Ridley:Fantasy as Shumacher:Batman (Destiny)

by Robot Chickens, Thursday, December 14, 2017, 15:44 (2618 days ago) @ Harmanimus

This needs a stronger defense. I'm flabbergasted.

So, preface: Batman Hush is the best Batman comic. Most people don’t understand (or remember the important parts of) The Killing Joke. LEGO Batman is the most important Batman movie of all of them.

Now that I hbe that out of the way, here is a more elaborate explanation as to why Batman Forever is the best Live Action Batman film. Starting with notable pitfalls of Burton and Nolan Batman outings. Batman spoilers ahead?

Obviously for being childrens stories about a man with childhood PTSD growing up to dress up as a bat and pummel criminals and the criminally insane you have some very strange balancing acts to account for. In the same way that many people do not understand Superman as a character (Tarantino understands the character about as well as modern DC does, though Snyder actually gets pretty close) who Batman is gets frequently confused. A big part of that is Robin, and in a larger respect, the whole Batfamily. In many ways Burton gets the Cowl right (while wrong in others) in the same way that Nolan gets Bruce Wayne right (Christian Bale is always a convincing rich [explitive]) but wrong in others. Neither of them have the Batfamily, for one. Keatonbat over-emphasizes the crazy man who beats up criminals, and Nolan basically forgets that Batman is powerful because he is observant. Batman is powerful because he is prepared. Because he has done his research. He wins in a fight against Clark because he has already done the leg work a hundred times over. There is a reason he has a counter to every member of the JL going rogue except Diana. Because really unless you go Golden Age at which case her weakness is light bondage.

Now, the best parts of Batman stories aren’t him or the Batfamily. It is the Rogues Gallery. Now, while I would love to see Arkham Asylum: A serious House on a Serious Earth translated to film, I don’t think we’ll ever get that. So we have to consider the incarnations we do get on screen. Jack Nicholson dressed as a Gamgster Clown does not The Joker make. And I adore Ledger’s performance, but that is not The Joker, more of an Elseworlds incarnation. Great, but tangential. Catwoman is handled better by Nolan, so he gets points there, and Scarecrow is pretty much great theough the whole of TDK trilogy. However, Ra’s and the League of Shadows is wasted in a mundane setting. The Lazarus Pit prison is interesting, but feels like a cop out. Bane in TDKR is so high above his treatment in B&R, but making him a puppet is about as good for the character as Iron Man 3’s Mandarin hook. I might even say worse.

Now, The common “Batman doesn’t kill” thing comes up. Even though he does so in many incarnations, usually out of necessity. In this regard I am only going to touch on Batman Forever. So, back to the Batfamily and Rogues Gallery. Other than some costume choices, both Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey actually find the characters they are playing. A perpetually conflicted fallen knight who resorts to chance to settle his internal conflicts between his inclinations. This is a factor used in the climax the allow Batman to save Robin from his own “one bad day.” He planned ahead for it, and called it out to ensure it would happen because of his knowledge of Dent. And The Riddler? He needs to be better than Batman, but moreover he needs Batman to know he is better. That is his central character thread which is explored in various ways through various media. But Jim Carrey captures. Bottles it and sells it.

This is not as well organized as I probably would like it to be. But here is the tl;dr - Batman Forever has the most “Batman” to it, while the other incarnations feel like alternate universes at best and often fail to capture essential aspects of the characters for the sake of presenting something different instead of as an exploration thereof. /babbling

This is well thought out and I can see why you value this entry. I think that I approach comic movies from a different angle. To me, they are like american folk-myths, more akin with the oral myths of ancient Greece. As such, each orator will have their own take or riff on the story and legend. Being true to the character of a source (and lets be honest, Batman has had many iterations even within the printed comic world) is not as big of a consideration for me as telling an interesting story with internal consistency using those character archetypes. Given that bias, it may be true that Batman Forever nails the comic-Batman element, but I think it delivers a story that is less interesting to me. Certainly not bad like B&R but not really good either. Burton's take on the Joker makes Batman who makes Joker story was more interesting to me. The neo-gothic textures and the aesthetics also worked for me far more than Batman Forever. Nolan's attempts to ground Batman in a more realistic world also felt like an interesting take as the medium shifted from comic to movie. It had significant problems, but I just find Batman Forever too campy in comparison. All that being said, I can appreciate your appreciation.

Link wasn't wearing armor. I don't critique TC's opening outfit because it isn't supposed to be armor. Once he dons the mini-dress of protection though...

Circa A Link to the Past the Blue and Red tunics function explicitly as armor and do not grant Link pants.

Well played. It still looks like cloth to me, but I guess you can have your magical pantsless fae armor.