Hot Toys Announce Batman Returns License

[VintijDroidGutzz]

Isn't that the little dude from GOTG?

 

[Khev]

I'm guessing Furry Vengeance.

 

[Cap'n Cook]

What else can they do? If he took it off with it on he would look like this.

The same situation applies to the Nolan universe. They never showed Bales face right out of the cowl. In Batman Begin, after he sedates Rachel, he takes of his cowl but the camera is behind him.

They do in Rises. And magic: the black is gone.

A necessary 'evil'.

 

[Leon 911]

In all fairness, grouping how a character is treated in the Burton and Schumacher films isn't really fair. Sure, Gordon comes across as little more than comic relief in Batman & Robin... but so does Batman for the most part. Does that mean we should consider him a buffoon as well since you are grouping Burton and Schumacher together?

I don't believe Gordon comes across like this at all in '89 and Returns. Though we don't get to see much of him (more on that in a bit), I never caught a moment of him being a "bumbling idiot" in either film. In '89 especially, I think we see him more as a clean cop trying to do his best in a town filled with corruption. Him trying to get the drop on the dirty cop Eckhardt, walking into the firefight at Axis, first on the scene at the cathedral, etc etc etc... Every moment we see of Gordon in '89 portrays him as a commissioner doing his best to clean up the town while rationalizing what he thinks of this new Batman character... Hardly a bumbling idiot.

As to the Nolan films spending more time on the character... I think sometimes people forget what kind of a task Burton and the producers of '89 Batman faced back in the day. They didn't have the benefit of knowing comic films worked, or a public that was already familiar with how the comic versions of these characters were portrayed and interacted, or even that comics weren't just "kid stuff"... The public at large knew Batman as the Adam West TV show. Putting out a Batman film that totally went against the public's perception of the character, bringing it back to its essence, meant that a lot of time had to be spent on the main characters- Batman and Joker. Pretty much every scene in 1989 Batman is used to do this task. Shoehorning in more Gordon stuff would have cut away at any time the filmmakers needed to get Batman back to what he was and erase the sigma of the 60's show. Given the whole view of what that film had to accomplish, sacrificing time on secondary characters was the right move.

Nolan had the benefits of knowing comic films worked. He had the benefit of the Burton films flipping the public's opinion of Batman from the campy 60's version back to the Dark Knight (as evidenced by the crash and burn of the campy Batman & Robin). He had the benefit of comics being more in the public eye. He had the benefit of Batman The Animated Series (and successive shows) introducing and expanding the secondary characters to a mainstream audience, pushing them into almost first-string status. With all that groundwork done for him, spending more time Gordon makes more sense as his films didn't face quite the uphill battle that Burton's did in their day.

Sallah

Long quote... Whatever the reason bottom line remains the same... The character came out nothing like gordon / oldman did. So we can go in circles justifying why, what etc... Doesnt change the fact.....

 

[kl241]

Oldman was the most accurate depiction of Gordon. Hingle was more like one of those old Hollywood noirish heavies.

 

[sallah]

Long quote... Whatever the reason bottom line remains the same... The character came out nothing like gordon / oldman did. So we can go in circles justifying why, what etc... Doesnt change the fact.....

That was in reply to someone comparing the two, so circumstances would matter. I just think its unfair to blast one in favor of the other without thinking about the reasons why one had an easier road to travel.

Sallah

 

[TheFiend]

^ I don't know what that has to do with Grodon.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

 

[sallah]

^ I don't know what that has to do with Grodon.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

Go back a few pages to see the whole convo. Someone stated something to the effect of Gordon being a bumbling idiot in the Burton/ Schumacher films and great in the Nolan trilogy. That quote up there was my reply.

Sallah

 

[Leon 911]

That was in reply to someone comparing the two, so circumstances would matter. I just think its unfair to blast one in favor of the other without thinking about the reasons why one had an easier road to travel.

Sallah

That way... You shld start researching which director had less money, which actor had an head ache on a certain day, etc etc... This is a business and bottom line remains that no one ever touched the subject of jim the way nolan did and no one did as good a job as oldman did. I know there is a big split between jack nicolson and heath as well on the joker front. Growing up watching jack and while i think he is superb, few good men etc and was awesome in batman ... No one comes close to heat ledger joker. There are things we can debate and thats great and difference of view is fantastic but i rather not give reasons for why a certain character was not given attention by the director / script and still is comparable to someone who really projected it darn well.

 

[sallah]

That way... You shld start researching which director had less money, which actor had an head ache on a certain day, etc etc... This is a business and bottom line remains that no one ever touched the subject of jim the way nolan did and no one did as good a job as oldman did. I know there is a big split between jack nicolson and heath as well on the joker front. Growing up watching jack and while i think he is superb, few good men etc and was awesome in batman ... No one comes close to heat ledger joker. There are things we can debate and thats great and difference of view is fantastic but i rather not give reasons for why a certain character was not given attention by the director / script and still is comparable to someone who really projected it darn well.

Uhhh... What? This has nothing to do with budgets, headaches, or whatever. This has to do with the task at hand with the time provided. Bottom line here- Burton had A LOT more to overcome when it came to creating a Batman movie true to the character's origin than Nolan did. The public view at large when Burton's hit was of the 66 show- Biff, bam, pow and all that. With that in mind, the main focus has to go with the main characters and establishing them as what they are supposed to be. Secondary characters become just that- Secondary. This is also a time before Batman the Animated Series, major comic films, Justice League, etc for secondary characters to really be firmly established in the public. Nolan didn't have to be concerned with any of that, and benefited from a more public awareness of both how Batman was intended to be and his cast of secondary characters... including getting to spend more time with Gordon.

