Burton Batman Films ('Batman' & 'Batman Returns')

As far as I'm concerned, Burton's is the definitive Batman when it comes to live action.

Saw a double header of both his movies a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting vintage prints from 1989 and 1992 but instead they just projected the Blu-Ray. Which pisses me off for a lot of reasons but I'll spare you.

Anyway. Seeing it all again in such nice sound and good quality was another reminder of just how amazing these films are. Perfect? Maybe not. But (A) they're a damned sight better than this new shit and (B) Burton seems to approach Batman less as a virtuous hero and more as a driven loner who does what he does because HE needs to. Yeah, the city needs Batman (whether they know it or not) but Bruce needs Batman even more. Burton understood that. A guy who does what Batman does... well, he ain't the Nolan Batman. Period.

Plus... I really love those vintage effects. The thick compositing lines, the gorgeous matte paintings, it's all just superb. That first matte painting establishing shot of Gotham City from B89 is pretty much what hooked me on Batman. A city full of deep, dark shadows, constant cloud cover, always slightly balmy and humid outside, there's just so much in that quick shot of the city. I love Batman Returns, don't get me wrong, but I've wondered that the BR production lost a certain undefinable something in shooting in California rather than back in jolly ol' England. There's visual continuity between the two movies but they feel like they take place in different places... which is understandable given where each production was headquartered.

Anyway. Just throwing the Burton Batman films some love. I'm not big on Tim Burton in general but these movies really are something else...

You're preaching to the choir here dude. I could literally probably write 2 pages worth of comments about the 1989 film alone! But a lot of it would be reiterating what's already been discussed before. Suffice it to say then that there was some 'aura' to that 1989 film that I don't feel like has been matched since! Sure, I like the 2nd film OK & all but not nearly as good. It is, however, light-years ahead of 3 & 4.

Ya know, the 'pre-Internet' apologists, who then had to 'troll' the fan letter pages of comics & fanzines, didn't exactly accept Michael Keaton as Batman. Their reaction went like, "What?! Mr. Mom?! Beetlejuice?!" However, our answer to realists at the time would counter with, "But Keaton did an excellent dramatic portrayal in CLEAN AND SOBER." Maybe it's a good thing we didn't have the Internet then huh? Duh apologists would've sunk this ship before it even set sail!

The point though is that the proof was in the pudding. I remember opening weekend for the 1989 film. I was in an extremely packed theater at the local mall. And it was like sheer awesomeness when the film actually started! The mugging followed by the mysterious 'BAT' attack set the tone for the film I believe. Keaton proved in the opening moments of the film that he had the goods! And that whole 'aura of mystery' that seemed to surround Batman made the film work very well. Instead of an hour-long origin like we got in BATMAN BEGINS, we got flashbacks. Now, I didn't agree with some of how the Joker was handled in the story, namely killing Bruce's parents (plus his subsequent death) but I did like the tension & the emotions & all that those scenes captured. And when Vicky Vale & 'Knox' discover Bruce's past, they realize just how screwed up he really is!

Ya know one scene that I think always gets me? When Batman rescues Vicky in the city. The whole police & gangster pursuit. Batman saying 'Shields' to the Batmobile. And when he's vanquished his foes, the high-speed escape route to the Batcave. There's just something about that entire sequence that brings 'goosebumps' so to speak! And the music of Danny Elfman further drives the point home! I found his music to be more inspiring than whatever it is we're getting in the Nolan films. I guess his music really played on what was going on in those films. Remember I said that 'aura' for the 1989 film? Well, I think that's what sets it apart from current attempts. At least Keaton wasn't phoning in his performance!

Man! This is making me wanna see it again for what, the thousandth time?!

I definitely enjoyed 'Batman' when it came out in '89. I actually enjoyed it so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater, and TWICE in one day.

Even had Prince's soundtrack album.

I also saw it 8 times in the theater! I know you've mentioned that before but I hate to say if I have or not, possibly. It was wild! It was like I couldn't get enough of the movie! I think my own personal experience has a lot to do with why I revere this film so much. I know you couldn't believe it a while back when I put it on the same level with Superman: the Movie but you see, Superman 2 was the 1st Superman film I saw in the theater. I had a similar experience with that film, just not 8 times at the theater. But the 1st Superman film I had to watch on ABC. There just wasn't the same experience like with these others I guess.

non_amos wrote:You're preaching to the choir here dude.

