Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[snoop101]

It's a different interpretation from a different era. Just because it's not something you like doesn't make it a joke. I love the Nolan movies as much as anyone and would go as far as saying they are my favorite film adaptations of the character, but it sort of irritates me when people just throw other interpretations out the window just because they don't understand it's context to the history of the character.

Realistically the Adam West/Burt Ward Batman show and movie are probably the truest interpretations of the comics. That show basically personifies Batman in the Silver Age. Nolan took a lot of inspiration from the comics too but even he changed quite a bit. Burton and Schumacher as much as I enjoy elements of their films really don't feel like true Batman to me at all. Particularly the Tim Burton films, they're cool stylized movies but that factor aside they don't feel like Batman at all really to me. They feel like Tim Burton movies who happen to use Batman characters (especially Batman Returns, damn how I hate that film). Really though it isn't all that surprising considering Burton basically admitted that he had never read a comic before.

I don't understand the context and history of the character, yet you think Burtons Batman films aren't "batman at all?"

And yes, saying Batman the show is the truest interpretation of the character is a joke.

 

[DiFabio]

Don't get me wrong I know that not everything from their films are bad. I know that there is some inspiration that comes from comics in their films. I stated what I felt wrong I guess, they just didn't handle the character the way I would have liked. Particularly Tim Burton pretty much completely lost me with Batman Returns. The main thing I like from that movie is that it had some cool factors.

My big gripes with Batman (1989) are the fact he made Joker the murderer of Thomas and Martha Wayne. I also wasn't a huge fan of Joker being killed off at the end and some characters were handled rather poorly. Commissioner Gordon for instance felt like a total buffoon (really he did for the most part in all the Burton/Schumacher films). Also Harvey Dent, now granted I know he has said that he would have used him in a sequel later but he felt like a throw away character in the movie to me. Aside from that and some things that age the film a bit I do like Batman (1989) it just isn't my favorite interpretation of the character.

Schumacher again took a lot of inspirations from the comics and I get what he was going for but he just took it too far. Particularly with Batman & Robin. One of the problems with his movies to me is they felt like they were more about selling toys (he basically admitted that about Batman & Robin).

And the Nolan films butchered Scarecrow, had Rachel Dawes, had a Two-Face that was really just an angry Dent with no duality (then dies) had A Bruce that disliked being Batman and only fought crime for about a year.

And as great as Oldman Gordon was (much better than the Hingle Gordon) he slowly devolved into the same bloated Buffon you speak of.



They're all Batman. Especially the Adam West Batman. No more, no less.

 

[Frank]

I don't understand the context and history of the character, yet you think Burtons Batman films aren't "batman at all?"

And yes, saying Batman the show is the truest interpretation of the character is a joke.

Not truest, but probably the most fun. Burton's Batman had the best overall impact on me.

 

[Mike86]

I don't understand the context and history of the character, yet you think Burtons Batman films aren't "batman at all?"

And yes, saying Batman the show is the truest interpretation of the character is a joke.

It isn't that I don't like the Burton movies to some extent but to me personally, the Burton movies don't feel like the truest representation of the character. Yes there are some things in his movies that stylistically feel right, but overall the tone of his movies is just a bit off to me. For reasons I mentioned in a post above.

Also as I said, read a Silver Age Batman comic book. The 60s show is an excellent representation of that era.

 

[Mike86]

And the Nolan films butchered Scarecrow, had Rachel Dawes, had a Two-Face that was really just an angry Dent with no duality (then dies) had A Bruce that disliked being Batman and only fought crime for about a year.

And as great as Oldman Gordon was (much better than the Hingle Gordon) he slowly devolved into the same bloated Buffon you speak of.



They're all Batman. Especially the Adam West Batman. No more, no less.

As I said I like each interpretation to some extent. Some I like more than others. Scarecrow I somewhat agree on I guess. His character wasn't exactly perfect in the films but it was completely off either. I think the problem with his character is like Two Face, he wasn't developed enough despite the fact he was in all three films. I totally agree with you about Two Face in the Nolan films. He was pretty underdeveloped, I liked the Harvey aspect of the character but I wish Nolan would have taken more time with Two Face. Oldman's Gordon at least felt somewhat important. In the Burton/Schumacher movies it was like they just tossed him in there but really didn't have him do anything.

