Favorite Batman Film

[Donomark]

I'll give two examples. One from Begins and one from Dark Knight.

In Begins, Bruce would never ever pull a gun on Joe Chill. That was out of character for him and it was the screenwriters just using that to give Bruce a low point before he leaves Gotham. It was used just so Rachel could say "Your father would be ashamed"

In Dark Knight, Bruce wouldn't invade people's privacy with the sonar device he uses to catch The Joker. Again, out of character, especially for Bruce who is one of the most private persons in the world. Again, it was screenwriters using something he wouldn't do to say hey look at what he's willing to do to get the joker.

1)Uh, it would have been out of character if he was Batman, (Like in Year Two) not before. It was a turning point.

I dunno how many Batman comics you've read, but he's not all that respectful of people's privacy. He sold out Robin's identity to his girlfriend, and exploited the JLA'S weaknesses for what he saw as the greater good.

[Kevin Cushing]

I'll just rank the ones I've seen, excluding Mask of the Phantasm and the 60s movie, since I haven't seen them since I was little.

1) The Dark Knight
2) Batman Begins
3) Batman: Under the Red Hood
4) Batman (1989)
5) Batman Returns
6) Batman Forever
2,467) Batman and Robin

The first three I consider great films. The bottom two I consider crap films. The Burton movies, honestly, I find mediocre. I always found them to drag and get boring in several places, and since Batman Begins came out I've really seen no reason to ever watch them again. To each their own, but to me they don't even compare.

[FSUSpiderFan]

The Burton ones will always have a special place in my heart because they were mega cool when I was a kid. Looking back I can see the flaws Don is talking about plus some more. The Batwing getting taken down by a pistol, Catwoman's claws being made from sewing stuff, her getting CPR from cats, Joker's weird obsession with Prince, etc. They are strange and messed up but also endearing. Yes the Nolan movies are better but you can't deny that Burton's were quite an accomplishment .

[Thrawn]

1)Uh, it would have been out of character if he was Batman, (Like in Year Two) not before. It was a turning point.

No. It was always out of character for Batman. In Batman Begins he supposed to be at least 20 or something right? That is time enough for him to have made up his mind to train and become Batman. Instead he pulls a gun with the intent to kill then decides to leave Gotham to become a thief, get drunk, and get into bar fights, etc. He's a a passive character for his early life instead of being a doer. That's a fundamental flaw in the Nolan films.

I agree completely with Tab. It was a horrible reason put in solely to get him out of Gotham, instead of making him the master of his fate.

1)Batman killing=fail

Yes, that's the only real flaw in those films. Everything else about the character was spot on. I give that a pass since in those days you didn't get big budget comic book franchises. I don't think they were thinking ahead. Also see Batman not saving Ras when he was perfectly capable of doing so and his reckless disregard for police in the batmobile chase in Batman Begins. Can you tell me no one was seriously injured or possibly killed in that chase?

2) Focus is hardly on Batman, in favor of the villains and style over substance.

That's the point. Batman is fully formed and he is a character of the shadows. He doesn't give big speeches, but when he talks it matters. If you notice this largely holds true in the Dark Knight as well. Except when Batman talks in those films he's sound like he's got a mouth full of gravel.

Most of Batman's villains are over the top and ostentatious directly in contrast to Batman: Joker, Penguin, Harley, Riddler, Two Face, Scarecrow. Michael Keaton also gets credit for nixing lots of dialogue and speeches that the writers wanted him to say. He kept saying that "You guys have Batman talking too much". He was right.

3) Poorly written. Too many things make little sense like Batman trying to shove the Bat-Wing up Joker's ass, and inexplicably failing, Catwoman waiting until the end of the movie to murder Max Schrek for no reason, Penguin wanting to kill the first born in Gotham. It's just all dumb.

I could level the same charge at the Dark Knight. That film hangs on Heath Ledger's performance. It's rife with bad writing. How does the Joker miraculously happen to have the hospital where Harvey Dent is taken rigged to explode? How was he so sure Batman would get there to save him on time? How did he manage to rig up the engine rooms on two ferry boats without anyone noticing? How does he get the explosives loaded up in them without being seen? Why doesn't Batman contact Gordon with the comlink in his cowl and let him know that the prisoners were actually the bad guys? Why doesn't Harvey kill the Joker anyway? For someone who believes in anarchy and chaos, the Joker sure does a lot of damn planning.