When it came to this, I knew I wouldn't get an argument out of you.

non_amos wrote:Ya know one scene that I think always gets me? When Batman rescues Vicky in the city. The whole police & gangster pursuit. Batman saying 'Shields' to the Batmobile. And when he's vanquished his foes, the high-speed escape route to the Batcave. There's just something about that entire sequence that brings 'goosebumps' so to speak! And the music of Danny Elfman further drives the point home!

Here's hoping this video permits embedding.



Descent Into Mystery. This is one of those scenes I point to when I argue that Burton's comic book inspiration comes from the first year of Bob Kane/Bill Finger on Detective Comics. Plus, there's not very much dialogue; it's mostly just visuals and music. I've always thought that was a very powerful way to tell stories. In the hands of the right filmmaker, there's so much more possibility and interpretation from these sorts of sequences.

non_amos wrote:I found his music to be more inspiring than whatever it is we're getting in the Nolan films. I guess his music really played on what was going on in those films.

Precisely. People talk all kinds of smack about how awesome the Zimmer scores are but it's mostly generic filler that could accompany 99% of bullshit action movies out there. I one time demoed I think Molossus up against some action sequences from Die Hard (THE action movie, as far as I'm concerned) and it fit well enough. Try that shit with ANY Elfman track, let me know how it goes. Not so much now but there was a time when Elfman's contributions as Burton's co-conspirator in film in general and these films in particular was sadly overlooked. As a matter of fact, I'd put Burton/Elfman on a par with Lucas/Williams in many respects.

non_amos wrote:At least Keaton wasn't phoning in his performance!

This. I think Bale gave a sincere effort in BB but a LOT of people are convinced he slept through TDK. I might understand if there really was no arc for him in the film but there was. The shit between him and Secretary, him and the Joker, there's stuff there to play with. More and more, I'm coming to regard Bale as a serious asshole, actually.

Hell, the story goes that Keaton deleted a LOT of lines from Batman Returns. Remember the vishiswa thing? Originally Bruce was supposed to carry that entire exchange. But Keaton realized that he shouldn't talk so damn much so Burton had the scene rewritten. There are other examples as well. He tried to work to serve the character he'd established, which meant removing chunks of his own dialogue. I can't think of too many actors with the balls to minimize their own role to serve the character and the story but here's one who will.

Apologist Puncher wrote:I definitely enjoyed 'Batman' when it came out in '89. I actually enjoyed it so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater, and TWICE in one day.

I was 8 when the movie came out and we somehow managed to see it on opening day. 06.23.1989. I'll never forget it. Managed to see it three times in theaters, which is puny compared to the rest of you but I think it's pretty good for an 8 year old in a small town with a non-comic book fan family to contend with.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Even had Prince's soundtrack album.

I wasn't much about movie music of any kind back then but I HAD to have Elfman's score. Sat in my dad's office and listened to the tape (it was the 80's after all) again and again. I was kinda pissed when my brother's dog ate the damn thing but I'll spare you that misadventure.

EDIT- Incidentally, since you guys seem to be pretty friendly to the Burton films, I'd advise you to steer clear of Jett's Batman On Film forum. That guy sets the standard for Nolan Nazi... and in more ways than one.

So were discussing Batman89 huh? Well not much to say since most people here have already said whats meant to be said about it but I'll try to kept it original as humanly possible! In regards to Batman89, this was the film that made me a Batman fan right up to this day right before I apparently started liking the Nolan films even more! One of the things I come to appreciate from the film is that it first reintroduce Batman as a dark & brooding figure and since then Bat's reputation was forever been known as such even though thats how he actually started. It's also the film where I first heard about about and was introduce to actor Michael Keaton who I actually accepted in the roll with no strings attach along with Jack Nicholson as the Joker who in all respect seem to own the part right before Heath Ledger did. The film's score from Danny Elfman was truely memorable and centainly fit the film very well, I personally wish that somehow they get Danny Elfman back to do a variation of the score in the Nolan films!

