mr pecker;173308
abomination known as Batman Returns.

That film wasn't an abomination. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were the abominations.

Kingpin;173310
That film wasn't an abomination. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were the abominations.

While I agree in certain aspects, as a life long Batman fan, I also have to disagree. Of the four films in that series, Returns is the one that is further from the Batman mythos. It's not a Batman film or a Tim Burton Batman film, but JUST a Tim Burton film. He took characters from the source material and turned them into his own weird “artistic” vision. Catwoman, Penguin, and even Batman were NOTHING like what we see in Returns.

Batman Forever is a fun ride. Is it serious? Absolutely not. It's just a fun way to way to waste two hours. The characters were changed ever so slightly, but Shumacher at least stayed kind of closer to the source material.

Batman and Robin is an absolutely horrible film. There's no doubting that. But it was always intended to be a childrens film and it's oddly fun to watch. This may have something to do with my love for Mystery Science Theater 3000 and old crappy movies, but I genuinely enjoy watching and laughing at Batman and Robin.

So imo, Returns is the worst of the four. None were perfect, but thank god Chris Nolan came along and brought what I consider to be the best of the film adaptations.

mr pecker;173313
but Shumacher at least stayed kind of closer to the source material.

I can't take an opinion seriously when it says Batman Forever was “closer” to the source material than Burton's second effort, or that it was the worst of the four films preceeding Nolan.

I'm not familiar with how far Batman Returns deviated from the source material, but it's my understanding the first Burton film deviated also… with (unless I've been grossly misinformed) it being the first to suggest that it was the Joker who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents. I believe it was also the first to suggest the concept that Batman's actions (unintentionally injuring and knocking Napier into the chemical vat) resulted in the creation of the Joker, rather than Napier jumping off a platform through his volition… not to mention it excised the whole red hood element of the Joker's past completely.

It's not expected to gel word for word with the comics, but it still in my mind reflects the comics a lot better than Schumacher's ode to the dreadful 1960s Batman series.

Fair enough. Let's dive into what makes Returns a Burton film rather than a Batman film….

Number one - Batman intentionally kills. Aside from some of the early comic issues, this is incredibly wrong for the character. Killing goes against everything Batman/Wayne stands for.

Number two - The Penguin. This character is nothing more than a Burton creation. He's cold blooded, he's raised by actual penguins, he spits black goo, etc. This is NOTHING like the comic character. Just Burton taking a name and applying it to his own gothic character.

Number three - Catwoman. Just like Penguin, Burton took this character's name and made it his own creation. He throws in the whole nine lives bullsh*t, makes her a straight forward villain, and totally ignores what makes the character great. She's supposed to be a human being that's similar to Bruce Wayne. Not some creature of the night with multiple lives and intent to murder.


As for Forever - Shumacher was closer to the core characters because Riddler was essentially a narcissistic intellectual, while Harvey/Two Face was a mild schizophrenic that lives by chance. Certain aspects were different from the source material, but they were much closer than Burton's supernatural characters in Returns.

mr pecker;173317
Number one - Batman intentionally kills.

I need to rewatch the film because there aren't any deaths that immediately come to mind.

As for the Penguin, it sounds like a significant departure from the comic origin, but I can appreciate that the established one may have been less interesting, whereas the film origin presents him as both a somewhat yet still villanous character.

And that being said, Batman Forever appears to make significant revisions to the Riddler's origin. That film introduces him as a frustrated employee of Wayne Enterprises, where in the comics he got obsessed with puzzles in school and later went on to become a carnival employee before launching his career in crime.

Harvey Dent, too, received some modification, where the movie depicts Dent being scarred by the mobster he was prosecuting, rather than a corrupt District Attorney. It's less substantial than Nigma, but Forever isn't any more accurate in depicting character biographies then Returns, based on the evidence you've presented.

I viewed Burton's Selina Kyle as morally ambiguous, she's shown both villanous and redeeming features. The 9 lives aspect, indeed, is something I know full well to not be a element of the original comic character, additionally I know the comic Kyle to be more metally stable. So I definitely agree, Burton make this version of Selina Kyle very unique compared to other iterations of her. Although I don't think we can fault her for wanting to kill the man who pushed her out of a window several stories off the ground.

Riddler was essentially a narcissistic intellectual, while Harvey/Two Face was a mild schizophrenic that lives by chance.

But that's basic characterisation, I've detailed some of the small and more significant differences I was able to decipher when comparing Schumacher's version to the comic interpretations.

One of the biggest criticisms you'll get from me of Schumacher's vision is that he's taken the dark and brooding elements out of the Batman franchise and instated something camp instead. His neon skyline is not a city befitting the name “Gotham”, nor could his costume design, with molded nipples be taken seriously as a practical piece of body armour.

The 60s Batman series had it's place in history, and should not have been used as the model for a major motion picture of the 1990s.

Kingpin;173320
I need to rewatch the film because there aren't any deaths that immediately come to mind.

Within the first fifteen minutes or so he sets a man on fire and later sets off a bomb that's attached to another man's chest. Smiling as he does it….

As for the Penguin, it sounds like a significant departure from the comic origin, but I can appreciate that the established one may have been less interesting, whereas the film origin presents him as both a somewhat yet still villanous character.