Do you know how massively out of character it is for Batman to want to give up being Batman? Especially after he spent the entire last film training and planning to become Batman. The Dark Knight takes place one year later. That whole subplot was horribly written and crammed into the film. The Burton films got that right. Bruce is obsessed with stopping crime and being Batman. He isn't looking to stop.

I love the Nolan and the Burton films, but there are many more problems with the Nolan films as it pertains to the character of Batman than with the Burton ones, in my opinion.

FSUSpiderFan wrote:

Yes the Nolan movies are better.

And when Gotham City is Chicago and we're watching Wayne getting his Batsuit parts through mail order, you begin to deconstruct the rest of it and start noticing the absurdity of the whole thing. In Burton's Bat-verse, everything is absurd, so it all makes sense. The Nolan films aren't better in my opinion. There are still many, many plot holes and bad writing in those as well.

[CrazyChris]

I tend not to compare the Nolan Batman to the Batman of the comics because I honestly don't think we're meant to. This is a new character in a new world that takes the general idea of the myth and explores how it might play out in a more realistic city with more human characters. So Bale's Batman isn't made out of the same stuff as the comics Batman? He wavers a little bit in his morals, considers giving up the cause? I don't care. I already saw the comics Batman done perfectly in TAS, and pretty decently in the Burton films. I evaluate the Nolan Batman on his own merits. When he does something, is it out of character for this version of the character. I think he's acted fairly consistently based on that standard. He's not the man the comic book character is, but he's an interesting character in his own right.

[Thrawn]

CrazyChris wrote:

I tend not to compare the Nolan Batman to the Batman of the comics because I honestly don't think we're meant to.

It's an impossible comparison not to make though. If we weren't meant to make the comparison then they wouldn't have based the character on DC Comics Batman.

This is a new character in a new world that takes the general idea of the myth and explores how it might play out in a more realistic city with more human characters.

Exactly. That's why despite that fact that the Burton Batman has a body count, I still feel overall it captured the atmosphere, and spirit of the character. Same for the Nolan films. It's not the comic version exactly, it's the movie version trying to be mostly faithful to the source material. I like both.

I evaluate the Nolan Batman on his own merits. When he does something, is it out of character for this version of the character.

So do I. That's why I don't have a problem with letting Ras die. I think it worked for the movie. I also think incorporating Lucius Fox into the plot as confidant and gadget guy was something the comics should do as well.

He wavers a little bit in his morals, considers giving up the cause?

Still out of character for the Nolan version after all the effort and time he spent in the first film. It's only been a year. And the only reason he was even thinking about it was because he wanted to sleep with the Rachel Dawes character. Lame.

He's not the man the comic book character is, but he's an interesting character in his own right.

To an extent but if you are going to deviate too far from the source material, the directors and whoever else should go work with their own material and leave established characters alone. If the source material itself isn't compelling enough you shouldn't be working with it. It should only be changed as much as needed for the adaptation purposes. I think in all respects Nolan pretty much accomplished this, except with the character of Batman/Bruce. There are several bits of writing and character development that are just out of character not only for the comic version, but the Nolan version as well. Overall Nolan still did a pretty good job.

Other than trying to killing the Joker and some other thugs, the Burton Batman is actually a pretty dead on match for the comic version, as well as being it's own entity. Which is why in the end I prefer it to the Nolan version.

/Bring on Batman 3 now.

//I can't wait for that movie.

[CrazyChris]

Good points! I think the thing about him wanting to give up being Batman for Rachel was meant to show that he had one last thing tying him to his life as Bruce Wayne before he could fully plunge into being Batman 24/7 with "Bruce Wayne" being a mere mask. Now that she's dead, he can finally take that step, and that's a part of the journey we need to see in this series. It would make logical sense for this character development to have occured earlier in Bruce's life, before he did all that work to become Batman, but the reality of a movie is that people paid to see Batman, so the character journey has to happen when he's already Batman. In a comic, you have a limitless number of issues to flesh out a backstory, but not so in a movie. They had to both get him in the Bat suit early on and show him growing into being Batman at the same time.

