"Oh, I guess you're only familiar with the new Batman movies. Michelle Pfeiffer...ha...the only true Catwoman is Julie Newmar, Lee Merriwether or Eartha Kitt. And I didn't need a molded plastic suit to improve my physique *Taps chest* Pure West. and how come Batman doesn't dance anymore, remember the Bat-tussi?"

who cares what burton thinks. It wasn't like he created the character. James Cameron created the terminator (or maybe ellison did) so his viewpoint on films is probably more relevant. west, burton keaton et al are just people paid to perform. I would be more interested in what Bob Kane and to a lesser extent Frank Miller has to say.

What I am saying is that Returns probably holds up a bit more since (a) it was darker in general and thus more in tune with the current incarnation of Batman and (b) Catwoman + penguin haven't been re-done yet so no way to compare and (c) Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was pretty damn good and I don't see a lot of ways on improving on it. Danny Devito with the Penguin was kinda lame though....but Nicholson's hammy performance as the Joker always bothered me (especially as the movie progressed) and Ledger's darker Joker is a hell of a lot more interesting than Nicholsons.

The real question is: What does Joel Schumacher think of the new films? He's the turd that ruined the franchise. I'd image he'd be more ashamed of what he created than anything after seeing the new interpretation of Batman.


To some extent I think Burton's Batman movies helped inspire Nolan's. I know I've heard the filmmakers of the new films have tried to distance themselves from the other batman movies but I think the '89 Batman had some influence on the new movies. Certain things like the darker tone of the movies to the batsuit seem like a kind of evolution from Burton's Batman movies.

the '89 Batman bores me to tears these days.

Oh My holy god. That's it. I've completely made up my mind on whether they should do a third. Yes. Do it. Have Catwoman in it. Then (as with Ledger-Joker's rape, murder, and corpse-disposal of Nicholson-Joker) we can finally end this retarded idea that Pfeiffer's Catwoman was somehow good, or even remotely accurate. As lame as this is, I'll quote myself from one of the other 57 Batman threads going on right now:



Can we please finally put this to rest. None of the villains from the old series - NOT ONE - is done right. Joker was chaneling Ceasar Romero with a little bit of "Jack" thrown in. Catwoman was turned into a bag lady (you know that co-worker of yours that you try not to talk to, but still try to treat nicely since you know one day she's going to come in with a MAC-10 and cut the office down?). Penguin was changed from a smart tactitionar who educated and refined himself to counter his appearance into a Fish-eating, grunting, oozing disgusting monster. I won't even dignify the bastardazation of Two-Face, Riddler, Bane, Freeze or Ivy by listing the ways they were disgraced in the Schumacher (spit!) debacles.

Can we be men? Can we finally come to an accord? can we reach a resolution that (as Ben Franklin would say) does not deem something new and different but simply acknowledges that which already is? Can we finally call a spade a spade and stop romanticizing crap? At long last, sir, can we have SOME decency?!


(ran it right off the rails there at the end, but you get my meaning )


-Doc

You don't have to insult me. Its my opinion that Pfeiffer did a hell of a job as Catwoman, and time nor repeated viewings hasn't changed my opinion of that. The first time I saw Nicholson's Joker I said it was funny but after about the 1,000 joke in the movie, boring.

Just because you disagree, you don't have to jump on me - you aren't the guardian of what is good or what is not good in terms of Batman performances. Your attempts at "comic book guy" about what is accurate and what is good is laughable, especially since the characters themselves have changed over the years.

Sorry, Doc. I'm going to have to disagree with you. While Catwoman was not portrayed as she has been in the comics, that does not mean the version of her in Batman Returns is BAD, simply different. I'm having this same argument with a friend of mine about Two Face in TDK. He's a different version of Two Face than we've seen in any other version of Batman, and that's not a bad thing. Michelle Pfeiffer did a great job and I can't take my eyes off her when she's on the screen in that role.

Can the next Batman movie feature Catwoman? Sure. Should she be different from the way Pfeiffer played her in Returns? Absolutely. But not because Pfeiffer was bad. It should be because these are new, different movies.

Sorry, dude. I thought you'd get that I was being hyperbolic on purpose, since any of these debates are inherently comic-book-guy-ish. It was supposed to be laughably absurd, and not douche-baggy.

I was simply (in the most ridiculous manner possible) pointing out that if we're going by faithfullness to the characters and accuracy in their portrayal, the two Burton films and ESPECIALLY the two Schumacher (spit!) films pooched things royally. Seriously no disrespect, Chanster. I thought winky-guy at the end made that clear. But since it wasn't, trust me - HUGE winky-guy. I'm just busting balls.



-Doc

No problem, doc.

