The very fact that it is considered a subversion is making my point for me.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
It blows my mind that after 30 years and 10 live-action Batman movies, "Batman & Robin" is still the most true to the heart of the character
- Thread starter Garlador
- Start date
I mean even back to the old days and the originals the Robins were always victims that came across his path, not people he recruited. Dick was orphaned(usually Bruce is portrayed being at the show or already tracking the crime boss. He took pity on him and when he was already hunting for revenge he worked to temper it. Not sure about Todd, but Tim Drake stoke Batman's tires and came from a broken criminal family that Bruce tried to rescue from and he discovered the batman side and forced Bruce to let him in(I could be misremembering)... and well Damian is his assassain son, I don't think that needs much more explaining. Point is it's generally less he's seeking protégés but trying to save those he think may follow his or darker pathsI like the way Young Justice framed it.
Dick Grayson was another cycle of the violence that created Batman. A youth whose parents were murdered by criminals. It was shown that, like Bruce, Dick was consumed with vengeance and pain, willing to risk life and limb to get retribution. Batman saw a reflection of the same angry, damaged kid, knowing that with or without him, Dick would seek to get even.
The point that expectations exist? And that expectations can be subverted? We agree on the fact that expectations exist. But expectations aren't special, they're not rules, they're not law. In fact, different fans from different eras can have different expectations. This is what I think you're not addressing. You talk about what's "core to who these characters are", while not acknowledging that this is just pre-built fan expectations.
Calling consistent elements of the way a particular character is written "fan expectations" doesn't make them any less consistent elements of the way a character is written. You're not actually addressing that, you're downplaying it for the sake of... I honestly don't even know what. You're not even making the simple, obvious argument that adaptations don't have to adhere to the source.
"Most of the time the character acts like this" doesn't equal "the character is this". That's my point. You're conflating the two things. That's why I'm talking about this as expectations, not what the character is. Conflation like this becomes really frustrating because people will see a character not acting in the way they expect (let's say batman not acting in a very empathetic way) and say that the character isn't being batman, and they'll say this almost in an objective way, as of you couldn't read a completely different set of Batman comics which would lead you to a completely different thing about his characteristics. My point is that it is good that different people can write Batman in different ways and we shouldn't act like it's bad if the character acts in a way that is unexpected.
Controversial opinion: Batman is inherently silly and every generation tried to reframe it as not silly — with different results.
1. the first movie and tv show - after lunch martinis and amyl nitrate, owned the material- leaned into the camp and absurdity and sexual overtones rather than try to solve or interpret the problems they cause dramatically.
2. The Batman Tarzan TV Hour was obviously the Citizen Kane of whatever TF we were smoking and popping in the 1970s. I'm guessing Quaaludes and Smoked Horse.
3. the Tim Burton reboot - mildly buzzed on bloody Mary's and some old scratch weed from a forgotten backpack, knowingly reframed camp as cool, leaned into and past the difficult base material and wore its edgelordery proudly on its sleeve but winked knowingly at the cooperation from the audience.
4. The latter movies from the series are the direct result of easy availability of high quality cocaine in the wake of Reagan's Central American adventurism — and brought us some of the most lavish fetish movies ever committed to screen.
5. Christopher Nolan - a talented young filmmaker, huffed a small gasp of whippets from a whipped cream canister- then created compelling cinematography and a unique spin on Batman that asks the question, "what would happen if we made this but never winked at the audience — except for one tiny moment in the dying flutter of the final breath of a Bond-depth paramour?"
6. What if we do Krokodil and set this shit in a gale-battered lighthouse?
1. the first movie and tv show - after lunch martinis and amyl nitrate, owned the material- leaned into the camp and absurdity and sexual overtones rather than try to solve or interpret the problems they cause dramatically.
2. The Batman Tarzan TV Hour was obviously the Citizen Kane of whatever TF we were smoking and popping in the 1970s. I'm guessing Quaaludes and Smoked Horse.
3. the Tim Burton reboot - mildly buzzed on bloody Mary's and some old scratch weed from a forgotten backpack, knowingly reframed camp as cool, leaned into and past the difficult base material and wore its edgelordery proudly on its sleeve but winked knowingly at the cooperation from the audience.
4. The latter movies from the series are the direct result of easy availability of high quality cocaine in the wake of Reagan's Central American adventurism — and brought us some of the most lavish fetish movies ever committed to screen.
5. Christopher Nolan - a talented young filmmaker, huffed a small gasp of whippets from a whipped cream canister- then created compelling cinematography and a unique spin on Batman that asks the question, "what would happen if we made this but never winked at the audience — except for one tiny moment in the dying flutter of the final breath of a Bond-depth paramour?"