[Berserkfury819]

I agree with everything Thrawn said about Burton's Batman being superior to Nolan's. Thank you.

And Don, Dark Knight was nothing but style over substance.

[Thrawn]

CrazyChris wrote:

Good points!

Thank you. Merely a response to your insightful point about judging the films on their own merits. Which is very valid. That's why I still think Batman Forever is a pretty good movie. Taken for what it is, it does Batman justice. I still hate Batman and Robin though.

I think the thing about him wanting to give up being Batman for Rachel was meant to show that he had one last thing tying him to his life as Bruce Wayne before he could fully plunge into being Batman 24/7 with "Bruce Wayne" being a mere mask.

I still don't like it but that explanation makes sense.

I think the thing about him wanting to give up being Batman for Rachel was meant to show that he had one last thing tying him to his life as Bruce Wayne before he could fully plunge into being Batman 24/7 with "Bruce Wayne" being a mere mask.

I disagree. I don't think we needed to see that at all. I got enough closure for the Rachel Dawes storyline/link to Bruce's past in the final scene they had in Batman Begins at the wreckage of Wayne Manor. The entire subplot of Rachel Dawes/Bruce Wayne was again explored in the Dark Knight and I thought really detracted from the movie.

That's one thing that always has irked me about the Batman films. They always have to tack on a love interest. The first had Vicki Vale, the second had Catwoman, then you had Dr. Chase, and then the supermodel in Batman and Robin. I was so hoping we had moved beyond that when I was awaiting Batman Begins. Unfortunately they gave me the worst love interest yet. Both Katie Holms and Maggie Gyllenhall were unbelievable in the role of A.D.A. At least I liked the first 3.

It would make logical sense for this character development to have occurred earlier in Bruce's life, before he did all that work to become Batman,

Agreed, which leads me to your second point:

They had to both get him in the Bat suit early on and show him growing into being Batman at the same time.

Which shouldn't include a love triangle in my opinion. What did that character add to the Dark Knight other than her death? She wasn't interested in Bruce at all. It was a one way street. At that point in his life he's completely obsessed with cleaning up Gotham. Not falling in love. That entire character and subplot really drags down the Nolan movies. For whatever reason that was an element Nolan chose to include. Now I will admit that while not liking Holmes, the actual character doesn't hurt Batman Begins very much at all. That film still works. I feel it really hurts the second one plot wise. It was unnecessary for the Dark Knight as I felt it had adequately been dealt with in Batman Begins.

This is fun Chris. Thanks.

Berserkfury wrote:

I agree with everything Thrawn said about Burton's Batman being superior to Nolan's. Thank you.

You're welcome my good sir. Feel free to add anything I've forgot.

And Don, Dark Knight was nothing but style over substance.

Yeah, but damn was the Joker fucking awesome in that movie. And that semi flipping over kicks ass.

They also got the bat suit near perfect. I have thought for a while now that it should basically be a kevlar combat suit with just the bat parts added on. That way it's completely flexible. It doesn't have to be one piece. I thought that's what they were going to do when I saw the shot in the trailer for Begins when they open the drawer and you see the pre-modified suit.

Then he spray paints it with latex. *Sigh*. And then it looks exactly like a rubber suit later. I was so happy when they redid it for the Dark Knight. I like seeing the strapped on pieces. Very cool. I like that because for the first time since Batman 89 it doesn't look like a rubber suit. It looks like a combat suit.



The arms look especially cool in the "Got Milk?" ad.



Now if only it had the yellow oval...

[Donomark]

No. It was always out of character for Batman. In Batman Begins he supposed to be at least 20 or something right? That is time enough for him to have made up his mind to train and become Batman. Instead he pulls a gun with the intent to kill then decides to leave Gotham to become a thief, get drunk, and get into bar fights, etc. He's a a passive character for his early life instead of being a doer. That's a fundamental flaw in the Nolan films.

I agree completely with Tab. It was a horrible reason put in solely to get him out of Gotham, instead of making him the master of his fate.