 

[batfan08]

Damn, I wish every Batman fan was as open-minded as I am.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

I totally agree with you about Two Face in the Nolan films. He was pretty underdeveloped, I liked the Harvey aspect of the character but I wish Nolan would have taken more time with Two Face.

a Two-Face that was really just an angry Dent with no duality (then dies)

True, he wasn't a schizofrenic in the movie, no literall dual personalities there, but Nolan's take on Dent still fillied the bill of Two-Face - a man that was torn. It was a different kind of duality, not one that manifested itself in a literall mental disorder, but had more to do with his story arc. It was still a duality though, which is the quintessential theme of Two-Face and I would say it worked better as a part of the movie becouse of this. I don't see this as anything worse than what's in comics, and it certainly doesn't feel like a retcon or some kind of trashing of comic lore. It still suits the overall theme of the character, even if the details are different.

As for Two-Face being underdeveloped. While its true that there hasn't been much Two-Face screentime in TDK, but the overall presence of the character and his influence on the story was significant. He didn't feel like an afterthoguht, he was vital. Its fun to imagine Dent surviving TDK and living to be one of the villains in the third film, but it would cheapen the character and give him a bit of an tv-show, episodic like vibe. Introducing and concluding the Two-Face story arc and theme in TDK gave the whole film that much more dramatic power. The whole thing was more tragic. Having Dent survive and continue his shennanigans would feel cheap in the context of the whole trilogy. Plus he was played by an awesome actor, and was great in every scene he appeared in. I love Eckhart's/Nolans Two-Face.

Bruce that disliked being Batman and only fought crime for about a year.

But did more "Batmany" stuff in that year, than in any other movie interpretation.

 

[Mike86]

True, he wasn't a schizofrenic in the movie, no literall dual personalities there, but Nolan's take on Dent still fillied the bill of Two-Face - a man that was torn. It was a different kind of duality, not one that manifested itself in a literall mental disorder, but had more to do with his story arc. It was still a duality though, which is the quintessential theme of Two-Face and I would say it worked better as a part of the movie becouse of this. I don't see this as anything worse than what's in comics, and it certainly doesn't feel like a retcon or some kind of trashing of comic lore. It still suits the overall theme of the character, even if the details are different.

As for Two-Face being underdeveloped. While its true that there hasn't been much Two-Face screentime in TDK, but the overall presence of the character and his influence on the story was significant. He didn't feel like an afterthoguht, he was vital. Its fun to imagine Dent surviving TDK and living to be one of the villains in the third film, but it would cheapen the character and give him a bit of an tv-show, episodic like vibe. Introducing and concluding the Two-Face arc and theme in TDK gave the whole film that much more dramatic power. The whole thing was more tragic. Having Dent survive and continue his shennanigans would feel cheap in the context of the whole trilogy. Plus he was played by an awesome actor, and was great in every scene he appeared in. I love Eckhart's/Nolans Two-Face.

I agree with basically everything in this post the more I think of it. The Harvey story did work for the story that Nolan was telling. It could have been better in aspects but overall it wasn't bad. I still would have preferred seeing a little more development of the character once he became Two Face and for him to not have died but overall you're right really. The duality aspect was there even if it wasn't Harvey vs. Big Bad Harv.

But did more "Batmany" stuff in that year, than in any other movie interpretation.

Yeah overall I thought Nolan did a pretty good job with his version of the Batman character. The span of time for how long he was Batman didn't really bother me in the slightest. I also wouldn't say that Bruce didn't like being Batman necessarily. He had some conflicting feelings on being him and wanted a more normal life but that theme has been explored before in the comics. Hell the story of The Dark Knight Rises is basically him returning as Batman for his own personal needs.

 

[Chuck72586]

Best interpretation of Batman no doubt has to go to The Animated Series. I'd also say the two Arkham games have captured what the character is all about as well.

As for the West show, it's not my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it for what it was and how important it is in the character's history.

 

[Mike86]

Best interpretation of Batman no doubt has to go to The Animated Series. I'd also say the two Arkham games have captured what the character is all about as well.

As for the West show, it's not my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it for what it was and how important it is in the character's history.

Oh hell yeah. Animation or otherwise, Batman: The Animated Series is fantastic to what Batman is to me.

It's one of the great cartoons in that it's safe enough for kids to watch yet it's not so kid friendly that an adult can't enjoy it as well. In some respects the Arkham games I almost view as semi sequels to The Animated Series only in video game form obviously and with new character models.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

The Animated Series might be for me the best interpretation of the character, as in the truest to what I would consider "quintessential", canonical Batman, but if I was to name the single objectively best, most worthwile cinematic product of Batman franchise it would still be TDK.

