I do agree that Batman can do anything...here is proof of that:

Like I said: Bats may not be the most original, creative, etc., but I think he's the most durable.

Without even blinking an eye? Any of the major (and most of the minor) works of Shakespeare. Robin Hood. Gilgamesh. Odysseus. Agamemnon. Orestes. Don Quixote. Rasputin. I could go on.


Even if you stick with only superhero characters, I think Superman is more versatile within different contexts than Batman.

Nope. Shakespeare's plays have been set in different times and places, and that works, yes. But it's not the same as having different stories with different tones set in different times and places. Those are still singular stories being told and it's the stories--not the characters--who are durable. Same thing with the Greek characters on your list. When someone tells the story of MacBeth Returns and Odysseus: The Brave and the Bold, get back to me. Otherwise, the various settings for the stories isn't evidence that the specific characters are durable.

Robin Hood, I submit, is similar to Sherlock Holmes. There are conventions that must be respected. You can take him out of medieval England, but he still needs to be an outlaw thwarting King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. I'll grant you that in film there's been plenty of room for everything from the swashbuckling Errol Flynn to the goofy Disney version and this year's historically conscious version. Probably the most durable on your list as a character but it's difficult to imagine his world crossing with that of, say, Dracula. (Though I have to say, I would go see that movie.)

And, yes, there have been some stories told about Holmes outside Victorian London. But it's awfully risky, which is why it hasn't been done regularly. Batman's Gotham City, however, has constantly updated with the times of publication. The Gotham in Bob Kane & Bill Finger's stories isn't the same as that of Neal Adams & Denny O'Neil's stories. Holmes, however, is more often than not shown in a London of a specific era and the reason for that is that it's just sort of expected.

Don Quixote? I confess to not being familiar with numerous stories being told about the guy with different tones, settings, etc. (What can I say? I already conceded I do, in fact, need to read more fiction!)

And fiction can't claim Rasputin. That guy was real, you know.

The range of stories is comparable once you factor in things like the changing styles of comics over the years (crime noir; science fiction; adventure; etc.), TV series, movies, etc. We've seen Superboy stories and there's no equivalent of Smallville. But I would argue that Batman is more developed as a character; we've been privy to the interior thoughts of both, and Superman is generally just an in-the-moment do-gooder. He wakes up in the morning being Superman without having done anything, whereas Bruce Wayne wakes up driven by obsession. Just being in shape enough to go out and do what he does requires a psychological complexity that Superman doesn't possess because he doesn't need it. But you may be right about the Man of Steel.

I believe I have no choice now but to capitulate.

This movie is an anomaly. There are really really great moments throughout even though it 'fails' wherever else, but at this point 'failing' has become such a subjective thing and i don't even know the fuck it exactly fails at. It's like the Superman III syndrome. Also just to throw it out there the TDK trilogy is in no way any arbiter template on how to judge Batmovies against, it is rife with its own problems and is merely a different take on the character. I do like Burtonman 1 and Westman as well just to throw it to there.

Yeah Kilmer was really awesome in the role . . . the Badguys especially Carrey were really good even though they were all doing Joker impressions. Most importantly is the whole "atmosphere" of this Batworld is probably the best [even though there's lots of stupid little things like the beginning of buttshots etc.]. The Burtonbats were too… Burton-y. B&R was awful, TDK trilogy too dry. But with Forever they really got this pulp like atmosphere down pat. Probably most important was the dynamics between all the characters, the relationships between Kilmer and O'Donnell, between Kilmer and Kidman, between Carrey and Jones.

Oh and i just tripped myself out because the Batctors surname's are all either with a K/C sound or one letter before, B [bale], or one more before A [affleck].

Nothing to add to this discussion other than this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tb82DpfVIhU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

See this is the type of shit i love! That was a great smile at the end. It was this peppering of humor throughout! Way better than the TDK trilogy where people looked like they were about to cut their own wrists any second.

Batman Returns had a similar scene between Bruce and Selina ("does this mean we have to start fighting?").

