Dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner....

[Simey]

So is it: the 1966, putting-the-COMIC-in-comic-book version; one of Tim Burton's brooding, gothic efforts; a Joel Schumacher barrel of excess; an animated movie perhaps; a taking-the-super-and-the-hero-out-of-superhero Christopher Nolan take; or maybe something else that I've forgotten?

Polls are a bit dull if you don't say why, so please do.

And if you have the time and you like lists as much as I do, why not try and rank them in order? What could be more fun?


EDIT: I've immediately caused myself a problem in that I can't decide between two of them....

[eviltb]

You forgot the animated Return of the Joker. Best in show.

[Simey]

I knew I'd miss something!

Has that got Mark Hamill doing the voice of the Joker? He's supposed to be very good at that!

[Black Cat]

(Takes Robin's voice) Holy movie series! A poll!

I can't vote right now since the only Batman movies I saw were the 1966 one and Batman Begins. As for the others, I only remember seeing parts of them on TV. I do plan to see The Dark Knight soon, so maybe I'll vote after that.

[eviltb]

Correct Simey. It was a toss-up between RotJ (no, not that one) or Phantasm for me, but Joker won it. Although I guess, really, you cant count Return as technically its a Batman Beyond film, so I guess I should actually vote for Phantasm.

[Simey]

Aug 9, 2008 2:17:12 GMT -5 eviltb said:

Although I guess, really, you cant count Return as technically its a Batman Beyond film, so I guess I should actually vote for Phantasm.

A Batman Beyond film? Does that mean Batman's not in it or something?

[eviltb]

Yea he is, Bruce Wayne as an old man. The "new" Batman is Terry McGinnis. Explained here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond

[Doomy]

Have any of you seen any of the 1940s adaptations? I'm not sure if they're movies or series, but I'm guessing they're probably awful.

[zipp]

Batman Begins was it for me. I think that ovie had the most substance, detailing the rise (and fall, in a way) of Batman and documenting his effect on Gotham.

Dark Knight was entertaining, but it really revolved a lot around the spectactle of the villains and had a less solid script.

[huntingmoon]

The Dark Knight. It expanded on the premise of Batman Begins and really captures, in my opinon, the core struggles of Batman. Like does him dressing like a Bat help or hinder Gotham? They were presented in Begins but Dark Knight is where they flower.

[Beowuuf]

Yeah, I like how the dark knight showed the new level of the fight, both of batman with himself and gotham city had with itself and its past. The idea that gotham had broken free of its previous doldrums of moral decay, but it was a fragile thread of decency it had found.

Similarly, as HM said, it shows how batman and the forces that then fight against batman set up a new equilibrium with only the more insane vilains, who would not have gained a foothold in the old corrupt reign of the mob, coming to the fore

The Joker could have simply been, as in the tim burton batman (not that I am knocking it) a simply insane villain to fight. Instead, the joker was incisively attacking both gotham and batman exactly where it hurt would, spiritually, hurt. He wanted more than just to destroy things physically, he wanted to destroy the core of what they could be, he did not believe in the 'hypocracy' or it - a more complex reasons than sheer villainy. So I felt that there was a sub-text to most of the plot, even when it wasn't lampshad by the joker.

[Simey]

I have given a name to my fave, and it is Batman.

I have made up my mind at last. I watched Batman Returns yesterday and although I love it just as much as Batman, it's not as good a Batman film as Batman, so for that flimsy reason I've gone for Batman (1989).

I agree that the new ones have bags of substance and they are to applauded for it - how often do you get blockbusters with actual, you know, ideas, in them? They are very good and I may well grow to like them more, but I'm still at the moment niggled a little by the very serious, as-realistic-as-possible tone trying to accomodate the comic-book elements - the two don't quite marry for me.

Whilst the new ones are about the effects of Batman and his symbolism on Gotham City, and how that in turns affects the nature of the dominant villains, the Tim Burton films were more introspective, concerned far more with the individuals than with the city.