6. What if we do Krokodil and set this shit in a gale-battered lighthouse?
Did he kill two face? Some of the thoughts on this are a little silly.
In order to stop an innocent man from getting killed batman changed harvey. As a result of that Harvey died, sure, but its not like there was any alternative.
That is not the same as choosing to take a life.
"I didn't read the OP, and also I won't read the thread, better announce it!"
I'm not that into the whole extended Bat-family thing, but in general I agree with you, and I'm tired of that modern take on Batman. While I don't miss campy Batman, something more akin to Zorro + Sherlock Holmes (in the modern world) is what I think I'd like to see. The Animated Series was in the ballpark. I do also think modern Batman stories would be better for having the good Bruce Wayne can do with his fortune as a central element, with Batman as just one aspect of his mission, and less emphasis on beating up street criminals. (Maybe the comics already do this; I haven't read them in a long time.)
Last edited:
You forgot the 2 1940's movie serials, the earliest film interpretation (which did for that matter have Robin)
There are so many variations of Batman comics. Several different writers over multiple decades have created a variety of styles in thousands of comics, so you can pretty much take any live action adaptation and find the comic equivalent.
It depends on personal preference. I always loved the campy Batman over detective Batman or dark knight Batman. I don't like taking superheroes too seriously.
It depends on personal preference. I always loved the campy Batman over detective Batman or dark knight Batman. I don't like taking superheroes too seriously.
OP
OP
Considering this only happens in stories that a particular creator touches because he gets off on it, I wouldn't say it's a defining or even common trait. There are a far larger number of stories where Bruce and Babs have a completely non-romantic, father/daughter relationship. Obviously not as strong as Bab's relationship with Jim Gordon (who people also forgot is her adoptive, not biological dad), but it's still there.
Very much this. People forget that Dick was an incredibly angry kid because he naturally has a very bright and bubbly personality, but the reason we get to see that personality shine through is because he was able to find family with Bruce and Alfred and purpose in the role of Robin.I like the way Young Justice framed it.
Dick Grayson was another cycle of the violence that created Batman. A youth whose parents were murdered by criminals. It was shown that, like Bruce, Dick was consumed with vengeance and pain, willing to risk life and limb to get retribution. Batman saw a reflection of the same angry, damaged kid, knowing that with or without him, Dick would seek to get even.
OP
OP
Thanks. I never watched JL cause I'm not into it but this looks really nice so I will give it a try.
Now this, I totally am on board with. Cause it's actually a good movie. It know exactly what it wants to be, and executes it successfully in a way Batman and Robin utterly failed to do (outside of what the OP is talking about).
We got so many different kinds of Batman in comics and films. So saying that it's accurate is odd since there's so many different ones.
Also, here I am waiting for DC to have the balls to kill Bruce at the start and do the alternate timeline with his parents as a film. But oh well...
Also, here I am waiting for DC to have the balls to kill Bruce at the start and do the alternate timeline with his parents as a film. But oh well...
Don't agree as much on the Batman & Robin part but definitely agree on Mask of the Phantasm, don't think that movie will ever be topped, perfect story telling for both Bruce and Batman.
Batman is a mass murderer, you're all marks for believing his no kill dogma. He's the one telling these stories you're reading, it's all spun to make him look better.
LMAO "I'm going to proudly broadcast my ignorance of the topic or admit I didn't even read the thread title, and there's nothing you can do to stop me."
This is gold.
So are we also agreeing with the Jack Saint idea that Suicide Squad is the best representation of the joker because he actually encapsulates the original obnoxious energy of the character? Not going to lie Batman is better when he's written to just not really mention the whole not killing thing I mean
in final crisis among other things but it can bog down Batman media some when people decide it's past their suspension of disbelief that Batman isn't killing people.
he shoots darkseid
And then, of course, we have Snyder's Batman...
There's my boy :D
Self-Defense. He just saved Robin and the criminal psychologist and only had one free hand as he was holding onto the beam and probably tired from pulling two people up to that beam. He used Two-Face's own psychosis against him by tossing the extra coins. It's still f-ed up that Two-Face says. "You're a good friend" before Batman tosses the extra coins, leading Harvey to fumble and fall, but there wasn't much choice in the matter.
I recently watched Batman Forever after Joel Schumaker died and in some ways, it's actually a better film than Batman Returns. That film was way too dark and gross with Batman basically being a killer and everyone was psychologically damaged.