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eeEz9oE17ac?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Heck, even Max Shreck's line about Bruce's "costume" was paraphrased by Selina Kyle in TDKR.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ioQiparmEns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Is that wrong though?

Batman has been many things. Nolan's was one thing and it grabbed the most people.

Batman Forever was and still is just fucking awful. Not B&R awful, but just plain bad. People love their big shiny neon-glo formulaic predictability, I guess...

I've always thought that Batman Forever was somewhat underrated. There are definitely some bad parts to it that make you shake your head, but Val Kilmer made an OK if wooden Batman. The movie had a comic book style to it, hell we give Dick Tracy a pass for making it look like a comic strip, I don't know why we won't give this movie one. Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carey were way over the top, but I think that making the movie have a more goofy and light tone makes sense do to the introduction of Robin.

Really all four Batman movies are really similar to the comics because each one has a different feel to it. Batman was like someone's take on the original Batman stories. Return's was Tim Burton's take on Batman, Forever was a homage to the 60's and the Bill Finger stories. And B&R was someone's idea of how to sell toys. Though I would still love to see a directors cut of this. I'm actually really surprised that WB hasn't done one yet.

Who do you think you are? Does this mean we have to start fighting? Well, i understand. …..

While this wasn't a great Batman, it was a fun movie with a lighter tone after the Burtonfest that was Batman Returns.

I also remember the credits listing that Bob Kane himself was a creative consultant on it, which I found really cool.

A much better film than it's given credit for. Now that's not saying it's perfect but I think it got a lot right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, of all the Burton and Schumacher films this one provides the best story focusing on Batman/Bruce Wayne. Also I thought the origin of Robin/Dick Grayson was decently handled and didn't mind Chris O'Donnell in the role.

Where the film runs into it's biggest weaknesses if you ask me is when it comes to the villains. Carrey as The Riddler wasn't terrible but he also felt like he was trying to match Nicholson's take on The Joker. Tommy Lee Jones was bad as Two Face all around though. He was made into too much of a lackey for The Riddler and came off as a bitch character basically. Another thing that I didn't like was all the neon colors it introduced into Gotham. If there's one thing Burton got right it was his version of Gotham (particularly in Batman as opposed to Batman Returns which looked way more fake and you can tell is a set).

Overall though I do like the film a lot. It's much better than the shitfest that is Batman Returns. Why people gush over that overrated Burton feakshow film I'll never understand. I think that Batman Forever would benefit the most of the Burton/Schumacher films from a director's cut. I know there are some deleted scenes that seem like they'd work pretty well in the actual film and some stuff that could also be cut. It's too bad we'll likely never get a new version of the film though.

Batman Forever is my least favorite batman interpretation in the whole history of Batman. And yes I rather watch Batman & Robin over forever any day simply because by that time nobody cared anymore and just decided to make a comedy.

Batman Forever is just a shitty movie trying to disguise itself as a continuation of the Burton films

He agrees :

Batman Returns has epic production design - German expressionism design. Those compositions are fantastic, too. The script, not so much, but I can watch BR with the sound off and it will be awesome.

I Really love BR. As a kid and as an adult. Not sure what all the hate is about for it but it is a solid flick for me. One of those few films that handle the multiple villain kind of thing.

It's not my preferred take on the characters but as it is I do think its solid with a few missteps.

The biggest problem with Batman Returns to me is that it's all style over substance. The film looks cool yes, but as a Batman film it's shit all around. It basically feels like Burton just said "I want to make this as goth as possible" and just made a weird film that doesn't even feel like a Batman film but more like some feakshow film using Batman characters. Plus Batman himself is basically third fiddle to Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck.

Agreed on all points.

I also hated Catwoman's origin. She is shoved off a skyscraper, then is revived by alley cats. And then she gets 9 lives. Stupid. I'll take an S&M hooker over Burton's character anytime (both in movies and in real life).

Hated the whole Penguin for mayor subplot. Hated how he was able to control penguins and attach rockets to them. Hated how he was able to control the Batmobile remotely.

Still slightly better than BATMAN FOREVER, which is only slightly better than BATMAN AND ROBIN.

Fuck German expressionism.

Tell me how you really feel.