Nonononono, BB illustrated how lost internally Bruce Wayne was from age 8 to however old he was when he accosted The Roman. It wasn't like it was a whim, it was clearly a growing process. You keep saying how crazy it was for him to pull out a gun, you're overlooking what the point of those scenes were. It lead to him hating guns, something that's nowhere in the Burton movies. THAT's a fundamental flaw in the character, not what happened in BB.

And to alter the age he starts training from 14 to 20, who cares? The end result's essentially the same.

Yes, that's the only real flaw in those films. Everything else about the character was spot on. I give that a pass since in those days you didn't get big budget comic book franchises. I don't think they were thinking ahead. Also see Batman not saving Ras when he was perfectly capable of doing so and his reckless disregard for police in the batmobile chase in Batman Begins. Can you tell me no one was seriously injured or possibly killed in that chase?

Obviously I disagree that the Burton movies had only one real flaw, I think they had several. But why settle? What's the point of saying "Well, that was a part that was wrong, but for the most part it was ok!" I can understand that for tertiary things like costumes and ages, but not in strong terms of characterization.

And they said no one was killed in the police chase.

That's the point. Batman is fully formed and he is a character of the shadows. He doesn't give big speeches, but when he talks it matters. If you notice this largely holds true in the Dark Knight as well. Except when Batman talks in those films he's sound like he's got a mouth full of gravel.

Most of Batman's villains are over the top and ostentatious directly in contrast to Batman: Joker, Penguin, Harley, Riddler, Two Face, Scarecrow. Michael Keaton also gets credit for nixing lots of dialogue and speeches that the writers wanted him to say. He kept saying that "You guys have Batman talking too much". He was right.

That's circular logic. Just because Batman is a silent character doesn't excuse not showing him in the majority of the story TITLED "Batman" and "Batman Returns". That's completely missing the point, "Ho, he shouldn't be shown all the time. He needs to be kept in the shadows." B:TAS had him talk little, but they still showed him doing shit for the bulk of the episodes, so it could show why Batman is cool.

[Donomark]

I could level the same charge at the Dark Knight. That film hangs on Heath Ledger's performance. It's rife with bad writing. How does the Joker miraculously happen to have the hospital where Harvey Dent is taken rigged to explode? How was he so sure Batman would get there to save him on time? How did he manage to rig up the engine rooms on two ferry boats without anyone noticing? How does he get the explosives loaded up in them without being seen? Why doesn't Batman contact Gordon with the comlink in his cowl and let him know that the prisoners were actually the bad guys? Why doesn't Harvey kill the Joker anyway? For someone who believes in anarchy and chaos, the Joker sure does a lot of damn planning.

Do you know how massively out of character it is for Batman to want to give up being Batman? Especially after he spent the entire last film training and planning to become Batman. The Dark Knight takes place one year later. That whole subplot was horrible written and crammed into the film. The Burton films got that right. Bruce is obsessed with stopping crime and being Batman. He isn't looking to stop.

I love the Nolan and the Burton films, but there are many more problems with the Nolan films as it pertains to the character of Batman than with the Burton ones, in my opinion.

1. The simple explanation for most of these questions is how corrupt The GCPD is in Gotham. That was a major plot point, and it's illustrated in both TDK and BB before it. Time and again. That's how Harvey became Two-Face, a cop sold him out. Through that logic it's feasible that the Joker had access to so many areas in Gotham. It's not that hard to think out.

2. Who said Batman had Gordon's comlink? Besides, Gordon was off to find Harvey and his family at the time.

3. We know how Harvey thinks by this point in the film, how his mind works. We see it in two key scenes. It's TOLD TO THE AUDIENCE.

4. The argument that the Joker lies to people when he talks about planning, I don't understand why people are surprised by this. He's the FUCKING JOKER. Since when are you supposed to hold him to his word? "Huh, TDK sucks because the Joker lied to me!" Seriously?

Oh, and the Burton movies hinted that Batman wanted to quit being Batman in their films to. True, he doesn't explicity say he wants to quit, but he insinuates that he would easily give it all up for pussy, at the drop of a hat. That's on par with someone who realizes that doing what he's always wanted to do will take much more time and effort than he relaized, like everyone else who tries to do something big. I can buy it, especially for a beginner Batman.

And Don, Dark Knight was nothing but style over substance.

