What Were the Biggest Shortcomings of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman Movies?

[TMC]

*No real concern of story continuity from movie to movie. The fact
that Bruce Wayne/Batman was played by three different actors over the
course of four films certainly doesn't help

SPOILER:
*Killing off the villains save for Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy,
and to a lesser extent, Bane.
SPOILER:

*Warner Bros. trying to shoehorn anything that they could make a toy
out of, especially in the Joel Schumacher films (well, mostly Batman &
Robin).

*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

*Spending more time developing or focusing on the villains (especially
in Tim Burton's movies, where even the normally mysterious Joker got a
full blown origin) instead of Bruce Wayne himself.

*Both Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher feeling the need to "fetishize"
certain aspects of Batman and his world in their second films in
particular.

*Making Commissioner Gordon in pretty much a non-entity.

*Going "too extreme" and sometimes uneven at least tone-wise in Burton
and Schumacher's respective second installments.

Board: Batman (1989):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/board/flat/202735510?d=202735510&p=1#202735510

Board: Batman Forever (1995):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112462/board/flat/202771763?p=1

[Edward McArdle]

May as well argue:

In article

Post by TMC
*No real concern of story continuity from movie to movie. The fact
that Bruce Wayne/Batman was played by three different actors over the
course of four films certainly doesn't help
*Killing off the villains save for Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy,
and to a lesser extent, Bane.

This is something you can do in movies, because there are so many
villains. You can't do it easily in comics because there are still
hundreds more issues to fill.

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

Post by TMC
*Spending more time developing or focusing on the villains (especially
in Tim Burton's movies, where even the normally mysterious Joker got a
full blown origin) instead of Bruce Wayne himself.

Totally disagree. Batman has always been about the villains, since 1938.

[Bill Steele]

Post by Edward McArdle
In article

Post by TMC
*No real concern of story continuity from movie to movie. The fact
that Bruce Wayne/Batman was played by three different actors over the
course of four films certainly doesn't help
*Killing off the villains save for Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy,
and to a lesser extent, Bane.

This is something you can do in movies, because there are so many
villains. You can't do it easily in comics because there are still
hundreds more issues to fill.

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

I agree that Nicholson's performance was great, but he was totally the
wrong physical type. (My nominee was Jeff Goldblum.) You could say the
same for Keaton.

And I saw no reason to give the Penguin a deformity. He was originally
so-called because he effected a dress suit. (Long ago "penguin" was
slang for that, especially applying to butlers.) I always thought Bob
Kane's prototype was Eric Blore.

Post by Edward McArdle

Post by TMC
*Spending more time developing or focusing on the villains (especially
in Tim Burton's movies, where even the normally mysterious Joker got a
full blown origin) instead of Bruce Wayne himself.

Totally disagree. Batman has always been about the villains, since 1938.

[GordonD]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Edward McArdle
In article

Post by TMC
*No real concern of story continuity from movie to movie. The fact
that Bruce Wayne/Batman was played by three different actors over the
course of four films certainly doesn't help
*Killing off the villains save for Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy,
and to a lesser extent, Bane.

This is something you can do in movies, because there are so many
villains. You can't do it easily in comics because there are still
hundreds more issues to fill.

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

I agree that Nicholson's performance was great, but he was totally the
wrong physical type. (My nominee was Jeff Goldblum.)

Mine was Peter O'Toole.

[Howard Brazee]

Post by GordonD

Post by Bill Steele
I agree that Nicholson's performance was great, but he was totally the
wrong physical type. (My nominee was Jeff Goldblum.)

Mine was Peter O'Toole.

Which makes me remember that he was not at all physically like T.E.
Lawrence, but was excellent in that role nevertheless.

[Tim Turnip]

Post by Bill Steele
And I saw no reason to give the Penguin a deformity. He was originally
so-called because he effected a dress suit.

The reason is that a dapper, dress-suited Penguin would have been
boring in the film -- at best a weak after-image of the outsized,
flamboyant Nicholson Joker, or too much a reminder of the campy
Burgess Meredith Penguin. Burton made the correct choice: to
re-interpret Cobblepot as a figure of grotesque tragedy may have been
untrue to the comics, but one which deeply enriched and may have saved
the film.

Although to be honest, I prefer the version of Penguin presented in
the cut scenes of Paul Dini's excellent Arkham City video game. There,
he is re-imagined as a tough cockney crimeboss who has none of the
weaknesses of the Danny DeVito version, nor any pretense to the Silver
Age Penguin's refinements.

[Bill Steele]

Post by Tim Turnip

Post by Bill Steele
And I saw no reason to give the Penguin a deformity. He was originally
so-called because he effected a dress suit.

The reason is that a dapper, dress-suited Penguin would have been
boring in the film -- at best a weak after-image of the outsized,
flamboyant Nicholson Joker, or too much a reminder of the campy
Burgess Meredith Penguin. Burton made the correct choice: to
re-interpret Cobblepot as a figure of grotesque tragedy may have been
untrue to the comics, but one which deeply enriched and may have saved
the film.
Although to be honest, I prefer the version of Penguin presented in
the cut scenes of Paul Dini's excellent Arkham City video game. There,
he is re-imagined as a tough cockney crimeboss who has none of the
weaknesses of the Danny DeVito version, nor any pretense to the Silver
Age Penguin's refinements.