While I can't stand Jim Carry's Riddler being so... Jim Carry, Val Kilmer's Bruce Wayne was actually pretty dang good. Although it's not directly said, it's obvious his more murderous past troubles him and he also feels guilt for his parents dying even though it was never his fault. In a deleted scene he finally finds his father's journal which proves that going to see Zorro was his father's idea and not his. Kilmer's Bruce is much more mature and is desperate for Dick Grayson to not go down the same path he did.
His Batman kinda sucks though. "Chicks dig the car" and that goofy smile. UGH! Two-Face needed to be more tragic rather than his origin being shown off a TV news recap. He also should have stuck with the "dual" theme rather than start going on random stick-ups. This is more 1966 Two-face than anything.
My favorite part about the character is that he's so infinitely malleable and flexible to be whatever you want him to be.
Batman and Robin is like...the complete opposite of my internal vision of who he is as a character, while TDK has the perfect vision of it. And both are spot on!
Batman and Robin is like...the complete opposite of my internal vision of who he is as a character, while TDK has the perfect vision of it. And both are spot on!
He also tried to shoot Alexander Luthor during Infinite Crisis but the gun wasn't loaded.
Violence without killing is fantasy, and saying Batman is better because he doesn't is pandering. There are scenarios in real life that don't afford that choice.
but yes it's great that Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are growing on people
A good core understanding of the character doesn't change the fact that Batman & Robin is a piece of shit film. Credit for knowing what it is and what it wants to do better than Forever, which has always seemed caught between Burton's tone and a more campy tone (which B&R would embrace fully, to its benefit), but it's just degrees of garbage. I would probably rather watch Forever than Returns, though.
And it left such an impact on him that he named the bat dog Ace.
Um... Jason Todd stole the Batmobile's tires. He was a street orphan who's parents were killed long before he met Batman.
Tim Drake actually sought Batman out during his Robin-less period because he believed Batman needed a Robin. Tim was from a fairly decent home and was the first Robin to actually still have a living parent.
The confusion may be that they basically stole Jason's backstory and gave it to Tim in the animated series.
Yup that was the source of it. But still the point is that the Robins generally have a drive of their own to go into crime fighting, it's not that Bruce seeks them for that explicitly
Yes your correct on that point. He never drags someone unwilling.
OP
OP
Lol you can see a few frames where the Gunner is no longer in the car before it blows up
I'll never not notice this now that you've pointed it out.
I guess Batman wasnt a killer in that movie after all, his bullets just..teleported the bad guys into prison.
Yeah but that's Crazy Steve.Only a crazy person would do that.
I believe in Harvey Dent. Too bad Batman killed him.
To be honest, over the years, I've cooled on Batman as being one of my favorite comic book characters. I still have a soft spot for him, as I grew up reading the few comics I could afford with him, and loved the Burton movies, and I enjoyed Nolan's Trilogy (aspects of Rises is pretty good, but I feel like the loss of Heath Ledger really hurt that movie, as I imagine he'd have had a more significant part in the movie alongside Bane compared to what we got with Scarecrow kind of stepping in serving what I would have imagined to be The Joker role). The less I think about Snyder's take on Batman, the better.
I have no idea how Pattinson's Batman is going to be, but I imagine we're going to get that same "but he didn't kill him! the villain just fell to his death of his own accord" trope we generally get when films try to sort out how to defeat the villain without the hero directly kill him. Because, you know, in movies, you can't just arrest the villain (something I loved that The Dark Knight did with The Joker), he/she's gotta die!
It would be very awesome to see a Batman that doesn't kill, and isn't as over the top ruthless with criminals as he's often portrayed to be. It'd also be nice to see a big screen version of Batman behave like the Batman from the animated series. Bruce had so much more of a personality in that series, despite being haunted by the same things that drive the live action Batman interpretations. He'd occasionally crack a smile or joke, or show genuine compassion and empathy for his rogue's gallery. I really do think a movie about Mister Freeze, played with the same pathos as Heart of Ice from the animated series, could be such a good film for both the characters of Batman and Freeze.
A tragic story for Victor, and perhaps a moment of failure/regret for Bruce being unable to grant Freeze redemption. While also setting the stage for a story arc in the films where Batman manages to help Victor find a cure for his wife, and Freeze becomes an ally to face some larger threat to Gotham. People love redemption stories, and Batman: The Animated Series Mister Freeze is one of the more empathetic of his rogue's gallery. I haven't read a ton of Batman comics, so I'm not sure how he's handled there, but a live action version of The Animated Batman universe has a lot of amazing characters to draw some compelling films from (A live action Hardac storyline would be a mix of suspense, campiness, and fantastical that the perpetually grounded live action films could use more of).