Seriously?

That's one thing that always has irked me about the Batman films. They always have to tack on a love interest. The first had Vicki Vale, the second had Catwoman, then you had Dr. Chase, and then the supermodel in Batman and Robin. I was so hoping we had moved beyond that when I was awaiting Batman Begins. Unfortunately they gave me the worst love interest yet. Both Katie Holms and Maggie Gyllenhall were unbelievable in the role of A.D.A. At least I liked the first 3.

Totally agree to that, even BB and TDK.

[Thrawn]

Donomark wrote:

BB illustrated how lost internally Bruce Wayne was from age 8 to however old he was when he accosted The Roman.

Which is not Batman. Batman is many things, but lost and directionless without a purpose are the last words I should be able to use on him.

It wasn't like it was a whim,

No, it would have been premeditated murder. In this case a whim would have been preferable.

it was clearly a growing process.

Which is not only unnecessary, but completely out of character for Batman. Batman hates guns because one was used to kill his parents. Why does he all of a sudden hate to use guns after Joe Chill is killed? Because Rachel says a few mean words to him and now he's like all of a sudden "Oh my gosh. You're right". He was ready to commit premeditated murder. If I was that close to the edge I wouldn't care what Katie Holmes had to say.

You keep saying how crazy it was for him to pull out a gun,

I'm not the only one.

you're overlooking what the point of those scenes were.

Am I?

It lead to him hating guns,

Because Katie Holmes yells at him. Yes.

something that's nowhere in the Burton movies.

Batman doesn't use guns in the Burton films, so there was no need t explore it. Batman TAS never explored it either as near as I can recall.

THAT's a fundamental flaw in the character, not what happened in BB.

By never having him attempt to use guns (which is a character flaw), thereby never having to explain what would have been massively out of character in the first place is a flaw?

And to alter the age he starts training from 14 to 20, who cares? The end result's essentially the same.

No, it isn't. It takes time to master skills. That's six years you lose from 14 to 20. Time enough to learn to become a doctor. Time enough to master a form of martial arts. Batman got started early so he could hurry up and get his training out of the way in order to begin his war on crime. He is human, and time is finite. The age at which he starts training is rather crucial. It's made very clear he was getting kicked out of colleges and moping around not learning very much at all.

And they said no one was killed in the police chase.

Seriously injured? I mean they can say whatever they want, but cop cars were being knocked upside down and over at an alarming rate. The fact that no one was killed was a miracle. Batman wouldn't leave that chance to luck. It's still probably the best scene in the movie though. Awesome scene.

That's circular logic.That's completely missing the point,

It's not so cute this time. Now, let me explain something to you. When someone dislikes or isn't fond of something, you may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean that they "missed the point" or "misunderstood". It isn't polite to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence solely because they have differing opinions. We are only talking about movies. You still didn't address this point:

If you notice this largely holds true in the Dark Knight as well.

Batman has a relatively small amount of screen time in the Dark Knight as well. He's also completely overshadowed by the Joker.

Just because Batman is a silent character doesn't excuse not showing him in the majority of the story TITLED "Batman" and "Batman Returns".

By majority I'm assuming you mean every scene? Almost every scene in Batman is either Joker or Micheal Keaton as either Bruce or Batman. He has more than enough screen time. The same for Batman Returns. His screen time in the Dark Knight is comparable. Your criticism here completely baffles me I'm afraid.

He needs to be kept in the shadows." B:TAS had him talk little, but they still showed him doing shit for the bulk of the episodes, so it could show why Batman is cool.

It's a 22-25 minute cartoon. Movies are ensemble pieces and are structured differently. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

1. The simple explanation for most of these questions is how corrupt The GCPD is in Gotham.

It's the only one that can possibly explain it. It's something I thought of myself. It still stretching an awful lot to explain everything without becoming a deus ex macina. Joker could did this and this because the GCPD is corrupt.

"What about when he did that"?

"Corrupt GCPD again".

That was a major plot point, and it's illustrated in both TDK and BB before it. Time and again. That's how Harvey became Two-Face, a cop sold him out. Through that logic it's feasible that the Joker had access to so many areas in Gotham.

When it's used to explain everything that could be a potential plot hole it becomes less credible.