I like that. Bob Kane's villains were normal human crooks who a bizarre
persona. No backstory, no fallig in a vat, no being raised in the
sewers. Suitable adversaries for a hero who also was not superhuman.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Post by Bill Steele

Post by Tim Turnip

Post by Bill Steele
And I saw no reason to give the Penguin a deformity. He was originally
so-called because he effected a dress suit.

The reason is that a dapper, dress-suited Penguin would have been
boring in the film -- at best a weak after-image of the outsized,
flamboyant Nicholson Joker, or too much a reminder of the campy
Burgess Meredith Penguin. Burton made the correct choice: to
re-interpret Cobblepot as a figure of grotesque tragedy may have been
untrue to the comics, but one which deeply enriched and may have saved
the film.
Although to be honest, I prefer the version of Penguin presented in
the cut scenes of Paul Dini's excellent Arkham City video game. There,
he is re-imagined as a tough cockney crimeboss who has none of the
weaknesses of the Danny DeVito version, nor any pretense to the Silver
Age Penguin's refinements.

I like that. Bob Kane's villains were normal human crooks who a bizarre
persona. No backstory, no fallig in a vat, no being raised in the
sewers. Suitable adversaries for a hero who also was not superhuman.

Well... some of them were certainly grotesques with backstory --
weren't Finger and Kane responsible for the first version of the Joker
origin story, including falling in the vat? Also, Two-Face has always
had the acid-burned face.

[capricorn40]

Post by Edward McArdle
In article

Post by TMC
*No real concern of story continuity from movie to movie. The fact
that Bruce Wayne/Batman was played by three different actors over the
course of four films certainly doesn't help
*Killing off the villains save for Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy,
and to a lesser extent, Bane.

This is something you can do in movies, because there are so many
villains. You can't do it easily in comics because there are still
hundreds more issues to fill.

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

Post by TMC
*Spending more time developing or focusing on the villains (especially
in Tim Burton's movies, where even the normally mysterious Joker got a
full blown origin) instead of Bruce Wayne himself.

Totally disagree. Batman has always been about the villains, since 1938.
--
Edward McArdle

Frank Gorshin was a hard act to follow, but Carey wasn't really that
bad. I had a problem with Tommy Lee Jones.
However in a TV interview, Jones said Bob Kane was on set giving him
giving him direction on how to be Two-face, so what are you going to
do if the man that CREATED Two-face is there giving you personal
direction?

I just thought the writing was just not up to par. The actors choosen
were ok.

EB

[j***@bright.net]

Post by capricorn40

Post by Edward McArdle
In article

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

Frank Gorshin was a hard act to follow, but Carey wasn't really that
bad. I had a problem with Tommy Lee Jones.
However in a TV interview, Jones said Bob Kane was on set giving him
giving him direction on how to be Two-face, so what are you going to
do if the man that CREATED Two-face is there giving you personal
direction?
I just thought the writing was just not up to par. The actors choosen
were ok.

I'd considered a list of the performance I expected and the one we
from the actors:

Nicholson: "The Witches of Eastwick" -- "The Two Jakes"
Carey: fireman from "In Living Color" -- "Dumb and Dumber"
(If I could describe it, it would be more energy. Carey in particular
should be bouncing off the walls, the Frank Gorshin influence.)
I was only familiar with Tommy Lee Jones from "The Fugitive"
DeVito, I don't know... I think we'd been told the Penguin was going
to be a foundling and outcast, and I expected some likeability,
"Twins" if not "Throw Momma from the Train." I don't remember that we
saw any.

It just struck me. I haven't seen "Batman and Robin." Yay, me!

[Lilith]

Post by j***@bright.net

Post by capricorn40

Post by Edward McArdle
In article

Post by TMC
*Stunt casting big name actors to play the villains (e.g. Jack
Nicholson, Jim Carrey, Arnold Schwarzenegger) or any actor who has the
"it" factor at the moment (e.g. George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone)
regardless of whether or not they're truly "right" for the role.

I sort of agree, except for Nicholson, who I thought was excellent in the
role. Alicia Silverstone was (sorry!) too plump for the role.
What I didn't like was the complete misreading of the riddler as a psycho
kller. But Frank Gorshin was a bit hard to follow.
I did think that both Penguins, from the 1966 TV series, and the film,
were excellent.

Frank Gorshin was a hard act to follow, but Carey wasn't really that
bad. I had a problem with Tommy Lee Jones.
However in a TV interview, Jones said Bob Kane was on set giving him
giving him direction on how to be Two-face, so what are you going to
do if the man that CREATED Two-face is there giving you personal
direction?
I just thought the writing was just not up to par. The actors choosen
were ok.