As for the Arkham games, I don't consider them to be on par with TAS as far as Batman's character interpretation/potrayal, becouse they offer only an illusion on focusing Batman. I'll put it this way - You play as Batman and it is AWESOME. From the gameplay standpoint its fantastic. But as far as the strory goes in both games, Batman doesn't really do anything worthwile. He has no memorable moments in the cutscenes, his dialog lines are poor and forgettable compared to the baddies (plus in my opinnion Conroy's voice loses a lot of power without Bruce Timm awesome animation and drawings and the monolithic silhouette of TAS Batman to back it up). He is totally reactionary, he just moves forward, fights and uses gadgets. Its a showcase for the villains. The games are a great repository of Batman mythos knowledge, but as far as delving into the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne himself...I dont know, I cant really see it. People say its such a great interpretation of Batman, but I think they are just being influenced by TAS. Couse the games themselves don't really show or say much about Wayne, the don't delve into his character. The narrative is mostly about the shenannigans of the villains.

 

[batfan08]

I beg to differ. The medium is different, and, therefore, characterization is different, but they do delve into Wayne's personality. From the Scarecrow nightmares in Arkham Asylum, we get a taste of what goes on in the psyche of Batman. There are numerous examples that I can think of that flesh out the character. His going against Alfred's best wishes to finish his work in Arkham City, the way he reacts to character deaths, etc.

It all works together to cohesively define Batman. You aren't going to be getting massive character studies with video games; it's rare when you do, and, even then, it only works for certain types of games. Bottom line: the Arkham series holds true to that idea of the quintessential Batman. We got that character in TAS, and, honestly, even though it is it's own universe, I believe that the Arkham series builds on the 70+ years of history that came before.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

While You gave a good example with the Scarecrow hallucinations, and I am sure there are more elements like that (for example the little moment in Arkham City, when Batman stumbles upon the spot where his parents where killed), overally I really don't see the games to be focusing on Wayne as much as they could, and certainly not enough to say that its just as good a take on Batman as TAS.

When playing AA and AC I get the feeling like I am going through an interactive DC COMICS Museum. Like a guided tour showcasing the 70+ years of Batman mythos, explaining what is what and which villain was introduced first in what comic issue and so on. But Batman is very reactionary to all this. There is little of Wayne in here, he just goes forward fights and uses his arsenal. I didn't feel like he had any memorable, badass moments, and most of his dialog lines and interactions with the villains go like: "I AM GONNA STOP YOU JOKER" (which as I said, feels much weaker to me without the animated style of Bruce Timm Batman and his badass looks). It all holds true to what was established in TAS, but its not the same calibre.

Also, I dont think the medium has anything to do with it. Many games with great storylines put focus mainly on the central hero, and most of them do it much better than AA games.

Ok, gotta get some sleep. Too hard to keep up with the yankee time zones

 

[batfan08]

I think it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. A video game is going to have some developmental restrictions compared to a television show with almost one hundred episodes, and I think that's why people love it; it's got the same sense of atmosphere that TAS had, even though it's somewhat more limited in where it can go.

 

[batfan08]

In terms of Batman as a character, though. They nailed it. With Batman, it's all about the villains. His mission is what defines him in a lot of ways, and the Arkham games are just that. The experience is what defines you as being Batman.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

I am not saying that AA games are supposed to compete with TAS purely on the level of screentime, couse obviously that wouldnt be a fair comparison. Its just that even as two self-contained video games, the characterisation of Batman in them is not as good as it could be, for reasons I've written about before. Compared to other famous video game characters, there's little focus on Batman in AA and the nature of video game narration mechanics has nothing to do with it. There is simply soooo much DC lore tightly crammed into every nook and cranny of this game, that it builds the illusion of it focusing on Batman, while in reality in showcases the whole DC mythos instead of Wayne himself. You can dissagree of course, but personally I just didn't think he had enough cool moments, or good dialogue. It was awesome to play as Batman, but as a character, to me he wasn't really potrayed in a way that would stand out among other Batman interpretations and versions. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying its anything necessarily wrong, I love both games dearly and Batman in AA is still a great interpretation, true to the roots of TAS. He's just not as fleshed out or awesome as some think he is and doesn't stand out as much as some other prominent Batmen of yore

 

[batfan08]

Well, let's just agree to disagree. it's getting late, I'm tired, and, ironically enough, I want to get back to watching TAS.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

I hear Ya I need to finally sit down and try out Batman Beyond. I have the whole original TAS memorised by heart, but I only remember bits and pieces of Beyond.

 

[batfan08]

Definitely. It's great. Personally, I'd love a Beyond game from the folks who made the Arkham series.

 

[Khonsu70]

Reading people argue which Batman is the "true" Batman is about as much fun as having a hot tar enema.