I'd argue that Harvey in TDK is very similar to the Harvey of The Dark Knight Returns... but that's neither here nor there. I never said that Pfeiffer was bad... or rather I didn't mean to stress her acting over the conception of the character. The CHARACTER was bad. She was very good in playing that bad character, sure (she's good in everything, and I would have LOVED to see her play a more faithful Catwoman). I don't blame the actors for piss-poor Batman choices of the past (well, except for maybe Nicholson and Chris O'Donnell). I blame the writers/directors.




Appreciated. Cheers!


-Doc

Again, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the conception of Catwoman in Returns, either. Is it faithful to the comics? No. Does it work for the film in question? Yes.

Then again, I'm one of the few people who think that Returns is really just a giant homage to German Expressionism and that Penguin, Catwoman, and Batman represent a psychological triad that works on a symbolic level, which is why the film feels a little non-sensical on a literal level.

What I have been trying to say about Catwoman is I think of all the films, Returns was the most dark Schumacher movie, and if you try to take characters from that film and put them in the "Begins" universe, you will run into problems of "Been there done that" Maybe I'm wrong, the Nolans are pretty talented folks and could do it

Catwoman's movie origin story is definitely ripe for a redo as her transformation was always kinda stupid. But once she put on that Catwoman outfit - wow, sexy as hell and intriguing.

But see, I'm a comic purist. Does every event have to match up? No. Of course not. Did I call foul because Maroni didn't throw acid on Dent's face? No! The scarring happened in a way that fit much better into these films and this story. It's the core of the characters, though, that must be consistant (imho).




My friend, on this, we are in complete agreement.



-Doc

See, I always found the term "comic purist" funny, because all the big mainstream comics have ridiculous events where people die, come back to life, quit, come back, have their backs broken, heal, etc. And then there's reboots, newly redone origin stories, retcons, and so on and so forth. At least with the movie series the Catwoman makes internal sense with what else is going on.

As I said, I would love to see Nolan do the Catwoman closer to how she is in the comics. But that doesn't make Burton's version WRONG, just a new interpretation.

I'm sorry, Mallet. it's the end of the day and I'm not expressing myself properly because I'm tired and desperate to finish the crap I have to do (office nonsense, not talking to you guys ) so I can go home.

I agree with you in a certain regard. In fact, I'm torn on RETURNS. I've often said it's a great movie, just a terrible Batman movie. As a sort of, acid-trip dissection of Jung-ian archetypes filtered through the cracked-out mind of Burton? It's awesome. As a honest and respectful interprutation of time-honored characters? shite.

I, too, secretly hate the "purist" term. As I've said, I'm not looking for a chapter and verse representation. But I think that when you're dealing with characters who have stood the test of time for 60+ years, you should be respectful to the core of the character, the "mez un sen" of who and what the are. And that's when you're adapting ANY work of art. Another prime example is the Joker. Do I give one flying fig that he was not the Red Hood who jumped into a vat of chemicals that bleached his skin? Not at all! Because the Joker as played by Heath WAS the joker from the comics. He behaved like him, had the same motivation, the same outlook on life, the same bahavior toward Batman.

Again, this is just one fan's opinion. But I think that when adapting a character from one medium to the other, you should first and foremost be respectful of who and what the character stands for, what they believe in, how they behave. Burton's Catwoman did not do that.


-Doc

I thought Catwoman was really well done in Returns too

Okay, well clearly I'm not winning this one. My hope is that if Nolan does Catwoman in a third movie (if Nolan even DOES a third movie), then 3 years from now you'll all be going, Oh THAT'S what he meant! Wow, too true, Jack's Joker was terri... oh, I mean, Pfeiffer's Catwoman....



(just ball busting!)



-Doc

http://www.batman-on-film.com/burton...m_4-13-08.html

You know, I kind of hope some day they reboot the franchise again and someone else does a great job as Joker too. So people can act like this new performace can be the only interpretation of the character and Ledger's is somehow nullified (I know it probably won't happen, but some people did really love Nicholson's take).

It's ridiculous. I specificially like Burton and Nolan's movies because they are so different. I don't know why there even has to be a definitive element to either series (it's not like the comics are all that consistent anyway).

TDN is not the rule, it's the exception which proves the rule. People didn't come out to Batman because they were non-Batman fans who appreciate a "movie for adults". They came out because they are Batman fans who were hungry for a Batman movie done "right". Batman has often been the most popular when his stories have been dark.

Hope as much as you want, but TDK won't change anything, except maybe get studios to pay better attention to the popular aspects of popular source material.

IGN interviewed Burton a few years back, right as Begins came out (the interview was for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory mainly), and he said he wished he had been invited to the premiere since he was a part of/had a history with Batman.

EXCELLENT POINT!!
I thought that in 1989 though.

I know you meant Burton,right?

Yea, I actually thought Schumacher had a producer role in the first 2 movies, thus being the only guy who had his hands on all 4 of the movies. Guess he wasn't involved in the first two -