Current Events > Tim Burton's Batman movies were really damn good. (Probably Spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

but his batman kills
---

pegusus123456 posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

I don't see him on the film's poster. I see the bat, the cat, and the penguin. He's the bad guy who sets things in motion, but much of the time he's playing a bizarre inversion of a damsel in distress.

He is literally Catwoman's archnemesis in the movie.

Yes, because Batman's secondary adversary's secondary adversary should be a primary character in Batman's movie. :/

But you're Skye "Scarlet Witch shouldn't bang Vision because it's wasting a hot woman on a robot" Reynolds, so arguing with you is pointless.

I stand by my opinions on Scarlet Witch. Why give the best away to something that's not even human?

Also, what does a person's opinion on robot fetishism or any other kink have to do with a person's opinion on story structure? Unless you're inserting your kinks into a story, or blocking someone else from inserting theirs, I fail to see the connection.

Kelystic posted...

but his batman kills

So did Bob Kane's. The guy who created Batman and acted as a consultant on the Tim Burton movies.

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

TC you got admit, this scene is pretty badass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_FMsoTkGY

LOL
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Kelystic posted...

but his batman kills

So did Bob Kane's. The guy who created Batman and acted as a consultant on the Tim Burton movies.

Okay, well, the character that's existed for the majority of the past 70+ years that people care about doesn't kill. The character evolved. Further, I wouldn't consider Bob Kane to be an authority on Batman. He's a known liar who is not responsible for almost everything recognizable and attributable to the Batman brand. There's probably at least a dozen writers and artists who are more responsible for the contemporary vision of Batman than Bob Kane.
---

My response to that is don't raise somebody else's kid.

Bob Kane's original idea for Batman was more or less Zorro with bat wings. Bill Finger turned him into the Shadow in a bat mask. And you know what? Bob Kane was still the one who created the concept of that character. It's still his brainchild.

As for that evolution, the "one rule" wasn't firmly established yet. It was just kind of a given that heroes didn't kill. Batman in the Tim Burton movies was based on the 1940s Batman. The production's motivation was to depict the year 2000 as people in the 1940s might have imagined it.

In a way, it's like getting mad at somebody adapting Mary Shelley's Frankenstein because the bolts-in-his-neck version from Universal is better known. However a character's popular image may have evolved over the years, it should never be taboo to do an adaptation of the original version of that character. That's not to say the first version is always the best, or that you have to like it, but it's not as if someone should be locked into only presenting the current incarnation of a character or story.

Were the best Batman movies and had the best Batman. And joker.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

My response to that is don't raise somebody else's kid.

Bob Kane's original idea for Batman was more or less Zorro with bat wings. Bill Finger turned him into the Shadow in a bat mask. And you know what? Bob Kane was still the one who created the concept of that character. It's still his brainchild.

Eh, not really. Yes, what you mentioned with respect to the design of the character is literally true in some respect (although I would classify Finger's design as certainly more distinctve than "the Shadow in a bat mask"), it's also somewhat misleading to say that the person who designed this:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--CmMTFdR7--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/19dfys1yex2wxjpg.jpg

deserves credit for "creating" the concept of this:

https://d3nvbf5pqk2vjh.cloudfront.net/cgccomics/monthly_2017_05/dup_the_creation_of_vintage_batman_by_paulromanmartinez.jpg.15c765f033c8f068a8a03265f6cc1dbb.jpg

Almost everything every generation associates with the iconography of Batman is not attributable to Bob Kane.

I realize that I'm probably just arguing semantics here.

But, that's really beside the point.

However a character's popular image may have evolved over the years, it should never be taboo to do an adaptation of the original version of that character. That's not to say the first version is always the best, or that you have to like it, but it's not as if someone should be locked into only presenting the current incarnation of a character or story."

You're 100% right about that. My only problem (which I don't want to unfairly attribute to you) is that people who tend to bring up the 'but Batman killed a few villains in three issues fifty years ago' to argue that Burton ignoring Batman's code is valid, tend to slip into arguing that Batman's no killing rule either 1) hasn't been well established in the comics, 2) Batman's killing is substantially representative of the character's history in the comics or 3) Batman killing is not largely inconsistent with the character's history. All of which are untrue. Batman killing is really a relic at the margins of the character's earliest history and is inconsistent with the character that's been subsequently developed throughout the majority of his run. With that in mind, people can run with whatever they want (Batman can kill and kill and kill), as long as they don't misrepresent history in order to justify an interpretation. That's all.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Batman has been trash since Adam West.

Adam West was trash.
---

Donomark posted...

[150 character limit image link]

And the one on the left came up with the concept. Like I said, don't raise somebody else's kid. In a literal sense, a step parent could be everything a biological parent failed to be. In a metaphorical sense pertaining to intellectual properties, you don't put your best effort into a story that you do not own.

I can't say that Universal owns Frankenstein because they created a better monster than Mary Shelley did or that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles should always be the marketable 1980s cartoon show rather than the divisive gritty comic. Nor would it be right to say that Donkey Kong, as in the arcade game, shouldn't be allowed an update of some sort because the original D.K. is now Cranky Kong in current continuity.

You can always return to those earlier interpretations. It might not be the best for those stories, but you really can never honestly say that the second, third, or fourth incarnation of a character is the only interpretation. (It might be to you. But that won't stop others from potentially returning to square one at some point.)

ninjarobot_22 posted...

Tim's Batman movies are what I think Batman movies should be.

Cartoony, gritty, dark, and Gothic.

I like Nolan's Batman movies, but he tried to make Batman into a Law and Order film.

Although, I think the Arkham games nailed the Batman universe and characters, but sadly they're not movies.

They are the closest anyone will likely ever come to capturing Golden Age Batman in its entirety.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

Donomark posted...

[150 character limit image link]

And the one on the left came up with the concept. Like I said, don't raise somebody else's kid. In a literal sense, a step parent could be everything a biological parent failed to be. In a metaphorical sense pertaining to intellectual properties, you don't put your best effort into a story that you do not own.

I can't say that Universal owns Frankenstein because they created a better monster than Mary Shelley did or that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles should always be the marketable 1980s cartoon show rather than the divisive gritty comic. Nor would it be right to say that Donkey Kong, as in the arcade game, shouldn't be allowed an update of some sort because the original D.K. is now Cranky Kong in current continuity.

You can always return to those earlier interpretations. It might not be the best for those stories, but you really can never honestly say that the second, third, or fourth incarnation of a character is the only interpretation. (It might be to you. But that won't stop others from potentially returning to square one at some point.)

I agree with what you're saying here. The only issue I have is when people mischaracterize that earlier history to justify something divisive. I'm not saying that Batman killing is entirely without basis. In my experience on this subject, people tend to overstate the frequency and breadth that constituted that depiction.

On a side note, I wonder whether this issue was even one of interest to Burton. If I recall, Daniel Waters wrote Batman killing because he felt that it was inconvenient to write Batman tying the villains up. It wouldn't substantively change the points that we've been discussing, but I do think that it's amusing that we may be putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.
---

That's interesting that it was done for convenience since Batman still ties up criminals and/or leaves them unconscious rather than dead. At least in the first film, his first instinct was to apprehend rather than kill; as was the case with his fight against Jack Napier.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Get over it. Bale was not a good Batman.

He was a weak Batman in a trilogy with high production values.

He was a crappy fighter. Batman doesn't elbow fight and awkwardly grapple-hug villains. He punches, kicks, and shatters bones. The warehouse fight in BvS is how you do a proper Batman fight.