It's not that hard to think out.

Particularly in light of the fact that besides myself, you're about the 84th person to use that to justify the Joker's seemingly magical ability to do anything in that movie.

2. Who said Batman had Gordon's comlink? Besides, Gordon was off to find Harvey and his family at the time.

Gordon and all cops have radios. If the Joker can blow up anything in the city he darn well pleases, Batman has the cops radio channels programmed into his head piece.

3. We know how Harvey thinks by this point in the film, how his mind works. We see it in two key scenes. It's TOLD TO THE AUDIENCE.

I also grant it a pass because I like the movie, but again...the Joker is seemingly infallible in this movie. That was an awful big risk he took trusting his life to Harvey. Since I like this movie, I'm more inclined to give it a pass, but I know that bothered several people. If the logic of that scene is bothering more than one person, it's a potential problem. And I can't say they are wrong simply because I let it slide.

4. The argument that the Joker lies to people when he talks about planning,

The very same reason I use. I like to think of him as organized chaos. I do believe it's still a valid criticism. I hear that one come up a lot. If more than one person keeps coming up with the same complaints I think they tend to have at least some validity.

"Huh, TDK sucks because the Joker lied to me!" Seriously?

I didn't say that. Please show me where.

Oh, and the Burton movies hinted that Batman wanted to quit being Batman in their films to.True, he doesn't explicitly say he wants to quit, but he insinuates that he would easily give it all up for pussy, at the drop of a hat.

Wow. I believe that's wrong on every account.

Oh, and the Burton movies hinted that Batman wanted to quit being Batman in their films to.

Example please? He made it very clear he wasn't giving up being Batman for Vicki Vale. In Batman Returns, he tells Selina they are the same types of people. It isn't once implied that he wants or is planning to stop. Certainly not for a love interest.

Now, he does actually plan to quit for Dr. Chase in Batman Forever, that may be what you're thinking of. However comparing that to the Nolan version of Batman is flawed. The Kilmer Batman has been Batman for years. He's an adult in his late 30s early 40s. It is understandable that at some point he may want to quit. The Nolan Batman is in his early 20s with virtually his entire life ahead of him.

That's on par with someone who realizes that doing what he's always wanted to do will take much more time and effort than he relaized, like everyone else who tries to do something big. I can buy it, especially for a beginner Batman.

I can't see that for any version of Batman. To be that driven, and go through everything he's been through to quit after a year? Uh huh. This is the Nolan version of Batman, but he's still Batman. Batman doesn't quit. He isn't Spider-Man making a deal with Mephisto.

Totally agree to that, even BB and TDK.

There's always some common ground somewhere.

[ChaosInc]

Batman 1989>Dark Knight. Commence flame war.

Okay, here's my thing on the Burton movies.

1)Batman killing=fail
2) Focus is hardly on Batman, in favor of the villains and style over substance.
3) Poorly written. Too many things make little sense like Batman trying to shove the Bat-Wing up Joker's ass, and inexplicably failing, Catwoman waiting until the end of the movie to murder Max Schrek for no reason, Penguin wanting to kill the first born in Gotham. It's just all dumb.

I will give the movies credit for putting the idea of Batman as a dark character in the public mindset, and they aren't horrible. But compared to the Nolan movies, no. No, they do not hold up in my opinion. Keaton's good in the role, but he wasn't written all that well whereas I consider Bale to be very good in the role and his character to have been written well.

If it wasn't for the Burton movies we wouldn't have gotten Batman TAS, and subsequently the entire DCAU, so regardless of it being a good movie it helped create the best version of Batman we've ever seen.

That’s my 2p and now I’ll let you guys get back to your little flame war.

[Donomark]

Batman 1989>Dark Knight. Commence flame war.

Okay, here's my thing on the Burton movies.

1)Batman killing=fail
2) Focus is hardly on Batman, in favor of the villains and style over substance.
3) Poorly written. Too many things make little sense like Batman trying to shove the Bat-Wing up Joker's ass, and inexplicably failing, Catwoman waiting until the end of the movie to murder Max Schrek for no reason, Penguin wanting to kill the first born in Gotham. It's just all dumb.