The issue isn't that he was changed to fit within the film. That's to be expected. The issue is that he was COMPLETELY changed for the film. It's one thing to bend a character to fit within the film, it's another thing entirely to take only the name and apply it to something else entirely. Burton took a high society, gentleman of crime and turned him into a mutated sewer dwelling freak. He just took too many liberties. He could have stayed somewhat closer to what the character represents.

And that being said, Batman Forever appears to make significant revisions to the Riddler's origin. That film introduces him as a frustrated employee of Wayne Enterprises, where in the comics he got obsessed with puzzles in school and later went on to become a carnival employee before launching his career in crime.

Harvey Dent, too, received some modification, where the movie depicts Dent being scarred by the mobster he was prosecuting, rather than a corrupt District Attorney. It's less substantial than Nigma, but Forever isn't any more accurate in depicting character biographies then Returns, based on the evidence you've presented.

As I mention above, the minor changes in Forever do not ruin the characters. It's still reminiscent of the true charactesr rather than a total departure. Sure, Forever took the series into a more lighthearted direction, but it's still something similiar to what those characters should represent.

One of the biggest criticisms you'll get from me of Schumacher's vision is that he's taken the dark and brooding elements out of the Batman franchise and instated something camp instead. His neon skyline is not a city befitting the name “Gotham”, nor could his costume design, with molded nipples be taken seriously as a practical piece of body armour.

The 60s Batman series had it's place in history, and should not have been used as the model for a major motion picture of the 1990s.

It wasn't based solely around the Adam West series, really. The Batman comics have not always been dark or gothic. For that matter, they didn't really take a truly dark turn until the 1980's. A good forty to fifty years after the character was created. Camp has always been a part of the character's history, so it wasn't really that bad of a thing that Shumacher tried it out. In film, the darker side of the character definitely works best and Shumacher dropped the ball, but turning to camp is still a viable avenue to explore given the character's established history.



I'm not saying Returns is a horrible film. Far from it. Everyone knows Batman & Robin is the worst film of the four. Returns is an okay Burton film and I do enjoy the Christmas vibes woven into the story, but as a big fan of these characters that had been established on paper many years ago, Returns leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I should'nt have called the entire film an abomination, but rather the characters.

And I can't say this enough….thank god Chris Nolan came along and brought dignity back to the DC film universe. His take on the characters, while also slightly changed to fit his filmmaking approach, are the best comic-to-film translations we have yet to see from the Batman Universe.

mr pecker;173313
Shumacher at least stayed kind of closer to the source material.

…

mr pecker;173313
Shumacher at least stayed kind of closer to the source material.

I…

mr pecker;173313
Shumacher at least stayed kind of closer to the source material.

I'm almost at a loss for words. I'll keep it simple and focus on the villains:

Turning Edward Nigma a calculating, devious, hyper-intelligent villain into a galloping, flamboyant jackass? Even Frank Gorshin was more sinister than Jim Carrey. Hell he was nominated for an EMMY for it.

And then there's Two-Face: a classic character in the vein of a Greek tragedy and turn him into a wisecrack spewing cartoon character who makes a FART JOKE? Even “Batman TAS” took him seriously and turned him into a truly frightening character.

So it's okay to turn E. Nigma into a frustrated employee of Wayne Enterprises who dances around like a spazz but to give Penguin an interesting backstory so the viewer can develop a sense of pity for him is going overboard? Have you even read his original backstory? He was a fat kid who always carried an umbrella and turned to crime. This better illustrates my point (at 2:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUFx4V9fEg

DeVito has also talked about when preparing for the character, Tim gave him a painting he did. It was a picture of the Penguin as a child and it said simply

My name is Jimmy,
But my friends just call me
“The hideous penguin boy.”

I'd rather have that then a fat guy who fancies birds any day.

*sigh*

Again…..Riddler and Dent weren't TOTAL departures from what had previously been established. Shumacher changed them around a bit and made them fit the lighter tone he was aiming for, but that's to be expected with any film translation. Many of their core characteristics were still there. Penguin however, was an all new character using the Penguin name. NOTHING like he was seen before. The supernatural bit between Penguin and Catwoman was the biggest issue.

WB/DC just gave Burton too much control and he took too many liberties. Rather than making his own translation of a Batman film with established Batman characters, he made a straight forward Tim Burton movie and threw Batman into the mix.

This being the reason WB later asked him to back down as director of the third film, as well.


As I said before….it's not a horrible film. I can still enjoy it on certain levels. The characters are just changed too much for my liking. Going back to why I even brought it up in this thread, I still believe that Burton should have done another Beetlejuice rather than the Batman sequel we received.

CrimsonGhostbuster;173333
Even “Batman TAS” took him seriously and turned him into a truly frightening character.

TAS took every character seriously. Mr. Freeze's origin was rewritten completely and that back story has been used in almost every incarnation of him since.

TAS was pretty much incredible all around. Next to Nolan's take on the franchise, it stands as one of the best on screen versions of Batman, imo. A few minor gripes, but as a whole it was incredible. Even more so that it was labeled as a “kids cartoon”.