• 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!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

I disregard them as poor versions of the character based on Burton's hangups which were put front and center, much in the way I do the same with other misguided adaptations of superhero characters.

Which version of Batman is the "real" Batman?
The gun toting '30s-'40s Batman who murdered criminals?
The campy '60s TV version?
Or the Frank Miller '80s "Dark Knight" version.
Aren't creators allowed to create and put their own interpretation of characters out for the public to enjoy, instead of sticking to a rigid "formula"?
Tim Burton's Batman is no more or less "right" than any of the others I just mentioned.
 
Returns remains the best Batman movie ever made (with the caveat that I haven't seen Reeves's Batman film -- though I have little expectation it would surpass Burton's mad masterpiece).
 
The gun toting '30s-'40s Batman who murdered criminals?

That's exaggerated. He only carried a gun a few times in early issues, often simply in cover art, and most of his uses of guns were not against people. He did occasionally kill in the heat of battle in other ways, e.g. in one case by kicking down a window frame that shattered someone's neck beneath it, but the most notable instance of gunplay was when he strafed trucks containing Hugo Strange's mutant monsters and expressed regret that taking life was necessary. That very story, less a year into Batman's existence, resulted in the editors cracking down on the violence and making Batman nonlethal, except in instances where villains fell to their deaths by mishap (and were often revealed in subsequent stories to have survived). By the mid-'40s, he was clearly defined as a hero who never used guns or took life. Your typical Batman story from about 1943 onward was virtually indistinguishable in tone and format from a Batman '66 2-parter, except that the comics' Batman and Robin joked around with each other far more than West and Ward's ultra-serious heroes.
 
Which version of Batman is the "real" Batman?

Not Burton's miscasting extravaganza, to be sure.

Nolan was the first filmmaker to put a Batman on screen that not only acted like the best of the character, but--of course--appeared like one would expect from a Batman if he existed in the real world.
 
That's exaggerated. He only carried a gun a few times in early issues, often simply in cover art, and most of his uses of guns were not against people. He did occasionally kill in the heat of battle in other ways, e.g. in one case by kicking down a window frame that shattered someone's neck beneath it, but the most notable instance of gunplay was when he strafed trucks containing Hugo Strange's mutant monsters and expressed regret that taking life was necessary. That very story, less a year into Batman's existence, resulted in the editors cracking down on the violence and making Batman nonlethal, except in instances where villains fell to their deaths by mishap (and were often revealed in subsequent stories to have survived). By the mid-'40s, he was clearly defined as a hero who never used guns or took life. Your typical Batman story from about 1943 onward was virtually indistinguishable in tone and format from a Batman '66 2-parter, except that the comics' Batman and Robin joked around with each other far more than West and Ward's ultra-serious heroes.
There was also an early issue where he hung a guy from the bottom of the Batplane.
 
There was also an early issue where he hung a guy from the bottom of the Batplane.

That was the same Hugo Strange mutant monster story I mentioned, the one whose excesses led the editors to crack down on the violence going forward. It was published 13 months after Batman's debut, in the first issue of his self-titled comic. So Batman's early, pulpishly violent phase only lasted about a year, despite a lot of the deceptive claims out there from fans with agendas.
 
I didn't know that, I've just read references to the incident and seen the panel with the silhouette of the guy hanging underneath the Batplane.
 
I didn't know that, I've just read references to the incident and seen the panel with the silhouette of the guy hanging underneath the Batplane.

Context is everything, as my father liked to say. Especially online, where there are lots of people who twist the meaning of snippets taken out of context. For some reason, there are a lot of people who fetishize violent superheroes and falsely claim that it was Batman's "true" nature throughout the Golden Age, rather than just first-year weirdness that was already gone before we even got the Batmobile, Batcave, Alfred, etc.
 
Context is everything, as my father liked to say. Especially online, where there are lots of people who twist the meaning of snippets taken out of context. For some reason, there are a lot of people who fetishize violent superheroes and falsely claim that it was Batman's "true" nature throughout the Golden Age, rather than just first-year weirdness that was already gone before we even got the Batmobile, Batcave, Alfred, etc.
Yeah, I don't get that either. For me a big part of appeal of characters like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, ect. is that they don't just instantly kill their enemies. Not that I have a problem with heroes who kill, I'm a big James Bond fan, and NCIS: LA is one of my favorite shows and it's characters have a pretty massive body count. It's just sometimes nice to get a hero isn't so ruthless all the time.
 