I will give the movies credit for putting the idea of Batman as a dark character in the public mindset, and they aren't horrible. But compared to the Nolan movies, no. No, they do not hold up in my opinion. Keaton's good in the role, but he wasn't written all that well whereas I consider Bale to be very good in the role and his character to have been written well.

If it wasn't for the Burton movies we wouldn't have gotten Batman TAS, and subsequently the entire DCAU, so regardless of it being a good movie it helped create the best version of Batman we've ever seen.

That’s my 2p and now I’ll let you guys get back to your little flame war.

Well thats obvious. Again, I understand and fully acknowledge the impact the Burton movies had on the character and I certainly do not dismiss them. I'm not saying anything against that, I'm talking about the quality of the movies themselves.

[Donomark]

Which is not Batman. Batman is many things, but lost and directionless without a purpose are the last words I should be able to use on him.

Since when? There have been a handful of stories where Batman hasn't fully realized the exact method of ridding Gotham of crime. And anyway, I seriously am dumbfounded at this idea that he has to know exactly what he wants to do immediately like the comics. This is a movie, there has to be concessions. This is not something that changes who Batman is at all. That's like saying in the Spider-Man movie Peter Parker to immediately become Spider-Man after going after the burgler, and not after graduating high school. It's inconsequential to complain about when Batman decided to train to fight crime, especially since he wasn't Batman at that point in his life.

Which is not only unnecessary, but completely out of character for Batman. Batman hates guns because one was used to kill his parents. Why does he all of a sudden hate to use guns after Joe Chill is killed? Because Rachel says a few mean words to him and now he's like all of a sudden "Oh my gosh. You're right". He was ready to commit premeditated murder. If I was that close to the edge I wouldn't care what Katie Holmes had to say.

You're really comparing way too close to the comic here. There has to be concessions when making a movie about a character who has a long, varied history such as Batman. The end result is the same, he hated guns. So Katie Holmes had to give him a pep talk, and? Obviously that was the point for her character, but that's just the way the movie was made to go, having a character from his personal history become a sort of moral anchor to guide his motivations in a certain way. You can dislike it all you want, but it is not a flaw because the end result is the same.

Batman doesn't use guns in the Burton films, so there was no need t explore it. Batman TAS never explored it either as near as I can recall.

Batman has machine guns on both the Batmobile and Bat-Wing IIRC, and attempted to use said machine guns on the Joker. Don't tell me he never used guns.

And B:TAS never explored it, because I think we can both agree that show had more leverage to be more akin to the comics. Plus, to paraphrase yourself, B:TAS never had him using guns, so there was less a need to explore it.

To reiterate, you don't like the fact that Bruce tried to kill Joe Chill with a gun despite the fact that he soon after learned that he hated guns and decided not to kill. If you hate that, read Batman Year Two where AFTER ALREADY HAVING BEEN BATMAN he decides to say "You know what? Joe Chill's back in town. I think I'll team up with him for a while...and the kill him with a gun. Bruce Wayne was not Batman in that scene we're describing at the time because Batman hates guns. Bruce was in a transitionary period. If you can't deal with that, don't watch a movie called "Batman Begins".

No, it isn't. It takes time to master skills. That's six years you lose from 14 to 20. Time enough to learn to become a doctor. Time enough to master a form of martial arts. Batman got started early so he could hurry up and get his training out of the way in order to begin his war on crime. He is human, and time is finite. The age at which he starts training is rather crucial. It's made very clear he was getting kicked out of colleges and moping around not learning very much at all.

Once again, its something for the movies you just need to roll with. Batman in the Nolan movies is not the 5th best martial artist in the world, but is he in B:TAS? Do you need every excrutiating detail spelled out for you from the comics in the movies? He trained for years, came back and became Batman. Seven years seems like a long enough time to me to become a badass. If you disagree, that's fine. I don't find the timeline a bad thing whatsoever. If it were three years? Yeah, that would suck. Not seven.

Seriously injured? I mean they can say whatever they want, but cop cars were being knocked upside down and over at an alarming rate.

Agreed, but still doesn't change the fact that no one was killed.

The fact that no one was killed was a miracle.

Alfred's words exactly.

Batman wouldn't leave that chance to luck.