My only gaps is that Gotham city looked, well... Too gothic to the point that I sometimes forget it was suppose to be a city that is infested with crime but then again it's Tim Burton's direction so gothic stuff is sort of his thing! Other gaps I have are Commissioner Gordon was sort of out of character, Harvey Dent was sort of down played, film lacked Bat's origin and the following sequels should have been done alot better than they did minus "Batman Returns", although that could have be done slightly better also!

Either way, I was hooked on the film so much to the point that at first I would never accept a reboot and would have more prefer a prequel aleast just to get a glimps of Bruce's upbringings towards becoming Batman and who was the first villain that he'd faced! But just after "Batman Begins" came along all that was now ancient history!

I too enjoyed the burton films as a kid and to this day still too. Not much else I can say too. I do wish gordon had more to do in those films. And I agree somewhat with cbmfan I thought gotham was a bit to over the top gothic wise. I did like the design and look of his gotham. But then there was just a bit of overboard in the city look. But I still enjoyed his take on gotham.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Other gaps I have are Commissioner Gordon was sort of out of character,

Exactly how was Gordon "out of character"?

film lacked Bat's origin

It showed his parents getting blown away. Granted, it wasn't presented in the overbearing, didactic fashion that Nolan assaulted us with in BB but it's in there.

thecolorsblend wrote:Exactly how was Gordon "out of character"?

Gordon was suppose to be a hard boiled but honest cop that has close ties to Bats. In Batman89, he was just the commissioner who barks orders to his fellow officers and is more in tone with the 1966 version.

It showed his parents getting blown away.

Yeah, that shows what motivated Bruce into taking on the mantle but however it never shows the procedures Bruce goes through before taking on that mantle!

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Gordon was suppose to be a hard boiled but honest cop that has close ties to Bats. In Batman89, he was just the commissioner who barks orders to his fellow officers and is more in tone with the 1966 version.

What the fuck happened to this world... Okay, what you're talking about? That's a Frank Miller thing. This whole "Batman and Gordon have a partnership" thing didn't come in to prominence until Miller came along. It was a bit of an innovation. The rest of the time before then, Gordon was mostly an expository device and a means for Batman to get inside access when the story required him to have it.

The partnership thing really became apparent in 1987... which is just about the time B89 was gearing up. You can't fault Burton for (A) not having knowledge of comics yet unpublished. But (B) even if he'd somehow known that BY1 was on the way, the Gordon/Batman partnership thing was hardly canon at that point. Nowadays, maybe it'd be different but Burton was very much within his right to portray Gordon as he did.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Yeah, that shows what motivated Bruce into taking on the mantle but however it never shows the procedures Bruce goes through before taking on that mantle!

Because that isn't what the movie was about. It was about the Joker creating Batman and Batman creating the Joker. How Batman came to be Batman vis a vis training might be an interesting story but that isn't what Burton wanted to do with the character. B89 doesn't claim to be an origin film. It simply shows a glimpse of his origin and the viewer gasp! has to do some thinking of his own!

What he said.

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2009/1/2/possible-influences-of-comics-on-tim-burtons-batman-returns

Here's a similar thing for Batman Returns. My contribution is clearly labeled.

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Frankly I enjoyed both on different levels. All this talk of "Nolan is secretly ashamed of comic books" means nothing to me. Tim Burton didn't really give much of a shit about the comics and went with his own prerogative but that fact doesn't necessarily make them automatically inferior to other superhero movies.

Not trying to split hairs over something that isn't even your point but I have to take exception to this. Burton gets a pretty bad rap sometimes when it comes to not using comics as a vehicle for his Batman movies. Below is a link that shows a pretty clear comic influence on B89.

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2008/7/19/comic-influences-on-tim-burtons-batman-1989

Full disclosure- I have a contributor's credit to the piece. I personally think it's undeserved since at least 95% of the images and words come from someone else. All I did was throw in a few old school Detective Comics scans and connect the dots on how those things come off as influences on Burton. But either way, I think the point stands on a lot of that stuff.

Did Burton adapt what was at the time the modern Batman? No, he adapted the earlyearlyearly Golden Age Batman. But if he's going to get beat up for that, Nolan ought to be next in line for adapting the Golden Age Joker and Golden Age Catwoman.

