No love for BTM/Forever and Batman&Robin!?!?

[Two-Face]

It was to show that they needed his help again since there was a new villain about to rise..... Thast's what I thought of it.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Oh, come on guys. Are you kidding me?

I love Burton as much as the next guy but it was a serious oversight.

EL Payaso, you would be okay if The Dark Knight Rises started and Batman's name had just been cleared offscreen?

There's a difference between overwritten (Batman Begins) and underwritten (Batman Returns) and they've both got problems. You don't just brush off a major plot point offscreen. There's a middle ground (good writing) between that and explaining how every piece of Batman's suit was ordered and built.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I dont see any problem with it. I saw the ending of BR as a very promising opening for the next movie - the return of the Catwoman and the city against Batman

 

[ALP]

I'm going to agree with Paste Pot. Simply due to the nature of the film, I've never made a big deal of it but the film really does leave it as a plot hole. Same for Shreck's plot to destroy Gotham by draining all of the city's electrical power- completely unfinished plotting. And the end with Catwoman I've always viewed as really strange! But you know what? I don't even blink twice because it's not a film I even take on a literal level.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I dont see any problem with it. I saw the ending of BR as a very promising opening for the next movie - the return of the Catwoman and the city against Batman

There's nothing in the text to even imply that the batsignal might be used as a trap. If you're going to write that in yourself, you might as well write in that, offscreen, Batman sent Gordon evidence implicating Penguin and clearing his name. That makes a lot more sense, given what we know. You even said it yourself! The resolution of the Ice Princess plot was cut, but the batsignal ending was slapped on anyway.

My original point was that you can't blame Schumacher for not continuing a plot point that Burton himself abandoned by the end of his own movie. If, as you imply, something got screwed up in the process, maybe it wasn't Burton's fault. But it certainly wasn't Schumacher's fault.

 

[GothamAlleys]

But the thing is I dont see it as abandonment, I always saw it as an opening for the next movie with plenty of interesting things already set up, Catwoman returning and the city against Batman

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

I don't think it's a massive stretch to imagine that some of the Red Triangle Gang Batman apprehended (including the Organ Grinder, during the scene in which Batman stops them from kidnapping Gotham's first-born children) ended up spilling the beans over The Penguin's part in The Ice Princess's murder in order to cut their sentence. Admittedly, it would have been nice to get a clearer resolution with respect to this plot strand but I don't think it's a major plot-hole bearing in mind the relative ease with which Commissioner Gordon could have secured confessions from the aforementioned gang members.

However, it does make me wonder if the real reason Batman tried to prevent Catwoman from killing Max Shreck was in order for there to be someone to pin The Penguin's crimes on. This would therefore provide the Red Triangle Gang members with an incentive to cut a deal with the police (i.e. in providing dirt on an even bigger criminal, Max Shreck they might be able to commute their sentences), and thus exonerate Batman from any misdeeds.

 

[GothamAlleys]

However, it does make me wonder if the real reason Batman tried to prevent Catwoman from killing Max Shreck was in order for there to be someone to pin The Penguin's crimes on. This would therefore provide the Red Triangle Gang members with an incentive to cut a deal with the police (i.e. in providing dirt on an even bigger criminal, Max Shreck they might be able to commute their sentences), and thus exonerate Batman from any misdeeds.

No I think it was a natural progression for the character and an honest care for Selina. As I wrote in the Keaton article:
In her he saw a reflection of himself, that she was another psychologically damaged person like him out for revenge, so he attempts to stop her from killing Max Shreck by suggesting that he gets apprehended and this was Batman's way of protecting her from getting consumed by revenge the same way that he did after killing The Joker. He knew it didnt help or stop the pain and wanted to take her off that path that he himself fell into. By seeing her action and his own angry self in her he realized his own wrongdoings (killing) as well

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

No I think it was a natural progression for the character and an honest care for Selina. As I wrote in the Keaton article:
In her he saw a reflection of himself, that she was another psychologically damaged person like him out for revenge, so he attempts to stop her from killing Max Shreck by suggesting that he gets apprehended and this was Batman's way of protecting her from getting consumed by revenge the same way that he did after killing The Joker. He knew it didnt help or stop the pain and wanted to take her off that path that he himself fell into. By seeing her action and his own angry self in her he realized his own wrongdoings (killing) as well

To be honest, I agree with you and it's interesting to note that this was a theme that was also carried onto Batman Forever, where Batman tries to prevent Robin from going down the exact same path.