Much though we all know Batman is the good guy 'cause we've heard of him before, I love the way Batman starts out with Batman and Jack Napier having a similar relationship with the law and having them diverge from each other as the film goes on. Batman survives as a person because he succeeds in reconciling - to an extent - the two sides of his personality, whilst the Joker never does and the insanity and irrationality that comes from that could be seen as his downfall.

Batman Returns takes on similar material, but has the interesting contrast of Bruce Wayne's love interest this time being a duality-prone 'freak' like Bruce/Batman himself in the shape of Catwoman, and the way that she exists somewhere between hero and villain further complicates things and enhances the interplay and comparisons between the characters.

Of course, they are hardly quiet, intimate character studies, played out as they are against a background of poison-gas filled parade balloons, a machine-gun-toting circus mob and a mass of rocket-launching penguins (you gotta love it!), but they do somehow manage to balance interesting character stuff with comic-book lunacy and massive explosions.

Thinking about it, it's amazing the variety of quality films - not to mention comic-books and TV series - that can stem from a single character invented in the 1930s. It's fascinating how different people can have such different and yet entirely valid takes on Batman. And I guess it goes to show what a stonking character concept he was in the first place.

[Beowuuf]

I think it's because Batman is based, at the end of the day, on a man who is just a man, with the support of technology you can sort of believe in, and his brain, instead of super powers. So you can go as over the top superhero as you like, he can exist in that world, his foes are over the top villains , so you can have as much fun as you like. But there is also the potential to go in many other directions, since at the heart of the story you don't have to throw around 'coming from other planets' or 'mutations' etc into the central character drama, which always means you have to gain some audience suspention of disbelieve. With batman you do indeed have a great central core of a character to play with.

People rag on Batman Forever, but it was a bridge between the two styles, Sure it introduced the more campy fun aspects back as nods to the old series, but it still nodded to the dark undertones and fight of batman with himself - where Val Kilmer outlines to robin exactly the path he is starting on going after two-face, for example. Just a shame that opened flood gate of going back to comicy campiness lead to Batman and Robin

[Simey]

Aug 10, 2008 0:36:32 GMT -5 Beowuuf said:

I think it's because Batman is based, at the end of the day, on a man who is just a man, with the support of technology you can sort of believe in, and his brain, instead of super powers.....With batman you do indeed have a great central core of a character to play with.

Yeah, I think that's why he's so great compared to a lot of comic-book superheroes. Though Superman's done very well for himself with regards to number of film and TV adaptions, and I think he stems from a similar era. Personally, I do kind of find Superman a bit uninteresting because he does seem to be able to do pretty much anything unless someone happens to show up with some kryptonite. Spiderman's a nice half-way house in that he has great - and very fun - powers, but they are not unlimited and he as Peter Parker is a very socially awkward character, so the angst that comes from the difficult reconciliation of the two personas gives him a vulnerability as a whole person that he might not have if he was just Spiderman. And Spiderman 2 is such an awesome film!

People rag on Batman Forever, but it was a bridge between the two styles

The main problem I had with Batman Forever at the cinema was that the camera twists and turns were so wild that half the time I didn't know what was happening. I remember particularly at the end having no idea who was falling down where and how Batman had saved them. On the small screen it's more bearable and if I watched it now, I expect it might seem quite tame.

I think the dark-ish tone that the writing still had was a hang-over from the Tim Burton days - I think he was still involved somewhere in the background - but the film had a director who naturally leant away from that towards flashy excess, so it's a funny one, Batman Forever - not terrible, but a bit of a mess.

[eviltb]

A little asisde, Batman Forever may have set up the awful Batman & Robin, but dont discount Val Kilmers role in this. He actually played Bruce Wayne/Batman very well, and it is a little known fact that Kilmers version of the 2 roles was actually Bob Kanes favourite.....