The Batman - Part II (October 3rd, 2025)

Otomofan said:

I think Returns is much worse than Batman. The last time I tried to watch it, I actually turned it off. It's boring, childish, overly gross, has too many plotlines and characters, and "Batman" is barely even in it!

Click to expand...

I for one liked it more. It's worth it for the oblique sexual references alone: "fill her void", "unlimited p***tang" (which I didn't notice for 20 years!), "semi-hard"...

I have that 89 book. It's a hardcover. Can still be found cheap, I believe. I also bought the Japanese version cause it had a few extra images that weren't in the US version.

Anyone hear Clayface might be the villain for the second movie. If so It would be awesome and if it's almost horror movie like.

Awesome...? Like Sandman "awesome"...?

Wor-Gar said:

There was, back in the day. Tons of picture books of the movies.

View attachment 635641

Click to expand...

I remember Spider-Man had similar books like these. They were so cool. I had the art books for 1 and 2

Wor-Gar said:

Awesome...? Like Sandman "awesome"...?

Click to expand...

They dropped the ball on that since they stuffed the movie with so many villains but I’m worried about clay face in this. I want monster shape shifting clay face but I know we might be getting a dude in a clay mask who can make faces from clay or some silly nonsense like that.

It’s funny tho cause sometimes it ends up working like joker but sometimes it ends up sucking like bane

Wor-Gar said:

Have you read it?

It's very different than the finished film. All that remains really is the Gothic style and the ending in a cathedral. No horse chase through the park, no Robin, etc, etc...

I still remember the description of the Joker in that script, still very haunting -- pale skin and seaweed green hair.

Click to expand...

Obviously the earlier drafts will be different from the final version. But in this case, I don't believe the changes you saw - between whatever draft you read and the final product - were a result of someone else (like Burton) changing Hamm's script without his involvement. If memory serves, I think Hamm was actually on set, writing changes as the production needed.

So yeah, I believe Hamm was very much responsible for the Batman 89 you saw, whereas he's almost completely disconnected from the Batman Returns you saw.

Otomofan said:

Yeah. I'll be the first to admit that Batman and Batman Returns are horribly flawed movies. The main reason they're so beloved to this day is the nostalgia and the overwhelming hype that accompanied them.

Bruce Wayne/Batman is almost nothing like the comic book character.

Click to expand...

He's also almost nothing like "Darth Vader." Which makes sense, because the Bruce Wayne/Batman from the movie is not Darth Vader, just as he's not the comic book character. To expect otherwise, and to be disappointed by such, is irrational and not a particularly fair judgement.

It's a movie, not a slideshow presentation of comic book panels with voice actors reading the speech bubbles. You might not like the movie, but that doesn't mean the movie is flawed - just that your unrealistic expectations (that the movie be something that it's not trying to be) are flawed.

Otomofan said:

And he takes a back seat to the villains in both movies.

Click to expand...

Why is this a flaw? This was a very deliberate decision. What makes it a bad decision?

Otomofan said:

I think Returns is much worse than Batman. The last time I tried to watch it, I actually turned it off. It's boring, childish, overly gross, has too many plotlines and characters, and "Batman" is barely even in it! It's funny how people complained about how "dark" it was at the time, but now it comes off as cheesy and campy as the Adam West show.

Click to expand...

It's funny that you say this - many younger adults today have never seen the Burton films, while nevertheless being quite familiar with the Nolan Trilogy and subsequent Batman movies. I recently showed them to some younger friends of mine, who were skeptical and expecting them to be cheesy and campy. Their reaction, to Returns in particular, was surprising to me - they were blown away, saying it was far better than they ever expected it could possibly be. So I think the dark, serious aspects of the movie still hold up today, and the campy elements are possibly only overblown in those of us who have been familiar with the movie for the past 30 years.

For what it's worth, I think there are elements of the movie that are sillier to me today than they felt 30 years ago (mind-controlled penguins with rockets on their back particularly stand out) - and if I were making the movie today, I wouldn't have included them. But overall I don't think they're major aspects of the movie or its mood.

Yeah, I guess when I went to see the movie called BATMAN I expected it to be about BATMAN, not Jack Nicholson. And in the few scenes where BATMAN actually appears, I was hoping the character might slightly resemble the character from the 50 years worth of comic books that were being celebrated at the time.

For most of us who had been huge fans of the character for years, or even decades, the portrayal in the Burton films was disappointing. I think they're absolutely lovely movies with incredible costumes and production designs, but that doesn't make them good movies. The Schumacher Batman movies also had cool costumes, but pretty much everyone agrees they suck.

Just cause I don't think Batman and Batman Returns were well-executed doesn't mean I somehow "don't understand" them as you're implying. I think the movies are flawed. You don't. I guess we disagree.

Both films would have blown my mind if I'd seen them in the cinema as a child. They were the films the franchise needed at the time, but the character has to evolve as time goes on. They don't age well to me, but they will age better than the next two

How the hell did Penguin get the blueprints for the Batmobile?

Apparently Alfred flushed them down the toilet.

Someone flushed Fred's hand down the toilet too.

Damn what’s with all the burton movie hate lol. Those films remind me of a live action tas. I kinda grew up with them. They aren’t perfect but they were great during that time. I put them above the dark knight rises

Every Batman movie has problems. Every damn one.

I suppose someone's "favorite" has everything to do with 1) how old you were when you first saw it, and/or 2) which favorite villain does Batman fight.

Over the years, the only consensus I've seen -- and its worn off a bit over time -- was that Batman Begins was perhaps the best expressed narrative yet put on screen.

Wor-Gar said:

Every Batman movie has problems. Every damn one.

I suppose someone's "favorite" has everything to do with 1) how old you were when you first saw it, and/or 2) which favorite villain does Batman fight.

Over the years, the only consensus I've seen -- and its worn off a bit over time -- was that Batman Begins was perhaps the best expressed narrative yet put on screen.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's worn off since "The Batman". That movie is now the best expressed Batman narrative put to screen.

B:TAS is still the best Batman on screen.

None of the movies come close. All of them take far too many liberties.

I just got around to watching the first one a few weekends ago, while Pattinson is far from my favourite rendition of Batman, the movie was extremely entertaining. Looking forward to this sequel.

I wish I was younger for The Batman.... I'd be curious to know what my "young self" would think of the movie.

My old self really likes it. I like the Bat suit. I love Zoe sashaying like a bad girl. I even like Pattinson. The movie has a good moody quality that is somewhere between Burton's fantasy Gotham and Nolan's all-too-real Chicago. It's stylized in a way where I didn't question "why the Batsuit" too often. Penguin might be a little too Soprano's for me, but I'm willing to see where he evolves.