I haven't actually seen that piece. That's cool. I'd chalk that up to the screenplay trying to be more faithful to Golden Age Batman than Burton himself. In the annotation article it talks of how Hamm's intentionally mimicked the history of Golden Age Batman (like not seeing his parents killed until way later. But by RETURNS Burton certainly went more his own prerogative. I did see the one piece for BATMAN RETURNS which was pretty terrible in some spots. Like how they used a panel of Penguin eating fish as proof that Burton was being true to the comics but overlooking the big difference between the two in presentation of the Penguin thru mannerisms (in comic he eats like a gentleman, in Burton's he eats like a savage).

James Stocks wrote:I haven't actually seen that piece. That's cool. I'd chalk that up to the screenplay trying to be more faithful to Golden Age Batman than Burton himself. In the annotation article it talks of how Hamm's intentionally mimicked the history of Golden Age Batman (like not seeing his parents killed until way later. But by RETURNS Burton certainly went more his own prerogative. I did see the one piece for BATMAN RETURNS which was pretty terrible in some spots. Like how they used a panel of Penguin eating fish as proof that Burton was being true to the comics but overlooking the big difference between the two in presentation of the Penguin thru mannerisms (in comic he eats like a gentleman, in Burton's he eats like a savage).

...

Okay, originally I was going to just let all this slide.

I'm the source of the comic book panel of the Penguin eating raw fish. And he wasn't eating like a gentleman, he was gobbling away and making a pig of himself. It's relevant because an entire contingent of Nolanites and other comic book-illiterate fans think Burton completely pulled the "raw fish" thing out of his ass. Here's evidence that, inspiration or not, such a thing has precedent in the comics.

As to his characterization in BR, implicit in Penguin's character has been a yearning for entry into the upper crust and 1% of Gotham's high society. He wants a respectability that simply isn't due him. Burton reinvented much about the Penguin but kept that character trait, and even went so far as to provide a reason for having it in the first place. By all rights, he was part of the upper society. His parents, disgusted by his deformities, flushed him. But that longing was still there. Burton didn't invent that. It goes back to even the Penguin's earliest appearances, when his crimes targeted the upper class. Between those crimes, mayoral bids and other things, Penguin trying to join up with the rich people (or else hating them for not being one of them) is very much in character.

Apart from the above, the comic book Penguin didn't have much of a character that could sustain a film the way Burton needed. A dwarf with a fixation for bird crimes wasn't going to cut it. He didn't even want to use the Penguin in the first place; it was WB who insisted. The mob boss and club owner/underworld snitch characterizations hadn't been invented yet so Burton can't be faulted for not using either of those. Instead, he gave the Penguin the above backstory and then embellished it by being raised in a circus among freak show performers that he organized into a criminal unit.

Personally, I don't see how this characterization of the Penguin is any more severe a reinvention than Donner's take on Lex Luthor.

thecolorsblend wrote:I'm the source of the comic book panel of the Penguin eating raw fish. And he wasn't eating like a gentleman, he was gobbling away and making a pig of himself.

My fault for not being clear, I meant referring to him using utensils, plates, a bib, ect, like a civilized man instead of eating like a caveman with his bare hands (or in this case, flippers) in Burton's interpretation.

Anyway. The thing that bugged me about Burton's Penguin isn't really whether he was true to the comics or not. My biggest concern was how Burton tried making Penguin into some sort of sympathetic figure when the character himself is so vile and disgusting throughout the entire film that can't see him in any way sympathetic. A better comic-to-live action interpretation of that is Lex Luthor in SMALLVILLE, a man who genuinely wants to be a good person and make his mark on the world and try not to follow his father's foot steps but has a inferiority complex that clouds his judgement in the long run. I think that could have been done to some extent with Penguin, but Burton is too extravagant for that sort of thing hence cranking it up to 11 by making Penguin into a sewer dweller freak show wanting to literally ascend.

James Stocks wrote:Anyway. The thing that bugged me about Burton's Penguin isn't really whether he was true to the comics or not. My biggest concern was how Burton tried making Penguin into some sort of sympathetic figure when the character himself is so vile and disgusting throughout the entire film that can't see him in any way sympathetic.

...

You don't see anything sympathetic about a baby being rejected and flushed by his parents because of a birth deformity who can only make a living in a circus freak show and whose only moment of social acceptance coming from acting as a pawn in a phony mayoral recall? Understand, I'm not denying the character's moral agency but, fuck me, talk about a stacked deck...

