fo costume - so...I don't know!

Morrus · Oct 14, 2020

Joel Schumacher said that each movie was a different Batman era. Batman & Robin was Adam West 60s era Batman.

Umbran · Oct 14, 2020

Ryujin said:
I disagree; not everyone can play Batman. Bruce Wayne and Batman must be divergent characters.

Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.

Ryujin · Oct 14, 2020

Umbran said:
Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.

And the '60s TV show was very divergent from the comic books. We're all allowed to have opinions

billd91 · Oct 14, 2020

Umbran said:
Adam West disagreed, and he played more hours of Batman than anyone.

Whether or not he's right or Ryujin is right depends on which Batman you're going for. 1960s Batman fits Adam West's ideal more than Batman in the 1930s when they played up more contrasts between Bruce Wayne the playboy industrialist and Batman. A lot would depend on how much you want the two to diverge in the impressions they give to the viewer/witnesses, how important protecting his secret identity is, how much you want the persona of Batman to be menacing or obsessive as emphasized to various degrees in Batman since the 1970s.

Umbran · Oct 14, 2020

Ryujin said:
And the '60s TV show was very divergent from the comic books. We're all allowed to have opinions

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.