Okay, so Batman & Robin isn't a good Batman film, or a good film in general. It's still one of my least favorite superhero movies. It's hokey, campy, immature, poorly-acted, poorly-directed... but when I look back at every single live-action movie incarnation of Batman, it still boggles my mind that, at its core, it's the most faithful adaptation of comic Batman's core values and morality.
Unlike every single other live-action Batman portrayal, George Clooney's Batman is the only one that actually doesn't kill. Like, that's incredibly important to who Batman is as a character and what separates him from countless other dark vigilante heroes like The Punisher. No matter how bad it gets, no matter how much he may want to take a life, he isn't a killer.
When it comes to movies, it feels like the Batman we get is more often like All-Star Batman and Robin's rampaging nutcase with a violence-boner.
While Tim Burton's Batman will always hold a special place in my heart, he's kind of a murderous psychopath. When one of his lines is literally "I'm going to kill you" followed by said Batman killing you, that's a pretty kill-happy Batman. By the sequel, he's blowing people up with a deranged smile on his face.
Again, I like the movies, and I like Tim Burton's utterly weird, time-displaced take on Gothic Gotham, but it's a pretty inauthentic take on Batman.
Joel Schumacher was brought in to lighten things up a bit, but even Batman Forever has Batman directly causing the death of one of the villains (and a former friend).
("vengeance won't make the pain go away, Dick. But here, let me do it for you anyway")
The Dark Knight Trilogy successfully revamped Batman away from the camp, and even made it a huge part of Batman's character that he "doesn't kill". The only problem? He's a big damn hypocrite who kills a lot of people in that trilogy. One big pivotal scene that was THE moment I gave up hope of this finally being a story that understood Batman was Bruce refusing to save Ra's Al Ghul.
While it may seem like some kind of loophole, the whole point of Batman is that he'll always try and save people - even his enemies - because at heart he's a character who values life. They kind of did an entire 90s Knightfall storyline about a guy (avatar quote) who becomes Batman and utterly fails at the job because... he refused to save a criminal from certain death. Like, the very thing that proved Jean-Paul Valley was the wrong guy for the job is the very excuse used in the Nolan movies for why it's okay for Batman to let Ra's die (among other casualties).
And then, of course, we have Snyder's Batman...
(no, you see, it was the bullets and explosions that killed them; not Batman)
That means the only live-action movie Batman who values life, doesn't kill, and goes out of his way to save even his enemies is... George Clooney's Batman.
It's also the only live-action Batman movie to truly even attempt to do the Bat-family justice, as someone here mentioned before.
I hate this.
While there are elements of what makes Batman interesting in all the other Batman movies (and better execution that makes them infinitely better movies), Batman & Robin is the closest one to actually getting what makes Batman the best hero of all time - the fact that he's NOT defined as a quintessential lone-wolf hero, but a mentor and father to a whole family of next-generation crime fighters.
That he's not just a dark, brooding, violent depressed guy who beats villains into the hospital, but a guy who has the empathy and kindness to reach out to his worst enemies and seek to bring them into the light.
That he's someone who is defined by his compassion, understanding of trauma, and quiet value of the dignity of life.
Obviously, some of the comics and TV shows have done it better, but Hollywood has habitually gotten one of the greatest and most popular heroes of all time wrong time and time and time again. I'm baffled it just keeps happening, and it makes me very curious to see if the upcoming Robert Pattinson portrayal will change that.
Do you agree with my hot take, or is a "kill if necessary" Batman acceptable for you? Do you think we'll ever get a Batman movie that actually understands Batman as a character beyond the superficial trauma, darkness, and "cool" factor?
Or can we just accept that Mask of the Phantasm got it right and we put too much stock in live-action movies?
(oh, look at that; another story about a vigilante killing criminals that shows why Batman is different and necessary)
Edit: And special shout-outs to Lego Batman.
These posts all give me life.I like the way Young Justice framed it.
Dick Grayson was another cycle of the violence that created Batman. A youth whose parents were murdered by criminals. It was shown that, like Bruce, Dick was consumed with vengeance and pain, willing to risk life and limb to get retribution. Batman saw a reflection of the same angry, damaged kid, knowing that with or without him, Dick would seek to get even.
FWIW, I always assumed Harvey would be revealed as alive and being kept hidden at Arkham come the third film. I was actually surprised going into The Dark Knight Rises that they kept Two-Face as dead.
Was this in beyond or in Batman and Robin? I haven't seen that movie since it came out.
*edit* just realized the girl is named ace. I was thinking Batman talking to his dog.
Last edited:
It's from the JLU episode Epilogue, which acted as the finale for Batman Beyond.