If he tried to make himself into a genuinely good person throughout the flick I might feel a bit more sympathetic of his character, but nothing of that ever surfaces and he always has ulterior motives. In the end he's a monster, born as one and dies. I think it would even be more effective if his family dumped him just because of his deformity, without the details of him being shown as a ferocious animal that needs to be caged up and eating the family cat.

Doesn't help that DeVito cranks it up to 11, but that's pretty much the case of every villain after Jack's Joker where every actor tries to outdo him in some capacity, except for Michelle Pfeiffer who's probably my favorite actor along with Jack.

I've said it before but I've never really been crazy about Burton's Penguin like I have his Joker. Batman Returns is a good film & definitely superior to the Shumacher flicks but I don't like it anywhere near the level I do the 1989 film.

Danny Devito is an excellent actor, always has been so he was no doubt chosen for that reason as well as his stature, since the Penguin is short. Kinda like Jack was chosen for the Joker for his "Here's Johnny!" pyche. I just didn't like the whole 'deformed' angle.

I understand colors' point about Burton giving the Penguin a 'back story' as opposed to the bland generic background the character seems to have in the comics. I also understand that if Nolan had used the character, he'd have simply been another mob boss, nothing more, with the exception of some umbrellas & gadgets. I get all of that. However, I just can't get into the whole 'monster' aspect of this version. I don't even really like looking at the character & I like monsters! I just can't get on board with it even though I like the film in general. Also, Christopher Walken seemed to be the real villain.

I'll admit it. The version I liked was the one from the Adam West TV series portrayed by Burgess Meredith. I also understand that that program was meant to be campy. I still liked that version though.

If you have to make some compromise in the future with the character, let me suggest they go the route of those Arkham video games that I don't play but I've seen a couple of trailers. To me the Penguin appeared to be a hybrid of both Burton's version and the comics in appearance but his actions seemed to be like the comics exclusively, no freak show involved whatsoever. And he 'sicced' Solomon Grundy on Batman! Perhaps this version is something they could try?

non_amos wrote:I've said it before but I've never really been crazy about Burton's Penguin like I have his Joker. Batman Returns is a good film & definitely superior to the Shumacher flicks but I don't like it anywhere near the level I do the 1989 film.

Danny Devito is an excellent actor, always has been so he was no doubt chosen for that reason as well as his stature, since the Penguin is short. Kinda like Jack was chosen for the Joker for his "Here's Johnny!" pyche. I just didn't like the whole 'deformed' angle.

I understand colors' point about Burton giving the Penguin a 'back story' as opposed to the bland generic background the character seems to have in the comics. I also understand that if Nolan had used the character, he'd have simply been another mob boss, nothing more, with the exception of some umbrellas & gadgets. I get all of that. However, I just can't get into the whole 'monster' aspect of this version. I don't even really like looking at the character & I like monsters! I just can't get on board with it even though I like the film in general. Also, Christopher Walken seemed to be the real villain.

I'll admit it. The version I liked was the one from the Adam West TV series portrayed by Burgess Meredith. I also understand that that program was meant to be campy. I still liked that version though.

If you have to make some compromise in the future with the character, let me suggest they go the route of those Arkham video games that I don't play but I've seen a couple of trailers. To me the Penguin appeared to be a hybrid of both Burton's version and the comics in appearance but his actions seemed to be like the comics exclusively, no freak show involved whatsoever. And he 'sicced' Solomon Grundy on Batman! Perhaps this version is something they could try?

Burton's method was simply one among many. And I think a filmmaker today has more options on the table because the Penguin has been pretty well developed in the comics since BR.

One pretty good one is the Earth One Penguin. I don't want to spoil too much if you haven't read it but I think you may like parts of that characterization. There are parts that disturb me but I liked the core concept of him in E1. You're not wasting your time if you give it a shot.

For the longest time I thought BR was the best of the four films until I recently watched them all films the first time in years when prepping for TDKR. The 1989 film certainly holds up better and it's hard to deny its influence as it paved the way for Bruce Timm's show which I think is the best interpretation of Batman ever and the best treatment DC ever got. I guess it was because of BR's charms that I placed it at the top spot. Despite the story being a huge mess it gets away with it because of the charisma and the cast really delivers, with Pfeiffer being the Ledger of the four films (lots would say that was Jack, but I thought Pfeiffer not only threw it out of the park but demolished the park).