I made my point partially mindful of the number of times I've read detractors of Batman Returns carp on about Batman's hypocricy in this scene (i.e. why is he alloed to kill if Selina isn't). Your analysis of this scene is extremely sound and one that I share, but if one were to take the detractors at face-value I could easily posit another theory for Batman's desire not to see Shreck killed off. Also, bear in mind that whilst it is true that Batman doesn't wish to see Selina go down the same vengeful route as he did, it seems odd that someone so self-reflective would find it so easy to despatch henchmen (like the Strong-Man) only a few scenes before; something which leads me to think that there is another reason why Batman would want to spare a figure like Shreck.

 

[GothamAlleys]

it seems odd that someone so self-reflective would find it so easy to despatch henchmen (like the Strong-Man) only a few scenes before; something which leads me to think that there is another reason why Batman would want to spare a figure like Shreck.

Well he killed the strongman before bonding with Selina. At that point there was a spark but he didnt spend the evening with her, didnt know she was Catwoman, didnt know about her internal pain and psychosis that he found out about at the ball, and didnt even meet her at the streets yet where he first sensed some kind of dark duality from her. Thats the whole point, that its only when he saw her anger and pain he saw himself but from the outside, from someone else's POV and realized its not the way and that he was following the same wrong way. He tried to save her form going down that path

 

[Webley]

The beast part about the 1966 Batman move is the costumes. No other Batman move has come remotely close to makeing the Batman costume look like the Batman costume we see in the comics. I can remember leaving the 89 Batman movie when I was 14 years old thinking Batmans costume is blue and gray not all black

 

[Milu]

I have a question regarding Forever that's bugged me ever since I was a kid in '95. Was that Kilmer's voice that said "Robin, wait!" when Batman and Robin arrived on Claw Island, or a different actor picked during ADR?

It's like Batman's had this awesome rasp throughout the rest of the movie, then all of a sudden he goes to sounding like Tony the Tiger!

 

[Godzilla2014]

Batman Forever was best when it was dark & serious. Two-Face was a waste, and Riddler is too hyperactive in this movie. The removal of the Red Leather Book subplot, Two-Face's escape, and other deleted scenes hold the movie from being better than it ends up. It was still much better than Batman & Robin.

 

[El Payaso]

Oh, come on guys. Are you kidding me?

I love Burton as much as the next guy but it was a serious oversight.

EL Payaso, you would be okay if The Dark Knight Rises started and Batman's name had just been cleared offscreen?

No, because that was not only the central plot by the end of TDK but also the cliffhanger, which is far from Batman Returns' case.

There's a difference between overwritten (Batman Begins) and underwritten (Batman Returns) and they've both got problems. You don't just brush off a major plot point offscreen. There's a middle ground (good writing) between that and explaining how every piece of Batman's suit was ordered and built.

Batman's being blamed wasn't a major plot point. Burton used it to underline the depressive tone of the movie. I mean, yeah, it could have been mentioned. Those lines in the script about Batman helping them but not forgiving them would have been fine but it's far from being a screw up. Many movies leave some subjects for the sequel and not always in the way TDK did.

 

[Gunga Diner]

There's a difference between Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. It's not just George Clooney playing Batman and Val Kilmer playing Batman. It's not just the villains. It's much bigger than that.

The difference is that Batman Forever is a much moodier movie which frequently takes itself seriously. When it does, it's almost kind of effective. It's certainly entertaining. But it's aimed at a young audience, so they make the villains sillier. Somewhat threatening but mostly silly.

The second movie doesn't take itself seriously at all. It's silly as hell and it knows it. But they carry that so far that it's garish and unpleasant. It's over the top past the point of enjoyability. It's also just a huge misstep in terms of what the audience wanted. I see nothing wrong with a "silly" Batman, because I think the 66 TV show is just as legit of an entry into the Batman mythos as anything. The character is up for interpretation, he wasn't always gritty. But the tonal shift from Batman Forever to Batman & Robin is a really clunky transition from the Batman of Tim Burton's movies that the audience was familiar with. Seeing the two-hour toy commercial that WB wanted from Schumacccer wasn't an appealing idea to anybody.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

No, because that was not only the central plot by the end of TDK but also the cliffhanger, which is far from Batman Returns' case.



