brayzie

Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.



Yeah, I hated that sepia toned city in Batman Begins. I felt the look of TDK was more realistic and more in line with what Nolan was trying to accomplish.

Mike86

I've always felt like Gotham fits more into a setting like London or something similar. At least some aspects feel that way to me as far as the architecture and styles go. I think the more American city feel works better for Metropolis.

DaveyJoe

Gotham's supposed to be in New Jersey.

stvn1974

Gothan is supposed to look like it is in a comic book. That is why I prefer the two Burton and Schumaker films.

DaveyJoe

Not really. Batman transcends the comic book medium. Batman has been a part of pop culture entertainment since the Lewis Wilson serials from the 1940s, decades before comic books were considered mainstream. Generations of Batman fans were introduced to the character from the Adam West series, or Batman: The Animated series from the 90s, or the Burton/Schumaker films, without ever picking up a comic book. The comics don't even maintain a consistent look for Gotham, with each artist giving it his own spin, it makes sense that the movies would take inspiration from comics but more importantly create their own unique vision. The Nolan films are the most critically acclaimed and successful Batman films and they moved away from the fantastical look of Gotham, only upsetting a few bitter internet trolls.

brayzie

Gotham City isn't even consistent in the comic books. You got Jim Lee drawing it one way, complete with zepplins, Mazzuchelli drawing it like NYC in Taxi Driver, etc.

Mike86

I know it's not actually supposed to be London I'm just saying the city's design reminds me of something from across the pond more than being a US city. You're right though there are multiple designs for it. That's the one nice thing with DC is that the universe and where the stories take place are fictional so don't have to completely fit one specific city or area.

Troy Stiffler

Batman Returns turns 25 today. How about that?

Go to Twitter for all the gifs you could want.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Batm...ns%22&src=tren

Daytripper

Yep! I pulled it off the shelf to watch again after all this talk about it here. I too kind of hated it when I saw it in the theaters. Rented it again about a year later, didn't like it much more. Purchased the Blu Ray a few months ago for around $6.99. So it was my third time ever seeing it. And, I liked it a lot more than the first two times. Odd. I do recall the critics and parents at the time slamming it for being too dark. Specifically pointing out putting babies in harm's way and it scaring kids. The Penguin being tossed in the river as a baby and then later, the Mayor's baby being thrown around.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/batman-...120606098.html

GoldenJCJ

I think that's what I liked about the Batman Begins Gotham. It uses just enough mishmash of different cities and styles to be a unique city. The cities of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises lost that creativity by making the cities look exactly like Chicago and Pittsburgh (TDKR is complete with Hines Ward mugging for the camera just to hammer home the fact that it's Pittsburgh).

I suppose by putting all three of the cities together throughout the trilogy you still get that mixture of various cities to create Gotham but taking the movies individually, Batman Begins wins for me.

DaveyJoe

I thought the London and Chicago architecture really clashed with each other, and didn't feel cohesive. With the other movies the city-hopping was less obvious. I guess it might suck if you're really familiar with Chicago/Pittsburgh, but Gotham of the sequels felt much more in line with Nolan's tone.

Ky-Fi

I picked up the 4-film blu ray collection cheap, and gave this a spin last night. I honestly don't even remember if I saw it when it was released.

A lot of times a movie turns out bad because of a lack of focus, or bad direction of a good screenplay, or good direction of a flawed script--but in this case, it's like the focus was clear and the screenwriters and director were all on the same page, working towards the same vision. And that vision was crap.

I'm tempted to compare it to Waterworld, but at least Waterworld was nicely filmed and had some well-done action sequences. Batman and Robin had some interesting sets, and a couple of the set-pieces worked, but the look of the film was largely headache-inducing. And aside from the terrible dialogue, incoherent story and too many characters--the action was by and large not very good at all.

Shumacher should apologize, because it's not a poorly made film--it's a well-made film of an absolutely awful artistic vision.

inri222

Usually the first one yields better results.

Ky-Fi

Yeah, wasn't it Kurosawa who said you couldn't make a good movie out of a bad screenplay?