I'd considered a list of the performance I expected and the one we
Nicholson: "The Witches of Eastwick" -- "The Two Jakes"
Carey: fireman from "In Living Color" -- "Dumb and Dumber"
(If I could describe it, it would be more energy. Carey in particular
should be bouncing off the walls, the Frank Gorshin influence.)
I was only familiar with Tommy Lee Jones from "The Fugitive"
DeVito, I don't know... I think we'd been told the Penguin was going
to be a foundling and outcast, and I expected some likeability,
"Twins" if not "Throw Momma from the Train." I don't remember that we
saw any.
It just struck me. I haven't seen "Batman and Robin." Yay, me!

Count yourself lucky. G4 has been doing an all day Batman marathon.

[Tim Turnip]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:29:29 -0700 (PDT), capricorn40

Post by capricorn40
Frank Gorshin was a hard act to follow, but Carey wasn't really that
bad. I had a problem with Tommy Lee Jones.
However in a TV interview, Jones said Bob Kane was on set giving him
giving him direction on how to be Two-face, so what are you going to
do if the man that CREATED Two-face is there giving you personal
direction?

Good question, but Kane would have been about 79 then, four years
before he died. Two-Face may well have been the one Batman villain
that Kane did solely create, so you'd think Kane would have known the
character better than to ask TLJ to play him as a giggling Joker-like
psychopath with barely any nods to his dual nature.

[Kenneth M. Lin]

To me the problem was that none of the movies were about Batman. they had
two villains in most of the movies and they spent half the running time on
their origins.

[Michael OConnor]

To me the problem was that none of the movies were about Batman.  they had
two villains in most of the movies and they spent half the running time on
their origins.

The Raimi Spiderman movies also devoted a lot of time to the origins
of the villains. As many of the people who are seeing the movie did
not read the comic books and did not know how Otto Octavius became
Doctor Octopus, it is necessary to devote time to the origins in most
cases. I have not seen the Dark Knight Rises yet, but in the first
two, Nolan did not explain the origins of the villains, other than the
Liam Neeson character was Wayne's mentor at one point who helped train
him to fight. No attempt was made to humanize the Joker, he was
simply just a psychopath.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Michael OConnor

To me the problem was that none of the movies were about Batman.  they had
two villains in most of the movies and they spent half the running time on
their origins.

The Raimi Spiderman movies also devoted a lot of time to the origins
of the villains. As many of the people who are seeing the movie did
not read the comic books and did not know how Otto Octavius became
Doctor Octopus, it is necessary to devote time to the origins in most
cases. I have not seen the Dark Knight Rises yet, but in the first
two, Nolan did not explain the origins of the villains, other than the
Liam Neeson character was Wayne's mentor at one point who helped train
him to fight. No attempt was made to humanize the Joker, he was
simply just a psychopath.

I would do away with origins for both heroes and villians in these movies.
Just start "in media res". If you want to refer to an origin, just do
it in dialog and move on: "How come you're so strong and can stick to
walls? Oh, I was bitten by a radioactive spider". Honestly, what more
do you need? Get the story moving!

[Jerry Brown]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Michael OConnor

To me the problem was that none of the movies were about Batman.  they had
two villains in most of the movies and they spent half the running time on
their origins.

The Raimi Spiderman movies also devoted a lot of time to the origins
of the villains. As many of the people who are seeing the movie did
not read the comic books and did not know how Otto Octavius became
Doctor Octopus, it is necessary to devote time to the origins in most
cases. I have not seen the Dark Knight Rises yet, but in the first
two, Nolan did not explain the origins of the villains, other than the
Liam Neeson character was Wayne's mentor at one point who helped train
him to fight. No attempt was made to humanize the Joker, he was
simply just a psychopath.

I would do away with origins for both heroes and villians in these movies.
Just start "in media res". If you want to refer to an origin, just do
it in dialog and move on: "How come you're so strong and can stick to
walls? Oh, I was bitten by a radioactive spider". Honestly, what more
do you need? Get the story moving!

When the Hulk was rebooted, the origin story was run under the opening
credits, rather than taking up space in the body of the film.

[Michael OConnor]

Post by Jerry Brown
When the Hulk was rebooted, the origin story was run under the opening
credits, rather than taking up space in the body of the film.

I thought that montage for the Edward Norton Hulk movie was effective
and was sufficient to explain his origin.

And in the Batman movie with Mr. Freeze, they didn't spend much time
on his origins, Batman and Robin watched the video film footage of him
falling into the tank of liquid nitrogen or whatever it was and after
that he was Mr. Freeze. Same with Two Face, they showed him getting
splashed with acid and that was all the origin of him. Now that I
think about it, in the case of Jim Carrey as the Riddler, the Edward
Nygma character was nutty as a fruitcake from the start of the movie,
but there was no single incident that transformed him into the
Riddler, he just started wearing the suit.

In some cases, getting into some detail on the origins of the villain
is a good thing. In the case of Doc Ock in the Spiderman 2 movie, he
was a good guy, but after the accident the arms controlled him, and
the movie handled it well in making him a sympathetic character who
redeemed himself in the conclusion.