• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is it just me or is Batman not a great hand-to-hand fighter in the Burtonverse?

Skipper

Skipper

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Taking advantage of Black Friday I bought the 4K collection of the 4 "Burtonverse" films and yesterday I saw the first one.

What I noticed was that more than "Batman," it was "Gadgetman." He won practically every single fight thanks to a Bat-thing. Only at the very end did he face one of Joker's henchmen barehanded, and after a lot of fighting, he narrowly won.

I know the IRL reason is that the costume didn't allow for much movement and that Keaton certainly didn't give the impression of an invincible martial artist, but it struck me, especially compared to the later films.

I have to say that in Flash, when they bring back this version of Batman, they make him much more capable in combat.
 
It was a good Burton movie, but Burton's movie wasn't really a Batman movie. Being a fan of Batman in the comics at the time, I left that movie very disappointed, primarily because of the reasons you mention above. I felt like I still had not seen Batman on screen.
 
Skipper said:
What I noticed was that more than "Batman," it was "Gadgetman." He won practically every single fight thanks to a Bat-thing. Only at the very end did he face one of Joker's henchmen barehanded, and after a lot of fighting, he narrowly won.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think they were all like that up until Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Might have something to do with the ratings they were hoping to achieve and the merchandising opportunities, and the kinds of violence they could show on screen. It's much more difficult to market toys to kids if it's a movie that can't be seen by them, for instance, and I remember the Burton Batman movies were much more marketed, and to some extent, they still are via T-Shirts and the like.
 
Skipper said:
Taking advantage of Black Friday I bought the 4K collection of the 4 "Burtonverse" films and yesterday I saw the first one.

What I noticed was that more than "Batman," it was "Gadgetman." He won practically every single fight thanks to a Bat-thing. Only at the very end did he face one of Joker's henchmen barehanded, and after a lot of fighting, he narrowly won.

I know the IRL reason is that the costume didn't allow for much movement and that Keaton certainly didn't give the impression of an invincible martial artist, but it struck me, especially compared to the later films.

I have to say that in Flash, when they bring back this version of Batman, they make him much more capable in combat.
Click to expand...
Considering the suit he wears, I'm amazed he can walk let alone fight.;)
 
Owain Taggart said:
To be honest, I think they were all like that up until Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Might have something to do with the ratings they were hoping to achieve and the merchandising opportunities, and the kinds of violence they could show on screen. It's much more difficult to market toys to kids if it's a movie that can't be seen by them, for instance, and I remember the Burton Batman movies were much more marketed, and to some extent, they still are via T-Shirts and the like.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the first Burton movie originally R?
 
Owain Taggart said:
To be honest, I think they were all like that up until Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Might have something to do with the ratings they were hoping to achieve and the merchandising opportunities, and the kinds of violence they could show on screen. It's much more difficult to market toys to kids if it's a movie that can't be seen by them, for instance, and I remember the Burton Batman movies were much more marketed, and to some extent, they still are via T-Shirts and the like.
Click to expand...
Yep, Bat-Gadgets were his stock and trade. A big part of the "gag" in Batman '66.
 
JD said:
Wasn't the first Burton movie originally R?
Click to expand...

Maybe depending on the country? In many ways, the original Tim Burton Batman patterned itself like a slightly more serious version of the Adam West batman, leaning heavily into the camp, and if it's got an R rating, it's likely due to Nicholson's Joker.
 
Owain Taggart said:
In many ways, the original Tim Burton Batman patterned itself like a slightly more serious version of the Adam West batman, leaning heavily into the camp,
Click to expand...

In retrospect, yes, but at the time, people were touting how much more serious and dark a take on Batman it was. In contrast to the Adam West show, it seemed serious and dark, but in contrast to the Nolan films or The Batman, it's extremely campy.
 
Well yes, that was exactly my point. It was definitely a darker take, but I think it's still one that managed to have just the right amount of camp for the late 80's. I think they hit the right balance that allowed them to market it appropriately. Pretty tame in comparison to modern standards though, but Jack Nicholson's Joker remains a standout.

IMHO, Batman Movies have become a little too dark for my liking. They've become progressively darker with each take.
 
Last edited:
I found a bunch of posters on IMDB and they all say PG-13, but I still swear I remember it being R at one point.
 
Owain Taggart said:
Well yes, that was exactly my point. It was definitely a darker take, but I think it's still one that managed to have just the right amount of camp for the late 80's.
Click to expand...

What I mean is, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Burton film deliberately "patterned itself like a slightly more serious version" of Batman '66. On the contrary, the express intention of the filmmakers was to repudiate Batman '66 altogether, to reject the character's reputation for campiness and offer a completely opposite, gritty, serious take. And at the time, that's how audiences perceived it.

After all, audiences and filmmakers at the time didn't want superheroes to be campy. Superhero fiction in general was still seen as disreputable and cheesy, largely because of the legacy of the Adam West series. It wasn't like today where the genre is reputable enough that it can afford to poke fun at itself. There was an urgent need for superheroes to be taken seriously to win respectability. So people latched onto the superficially darker and grittier elements of the Burton films as proof that this was a better, more serious and reputable take on Batman, and convinced themselves that the films weren't as campy as we can now recognize them to be.

Or at the very least, I guess, Burton wasn't trying to emulate '66, he was just filtering Batman through his own sensibilities and style -- which is definitely a flavor of camp, but one entirely his own, and owing more to Gothic cinema, German expressionism, and Hammer Horror than to William Dozier or Howie Horwitz. It was the Shumacher films that were deliberately trying to evoke '66.
 
Christopher said:
What I mean is, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Burton film deliberately "patterned itself like a slightly more serious version" of Batman '66. On the contrary, the express intention of the filmmakers was to repudiate Batman '66 altogether, to reject the character's reputation for campiness and offer a completely opposite, gritty, serious take. And at the time, that's how audiences perceived it.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I see it as a kind of an evolution. Still much closer to that version of Batman than any other iteration. Maybe not intentional, but its influence was still felt, even while they strove to make it grittier. In a way, it struck a good balance and felt grounded. Batman Returns, now that one was quite dark in tone compared to the first and actually drew complaints. There's a point where McDonalds had signed up to market Batman Returns and have Batman themed Happy Meals, but they got upset once they realized how dark the movie was and that they shouldn't have been marketing a movie to them that they shouldn't have been seeing. I think that's part of the reason they went with Schumacher with a different direction for the next one, but the difference with the Shumacher followups was that the camp was a little too much. I think he got a little carried away with it and were way less grounded.
 
Last edited:
JD said:
I found a bunch of posters on IMDB and they all say PG-13, but I still swear I remember it being R at one point.
Click to expand...
Uh? I'm not an expert on American rating system, but the violence is cartoonish, there is no drug and the sex is only implied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Turtletrekker
Section 31: Unintended Consequences
Replies
1
Views
3K
Turtletrekker
Turtletrekker
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top