Same here. The appeal of Superman, for me, is that his problems are very rarely resolved through brute strength of force alone--he has to out think his foes or win through cunning.
 
I didn't know that Hugo Strange had made such an early appearance in the comics.
Probably the last or one the last GA villains to return. When he popped again in the 70s I had no idea who he was

Deadshot also probably holds a record between his first and second appearance - 29 years. He first appeared in 1950, then made his second appearance in 1979 in an issue I just so happen to have.
Interestingly enough, the "ghost" of Hugo Strange makes an appearance as well as a teasing laugh from the Joker in one of the last panels, setting up his return appearance after a brief absence.
 
I didn't know that Hugo Strange had made such an early appearance in the comics.

Oh, yes -- Hugo Strange was Batman's first recurring antagonist, debuting two months before the Joker, and appearing 3 times in 1940 vs. Joker's 5. After that, he vanished until Steve Englehart brought him back in the '70s.


Same here. The appeal of Superman, for me, is that his problems are very rarely resolved through brute strength of force alone--he has to out think his foes or win through cunning.

Which is why I hated The Death of Superman, because it reduced Superman to brute force. Doomsday may have surpassed his strength, but it was totally mindless, so Superman should've been able to think his way to a solution instead of just punching.

Man of Steel had much the same problem. Its Superman didn't think for himself; he just followed the instructions of whatever authority figure was on hand, whether it was The Worst Pa Kent Ever, Ghost Jor-El (the actual hero of the movie), some random priest, or even Zod himself. When Zod told him "You have to kill me," Superman didn't think of a better way, he just obeyed an older man's instructions like he'd been doing all movie. He won the physical fight, but he did so by letting Zod win the philosophical fight, because he lacked the moral strength to stand up for his own philosophy and find a better way. Which is, again, reducing Superman to physical force and forgetting his where real strength lies.
 
Yeah, I don't get that either. For me a big part of appeal of characters like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, ect. is that they don't just instantly kill their enemies. Not that I have a problem with heroes who kill, I'm a big James Bond fan, and NCIS: LA is one of my favorite shows and it's characters have a pretty massive body count. It's just sometimes nice to get a hero isn't so ruthless all the time.
Its not about "instantly" killing their enemies, but a decision based on the act being the only choice. In Man of Steel, there was no way to talk Zod out of his attempt to incinerate a family in the second he was trying to. This was no Donner film, where the goofy villain could be plucked by the collar and deposited in jail like laundry delivery. Quite the opposite: Zod--a more experienced and arguably more powerful Kryptonian was not not going to be reasoned with (made clear by the plan he set in motion), which was a great mirror of real life, as anyone who had the misfortune of dealing with violent or murderous individuals knows there's going to be some who--under no circumstances--are going to listen to assumed "reason" or be talked down from committing violent acts. This is the why anyone who actually watched MoS (without their self-imposed cartoon expectations of superhero characters) understood Superman's last-second decision; he did not kill Zod because that's his habit or desire. He killed when there were no alternatives in-universe. It was a powerful, effective scene, that did not water down consequences in order to fit Superman into a selective cartoon box which would not fit with the nature of the story, with its serious subject matter.

The same applies to MCU Captain America (Rogers); despite some seeing him as the most "golly gee"/"milk drinking" type of characters, he--like Superman--knew when killing was necessary. In The First Avenger, there was no negotiating, trapping or stopping the Red Skull. None. Millions were minutes away from death, and Rogers was dealing with a man Hell-bent on mass destruction. Rogers boarded the Valkyrie to kill the Red Skull, not negotiate with him, or go in with some psychobabble attempting to talk him down. The audience understood that because they were mature enough not to expect cartoon solutions to grave problems. In The Winter Soldier, when it was time to stop the Hydra-controlled carriers, Rogers did not hesitate in killing any who got in his way, with one exception--Bucky--because he knew his friend had survived, but there's no doubt he would have killed the Winter Soldier if the man behind the mask was some unnamed assassin.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top