Batman's being blamed wasn't a major plot point. Burton used it to underline the depressive tone of the movie. I mean, yeah, it could have been mentioned. Those lines in the script about Batman helping them but not forgiving them would have been fine but it's far from being a screw up. Many movies leave some subjects for the sequel and not always in the way TDK did.

I'm not a big fan of Returns but I agree. With Returns and Forever, I never think about that because Batman being framed is more an afterthought than anything in the older Batman movies.

 

[Godzilla2014]

There's a difference between Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. It's not just George Clooney playing Batman and Val Kilmer playing Batman. It's not just the villains. It's much bigger than that.

The difference is that Batman Forever is a much moodier movie which frequently takes itself seriously. When it does, it's almost kind of effective. It's certainly entertaining. But it's aimed at a young audience, so they make the villains sillier. Somewhat threatening but mostly silly.

The second movie doesn't take itself seriously at all. It's silly as hell and it knows it. But they carry that so far that it's garish and unpleasant. It's over the top past the point of enjoyability. It's also just a huge misstep in terms of what the audience wanted. I see nothing wrong with a "silly" Batman, because I think the 66 TV show is just as legit of an entry into the Batman mythos as anything. The character is up for interpretation, he wasn't always gritty. But the tonal shift from Batman Forever to Batman & Robin is a really clunky transition from the Batman of Tim Burton's movies that the audience was familiar with. Seeing the two-hour toy commercial that WB wanted from Schumacccer wasn't an appealing idea to anybody.

I agree. If someone could restore the original cut, make the villains less silly, and it could be a good entry in the Batman series. Maybe even contend with Burton and Nolan's films.

 

[Visceral]

The movies are ****. that said I went and saw BF 4 times in theaters when I was a kid. I still like O'Donnell's Robin. He is a likable movie star, and the film ruined his career, which is too bad, I would have liked to see him as a serious robin.

 

[Ponyboy]

Actually he got married and had a family after those run of Bat-flicks... so I think he took a conscious break from the limelight. Also, I wouldn't say his career is "ruined"... he just doesn't really work as a leading man.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm not a big fan of Returns but I agree. With Returns and Forever, I never think about that because Batman being framed is more an afterthought than anything in the older Batman movies.

The movies are ****. that said I went and saw BF 4 times in theaters when I was a kid. I still like O'Donnell's Robin. He is a likable movie star, and the film ruined his career, which is too bad, I would have liked to see him as a serious robin.

Being someone who doesn't want Robin in a Batman film, I can say I liked O'Donnell's take on Robvin. Well, omn Dick Grayson actually. BF made a sad statement; you can have a serious Dick Grayson but as soon as he puts the Robin cosutme on it's all about campiness.

 

[Spoonman]

Being someone who doesn't want Robin in a Batman film, I can say I liked O'Donnell's take on Robvin. Well, omn Dick Grayson actually. BF made a sad statement; you can have a serious Dick Grayson but as soon as he puts the Robin cosutme on it's all about campiness.

Agreed. As Dick Grayson the character was handled well in BF, it was well acted by O'Donell too IMO and the paralel aspects with Bruce were very good. I also liked that they kinda combined Grayson (Origin), Todd (rebel attitude) and Drake (costume) for the movie version of the character.

 

[Gunga Diner]

Part of my point is that there's nothing wrong with "silly." It's just not what Batman fans wanted.

 

[El Payaso]

Part of my point is that there's nothing wrong with "silly." It's just not what Batman fans wanted.

It is wrong when you have Batman running from a girl like Chase a few steps and turning his back to her, like if she were the troubled man and he the damsel who must resist to give herself to him.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Schumacher actually did a wonderful job of adapting the comic book feel to the movie screen. The over the top set pieces, the dynamic action sequences, and he even nailed some aspects of certain characters (such as Alfred). The problem is he didn't know where to stop. Two-Face is a prime example. There's not a soul alive who can claim the Riddler costume he did wasn't comic accurate (well the first Riddler costume), however Two-Face is a far more toned down character, yet he gets lumped in with wackier villains like Riddler and Joker. Same with Bane. Bane is a grim character, not a colorful sidekick. You can be "silly" without making every character silly. Batman's world is decidely silly, but his character is grim and dark. He missed the atmosphere of Batman, despite understanding that comics, by nature are silly.