Batman returns once more: Christopher Nolan does it again!!!

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Except there is no doubt in my mind that the films would have been made with or with out Burton. Who would have gotten and what it would been like who knows? But with Jack on board as the Joker it would have been a hit and the cartoon would have come out. That whole 50s fashion style set in the 80s thing may not have happened with out Burton but who cares?

The movies would have been a hit, the show would have still existed, and the new films would have come out, (and let's not even get into my problems with Nolan's films).

[JohnnyL]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

31.  I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989.  So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies.  I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was.  In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.

[JohnnyL]

Just my two cents... because I love the Batguy so much.. lol

Okay, Batman and Batman Returns were not bad movies. They were movies that for it's time were very different, but very much in tune of the 80's and early 90's. I can watch Batman over and over again and come away with 2 things, the tone of that movie was clearly something between the campy 60's Batman and the The Dark Knight Returns, and watching it now it is very dated. At those extremes, and in 1989 you have what we all come to love as Tim Burton's Batman. Burton had not regard for the comic, but few cared because what Batman was ultimately meant to do was make money and promote Batman as the face of the comic world leading into the 90's. Now in the 80's comics took a very dark turn, but this would not be replicated in the movies, and with good reason. Though Burton may have liked the Killing Joke, the Darker Batman that we know was truly not what people then knew. Batman was Adam West, it was cartoons with Scooby Doo. To make Batman into a complete Killing Joke type movie would cause people to go nuts. I remember older people not liking the new tone on Batman and Batman Returns because it was too dark, and it was not what they were use to. To them Joker was a funny clown who wanted to do damage to the water system and Penguin was some sea creature.

Batman did have a lot of social commentary, like what was mentioned earlier in terms of the commercialism and consumerism of the 80's. But what failed to do as well is tell a story that will hold the test of time. In 2010, Batman and Batman Returns do not hold up to today's standards. I would say Superman and Superman 2 hold up better today as stories than Batman and Batman Returns. By moving away from the comic book, Burton's Batman was very much set for a make money now movie, and was not exactly building on the Batman story. The imagery influenced the Animated Series though, and that might have been the best thing to come out of the movies. The 4 seasons of Batman the Animated Series are much more important to the Batman legacy than Batman and Batman Returns. This is not because they were bad movies, it's because they were made for 1989. Clearly Burton made the movies for the time. This did allow Christopher Nolan to come and completely take Batman into a different direction, as he used Year One and the original Joker to influence his movies. Had Burton's movies not came out, we'd still be comparing Batman to the 1960's.

 You make some good points.  I do think that in the late 80's and early 90's, there was beginning to be more respect given to the source material in regards to comic book movies.  But they didn't put the care into making them as accurate as they've started making them today.  Although I have to say, for as much as I love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, even they have taken many liberties with the source material.  Not as much as Tim Burton's movies . And certainly not as much as Joel Schumaker's movies . But even Nolan's Batman movies, which are great, differ in many ways from the source material.  I think Nolan has done a great job capturing the spirit of what Batman is all about, but even his movies are not perfect.  At least in terms of  being completely accurate compared to the source material.

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

31.  I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989.  So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies.  I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was.  In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.

I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.

When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.

[JohnnyL]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

31.  I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989.  So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies.  I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was.  In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.

I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.

When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.

 Yeah.  I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman.  They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol  I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
 As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like.  At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies.  And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman.  He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

31.  I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989.  So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies.  I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was.  In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.

I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.

When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.

 Yeah.  I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman.  They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol  I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
 As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like.  At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies.  And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman.  He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.

I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.

My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.

In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.

[JohnnyL]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.

31.  I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989.  So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies.  I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was.  In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.

I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.

When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.

 Yeah.  I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman.  They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol  I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
 As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like.  At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies.  And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman.  He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.

I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.

My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.

In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.

 Initially I wasn't too crazy with the Rachael Dawes character either. In "Batman Begins" her character didn't seem to serve a vital purpose at all.  Although, I thought the direction they took her in the "Dark Knight" somewhat redeemed the character as it provided a personal motive for Batman to want to stop the Joker, in addition to the reasons he would already have had for wanting to stop him.  Although, I found the casting change a bit distracting.  I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is probably a better actress than Katie Holmes, but it gets on my nerves anytime they have to break continuity (especially only two movies in to a series) in these kind of movies.  It kind of takes you out of the story.  And I think had they stuck with the original actress, Rachael's death probably would have had more weight, from a narrative perspective.   

[Shallow]

I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.

[M Dogg™]

I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.

agreed

[Shallow]

I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.

agreed

Of course if they did it that way as a trilogy they could have ended it with this scene.

The final fight between Batman and Two-Face is placed near a pit and Two-Face ends up falling over the edge but Bats grabs him and they have a dialogue;

Two Face: Bruce. We go back a long way me and you. Did you ever think it would come to this?

Batman(in Batman voice): Bruce?

Two Face: Get off it Bruce I've known the whole time. Bruce Wayne; caped crusader.

Batman(drops Batman voice): Harvey I'm sorry but ever since my father died I've felt this rage inside me and...

Two Face: Ever since your father died?

Batman: Yes, when Joe Chill killed him in the street like that it was too much for me.

Two Face: Is that what the coroner told you? That your father died in that attack?

Batman: What are you saying?

Two Face: Bruce your father didn't die...


Batman: Then wha...


Two Face: Bruce. Bruce. I am your father.


Batman then lets go of Two Face in shock and screams


Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then Batman realizes he has let his father drop as Two Face stares up at Batman with a smile and Batman screams again


Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The scene ends with an over the top shot of Batman staring at the sky screaming as Two Face is falling smile and all

FADE TO BLACK


END CREDITS




I would stand in that theater with a frenzy of applause if they had the balls to do that.

[Jaydc]

No offense,but that would be a horrible,cliche ending.

[ThaChamp]

No offense,but that would be a horrible,cliche ending.

[Shallow]

Cliche? You guys didn't get it at all.

[Javier]

LMAO!!!

[Jaydc]

Just go back to typing up screenplays that nobody will ever read,because with endings like that thats all they will ever amount to.