What I am saying here is that there isn't anything wrong with Burton's Gordon. From what you see in the films, there isn't any reason to think of him as anything less than the Jim Gordon from the comics... Burton just didn't have the luxuries Nolan did to explore it more. But to call him a bumbling idiot? There is nothing in either Burton film to back that up. That is my point.

Oh, and for the record... Since you brought it up, I 100% prefer Jack's Joker. To me that is "Comic Joker". Heath's Joker is a "real world" take on the character...pretty divorced from what he is in the comic. That is something I myself don't prefer. But again- Different strokes for different folks. You prefer Nolan's take on stuff? Great. More power to you. It isn't my favorite though, and stating it is better as a fact or calling Burton's interpretations of certain individuals as "bumbling idiots" isn't going to change my mind.

Sallah

 

[TheFiend]

Go back a few pages to see the whole convo. Someone stated something to the effect of Gordon being a bumbling idiot in the Burton/ Schumacher films and great in the Nolan trilogy. That quote up there was my reply.

Sallah

Yeah, I read all of that.

I don't see how Burton having this up hill battle has anything to do with Nolan's take on Gordon.

Nevermind. I think I lost interest in this never ending Burton / Nolan debate anyway.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mike86]

It's not really so much a debate. I just was saying that Gordon wasn't used properly in the Burton films. I don't really buy that Burton had an uphill battle with the film personally so that was his reasoning for not expanding on the character. I think it's more that he didn't care enough about the source material (he's admitted that he hasn't read a comic before and basically comes across as thinking he's better than the medium in general and it's fans) and probably just chose to not use him much because it didn't fit his vision or something.

I don't really mean to come off as pitting Burton vs. Nolan as I do like Batman (1989), I just don't care for Batman Returns mostly and personally I liked the vision of Batman that Nolan had slightly more. Neither is completely perfect but I just think Nolan did a lot of things better for my tastes.

 

[sallah]

Yeah, I read all of that.

I don't see how Burton having this up hill battle has anything to do with Nolan's take on Gordon.

Nevermind. I think I lost interest in this never ending Burton / Nolan debate anyway.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

Sigh... Again, it all stemmed from someone saying "Burton's Gordon was a bumbling idiot and Nolans was perfect... That is the difference in how secondary characters are treated by Burton vs Nolan". Pretty cut and dry as to what my response addressed.

This is the problem in grabbing a quote without the context of the conversation.

Sallah

 

[Mike86]

Sigh... Again, it all stemmed from someone saying "Burton's Gordon was a bumbling idiot and Nolans was perfect... That is the difference in how secondary characters are treated by Burton vs Nolan". Pretty cut and dry as to what my response addressed.

This is the problem in grabbing a quote without the context of the conversation.

Sallah

I never said that. I said I thought Nolan handled the character better and gave him something to do throughout all three films rather than just having him show up and not really matter to the story.

 

[sallah]

I never said that. I said I thought Nolan handled the character better and gave him something to do throughout all three films rather than just having him show up and not really matter to the story.

Oh you didn't? Hmmm... I admit I you didn't say the perfect part, but the rest is pretty much right on with what you said:

Key difference in how the character was used in the Burton/Schumacher films vs. how he was used in the Nolan films. The Nolan films he actually served a purpose in all three films and had a fair amount of screen time for what can be considered essentially a secondary character. The Burton/Schumacher films he was basically a bumbling idiot who only showed up when he was needed and didn't even seem like a competent character.

I think we already went back and forth on it though, and I wasn't trying to bring this back up to you... Just explaining what that whole quote was in reply to, since it was taken out of the conversation.

 

[Mike86]

Oh you didn't? Hmmm...

Funny, I don't see anywhere in there where I say Nolan's Gordon was perfect as you claim I did.

This is what I actually said:
"The Nolan films he actually served a purpose in all three films and had a fair amount of screen time for what can be considered essentially a secondary character. The Burton/Schumacher films he was basically a bumbling idiot who only showed up when he was needed and didn't even seem like a competent character."

Nowhere there did I say it was perfect. I said that for a secondary character he had a fair amount of screen time and was given something to do other than just show up. I did say Hingle's Gordon was kind of a bumbling idiot (which I never denied saying) but not that Nolan's was perfect.

 

[sallah]

Funny, I don't see anywhere in there where I say Nolan's Gordon was perfect as you claim I did.

This is what I actually said:
"The Nolan films he actually served a purpose in all three films and had a fair amount of screen time for what can be considered essentially a secondary character. The Burton/Schumacher films he was basically a bumbling idiot who only showed up when he was needed and didn't even seem like a competent character."

Nowhere there did I say it was perfect. I said that for a secondary character he had a fair amount of screen time and was given something to do other than just show up. I did say Hingle's Gordon was kind of a bumbling idiot (which I never denied saying) but not that Nolan's was perfect.

I already clarified that I added in the perfect part... the rest of what I was referring to though was what you said.

This whole thing isn't meant as an attack on your statement though... I am just explaining the basic context of where that out of context quote came from to Fiend.

Sallah

 

[Mike86]

I already clarified that I added in the perfect part... the rest of what I was referring to though was what you said.

Sallah

Dude I'm really not trying to argue anymore. We have differing opinions it's clear but this is getting silly. So I'm calling truce haha. I know I sometimes criticize Burton's Batman films (mostly Batman Returns) but I don't think Nolan's were entirely perfect either. I just like them more for my tastes.

 

[Leon 911]

Yeah, I read all of that.

I don't see how Burton having this up hill battle has anything to do with Nolan's take on Gordon.

Nevermind. I think I lost interest in this never ending Burton / Nolan debate anyway.

Sent from my LG-E739 using Tapatalk 2

Exactly!!!

 

[Khev]

Batman, BR, and BB make for one hell of an alternate trilogy. No overlapping villains and they all showcase different periods of his life (with the slight overlap of "I'm Batman.")