I can certainly see what you're getting at, but IMO the situation warranted Bats avoiding the police in such a way. True, he was rough with them. But the factors of A) Rachel was dying, B) He's at the start of his career and C) a bulk of the cops were probably corrupt anyway gives me enough leeway to excuse it. It doesn't bother me, and it never has.

It's still probably the best scene in the movie though. Awesome scene

Oh yes.

It's not so cute this time. Now, let me explain something to you. When someone dislikes or isn't fond of something, you may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean that they "missed the point" or "misunderstood". It isn't polite to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence solely because they have differing opinions.

So far the majority of your problems seem to stem from the fact that it wasn't done exactly like the comics. And believe me, I can totally get behind that mindset. But you can't just throw out "Uh, Batman would never use guns" and not acknowledge the context of the scene, or the point of the scene. To me, thats missing the point and you haven't proved to me that you got the point. I'm not saying you didn't, but you certainly haven't made it clear that you did.

By majority I'm assuming you mean every scene? Almost every scene in Batman is either Joker or Micheal Keaton as either Bruce or Batman. He has more than enough screen time. The same for Batman Returns. His screen time in the Dark Knight is comparable. Your criticism here completely baffles me I'm afraid.

Yeah, every scene in Batman is either Nicholson or Keaton. But it's like 60% Nicholson, 40% Keaton. And Batman Returns is even worse, believe me on that. When we don't get Penguin dicking around with Christopher Walken, we get nonsense about Catwoman blowing up stores because...just because. Oh, and there's a nuclear plant involved.

To be fair, I actually think Keaton's even better in the role in Batman Returns. Still doesn't change my mind that he's in it very much relatively.

It's the only one that can possibly explain it. It's something I thought of myself. It still stretching an awful lot to explain everything without becoming a deus ex macina. Joker could did this and this because the GCPD is corrupt. What about when he did that? Corrupt GCPD again.

Yeah but dude, its Gotham City. It's the most corrupt city on the face of the nation. It's a huge plot point of both movies. You can't just dismiss it because it explains how much of the crimes are being committed.

When it's used to explain everything that could be a potential plot hole it becomes less credible.

Disagree.

"Huh, TDK sucks because the Joker lied to me!" Seriously?

I didn't say that. Please show me where.

Never said you did, I was just putting words in your mouth.

Example please? He made it very clear he wasn't giving up being Batman for Vicki Vale. In Batman Returns, he tells Selina they are the same types of people. It isn't once implied that he wants or is planning to stop. Certainly not for a love interest.

In the scenes where he tries to tell Vicki who he is, and at the end of Returns where he wants Selina to come away with him, I get the strong impression that he insinuated those situations as being grounds for retiring. But honestly, thats something I get, but it isn't explicit. So feel free to disagree.

Now, he does actually plan to quit for Dr. Chase in Batman Forever, that may be what you're thinking of. However comparing that to the Nolan version of Batman is flawed. The Kilmer Batman has been Batman for years. He's an adult in his late 30s early 40s. It is understandable that at some point he may want to quit.

Yeah, but I was never planning on bringing up Forever because thats obvious.

The Nolan Batman is in his early 20s with virtually his entire life ahead of him.

Nolan's Batman is 30-31. In Batman Begins, he's 8 when his parents die, in college (18-22) when Joe Chill dies, and celebrates his birthday after seven years near the end of the film. You can see "Happy 30th" in the background in the scene where Rachel gives him the arrowhead.

I can't see that for any version of Batman. To be that driven, and go through everything he's been through to quit after a year? Uh huh. This is the Nolan version of Batman, but he's still Batman. Batman doesn't quit. He isn't Spider-Man making a deal with Mephisto.

Oh its not the same thing at all! But anyway, Batman has wanted to quit in the past several times. He always comes back and re-affirms his mission, but you can't wave off and say "Batman would never quit" because...he's wanted to before.

Look, I have a feeling its just going to come down to personal opinion about most of these. I don't care if people like the Burton movies over the Nolan movies, I won't begrudge people for that. I just hate it when people bring up what I think are BS reasons to hate on the movies. If anything, I'm in the mindset that MOTP is probably the best movie out of all of them, including ROTJ and Under The Hood.