1. Don't we have a thread on 'Batman Returns' already?

2. My biggest issue with the film was the way Batman killed. Almost gleefully.

Ah yes, here it is....

non_amos wrote:Go ahead & spoil it. I'm not likely to buy a comic book any time soon but would still like to know what this version is about.

Basically Mayor Cobbleport (ie, the Penguin) is involved with a child rapist/murderer. If one of his enemies pokes a toe out of line, the Penguin has one of their kids abducted and turned over to that sicko. To me, that's just bad taste. Yeah, there really are sickos like that out there but fuck's sake man I don't want to be confronted by stuff like that in my entertainment.

As for the rest of BE1... I don't mind a Batman learning how to be Batman. But the incompetent, immature twerp we see at the beginning of that book? That's not Batman.

James Stocks wrote:For the longest time I thought BR was the best of the four films until I recently watched them all films the first time in years when prepping for TDKR. The 1989 film certainly holds up better and it's hard to deny its influence as it paved the way for Bruce Timm's show which I think is the best interpretation of Batman ever and the best treatment DC ever got. I guess it was because of BR's charms that I placed it at the top spot. Despite the story being a huge mess it gets away with it because of the charisma and the cast really delivers, with Pfeiffer being the Ledger of the four films (lots would say that was Jack, but I thought Pfeiffer not only threw it out of the park but demolished the park).

I like BR in general. If I've got a gripe about it, it'd be that it's 100% shot on a sound stage... and it looks like it. B89 had several moments of back lot/outdoor shooting with real sunlight, real wind, real fog, real breath-mist, etc. There's just an underlying reality to it that makes it feel less like a stage play than BR sometimes does.

Apologist Puncher wrote:2. My biggest issue with the film was the way Batman killed. Almost gleefully.

I'm okay with that, actually.

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:For the longest time I thought BR was the best of the four films until I recently watched them all films the first time in years when prepping for TDKR. The 1989 film certainly holds up better and it's hard to deny its influence as it paved the way for Bruce Timm's show which I think is the best interpretation of Batman ever and the best treatment DC ever got. I guess it was because of BR's charms that I placed it at the top spot. Despite the story being a huge mess it gets away with it because of the charisma and the cast really delivers, with Pfeiffer being the Ledger of the four films (lots would say that was Jack, but I thought Pfeiffer not only threw it out of the park but demolished the park).

I like BR in general. If I've got a gripe about it, it'd be that it's 100% shot on a sound stage... and it looks like it. B89 had several moments of back lot/outdoor shooting with real sunlight, real wind, real fog, real breath-mist, etc. There's just an underlying reality to it that makes it feel less like a stage play than BR sometimes does.

Yeah, another example of when Burton is given complete control and a huge budget to ride on. He wanted to go for that 1920s German expressionist style, making the film look like it was shot on ink well. It doesn't even resemble the Gotham seen in 89. It's cool Burton got to really indulge in his own style, but it only makes me more happy that he did not return to work on a third Batman picture. As interesting as that might have been if he stayed, I'm glad he went onto make ED WOOD instead which is probably my favorite film of his ever. BR and ED WOOD are indications that Burton had more interesting places to go beyond Batman.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:2. My biggest issue with the film was the way Batman killed. Almost gleefully.

I'm okay with that, actually.

Even though, at the BEGINNING OF THE FILM NO LESS, he changed personalities from the first film? Really?

In 'Batman', people died. And they died at Batman's hand. The Joker. Black guy who got his head busted then thrown down the stairwell. Arguably "Ninja Feet' when he got his testicles crushed. ALL of Axis Chemicals. I get that. And it came across as "Had to do it" in the film, even if that REALLY wasn't true.

But what you DIDN'T see was Batman taking satisfaction from it. No punching Bull Hurley a few times, he shrugs it off, and Batman smirks as he points down with his eyes to the bomb strapped to his chest. Then punching a guy he KNEW was 187, and throwing him down....something, to explode.



Now, like I said, this happened at the beginning of the film. There are other instances of Batman's cavalier attitude towards killing, but this one has stood-out in my mind since I FIRST saw 'Batman Returns', oh so many moons ago.

It's just......wrong.