60's vs. 90's films

General goings on in the 1966 Batman World

Moderators: Scott Sebring, Ben Bentley

User avatar
Lee Kirkham
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:45 am

60's vs. 90's films

Post by Lee Kirkham »

Specifically, this point: Why, in the 1990's, was it so difficult to have more than one villain in a film and have it be any good? Batman The Movie had four major villains, and they never were tripping over each other in character nor in performance. Yet stuff like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, by the time any character development has (or hasn't) occurred, the film is over and I don't care.

What were the main flaws that you guys think "did in" the newer incarnations of Batman. I'm omitting the Bale films from this discussion due to I haven't seen them all, nor are they remotely close to the same vibe as the hero movies.

Discuss.
I find you to be odious, abhorrent and insegrevious.
User avatar
epaddon
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:09 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by epaddon »

I did not see any Batman movies after the second one because I was so put off by the tone of it completely but I think the chief flaw based on that one is that for *both* villains you had to take time out to give us origin stories for both whereas in Batman 66 you don't have that problem, the villains just are who they are and we accept their existence. The second movie should have only been about Catwoman and not had that grotesque Penguin character for the sake of a simpler storyline.
User avatar
clavierankh
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:16 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by clavierankh »

IIRC in movies like Batman Returns each villain had there own storyline which the movie had to juggle. In Batman 66 all four were in the same storyline, which had to make things a bit easier.

While I love Batman 666 let's face it. The Joker is hardly used and while Riddler's riddles serve to get Batman from point A to B, you really only needed Penguin and Catwoman to carry tis plot. It was like most team-ups in the series one (in this case maybe two) villains leading the plot and any others playing a supporting role. I can't think of a team-up that really needed the unique talents of two or more villains.
User avatar
Brian M
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:24 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by Brian M »

I think part of it is in the new films they spend a lot of time explaining how the super villains came to be. In the 66 film they were already working together.
User avatar
NJ_Batfan
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:25 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by NJ_Batfan »

I think many of you have hit the nail on the head. The need to introduce the origins of the psychologically complex versions of the villains to movie audiences in the 90s (plus origins for Robin and Batgirl) made these movies wall to wall claustrophobic. With the exception of Batgirl in 1967, origins and motivations were never depicted on the series (although Mr. Freeze's previous battle with Batman was recounted to establish his motives). The audience just accepted that these were the bad guys and away you went. Truthfully, having to look into everyone's psyche took much of the fun out of it.
User avatar
Gernot
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:39 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by Gernot »

They would've had to go through the same thing for the TV show if they'd done Two-Face like they wanted, wouldn't they?
User avatar
clavierankh
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:16 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by clavierankh »

They could have done it as they did wih Mister Freeze, a quick recap in the commissioners office.
Bryan Grantham
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by Bryan Grantham »

The need to flesh out the psychology/motivations of villains seems to be epidemic in the movies and the comics as well. It is a reflection on the feelings of studios/writers/producers/actors that the viewer needs all the background details and is not intelligent enough to follow the story without every detail covered.

Sad.... and annoying.
User avatar
SprangFan
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:34 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by SprangFan »

I'm going to agree with the consensus here that the problem with modern multi-villain films is that they spend too much time trying to "explain" the characters. Partly I think this is due to a basic contradiction inherent to all modern comics-based films: the filmmakers are always eager to capitalize on the popularity of comic characters, but at the same time they're embarrassed by the material. Thus we have to spend hour after hour, film after film, explaining why Batman (or whatever hero) does what he does, how he does what he does, etc. It's never enough to say, "He's got abilities, he uses them to fight crime." It's always got to be "oh, he does it out of revenge/guilt/psychosis" or what have you. Why would he wear a bat-suit? Oh, it's high-tech armor from some abandoned project. How could he invent the Batmobile? He didn't, it's another leftover he just spray-painted. How can he invent all those amazing things? He doesn't, he has a guy do it for him. Why does he do any of this stuff at all? Oh, well because he's messed up in the head. Everything exotic, or cool, or extraordinary is reduced to the commonplace and explainable, lest a character ever be allowed to stand out as remarkable or exceptional (which was supposed to be the whole POINT of superheroes in the first place). And If you feel obligated to spend all that time on "excuses" for the hero, then it follows that you need to "excuse" the villains, too, and if you have two of them, then you need TWO (strained and unlikely) excuses, and if you have three or four you need that many. Eventually the film collapses under its own weight: what other genre spends so much time trying to justify the mere existence of every character in the script?

The other factor here is the obsession with telling "origin" stories, as if they're the only ones with any power or meaning. All the major comic characters (and especially Superman) have had their origin stories retold about 50 times in the last 20 years in the comics and/or films, always with tweaks and adjustments, but more or less the same story over and over. No one seems able to tell interesting stories about existing characters, so they try to borrow some glory by "recreating" them all the time. It'd be wonderful if villains could just show up already established, with their powers and costumes a "done deal" (as they were on the Batman show), but it's just too tempting for screenwriters to explain "how they came to be." And once they've done that, they've pretty much said all they have to say, so the villains get killed off at the end to make way for the next batch.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
User avatar
clavierankh
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:16 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by clavierankh »

Sprangfan I agree with everything you said.

Heroes can't just be heroes and villains can't just be villains. Heroes have to have flaws. There must be something dark about them. Villains on the other hand have to have either redeeming characteristics or at least some explanation that in part justifies their villainy. So it's not all their fault.

That's why I like the older shows and comic books. Where good is good and bad is bad.
User avatar
BATWINGED HORNET
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:32 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by BATWINGED HORNET »

Lee Kirkham wrote:Specifically, this point: Why, in the 1990's, was it so difficult to have more than one villain in a film and have it be any good? Batman The Movie had four major villains, and they never were tripping over each other in character nor in performance. Yet stuff like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, by the time any character development has (or hasn't) occurred, the film is over and I don't care.

What were the main flaws that you guys think "did in" the newer incarnations of Batman. I'm omitting the Bale films from this discussion due to I haven't seen them all, nor are they remotely close to the same vibe as the hero movies.

Discuss.
Good topic, Lee.

The new films were about spectacle and "freakish" imagery, all packed into the driving thought of "look how we do things on the big screen / look how edgy we are." That's not character development, so all on screen were busy being an image, rather than being characters who serve a purpose to the story.


Granted, some will argue that the 1966 film already had established characters from an entire season of TV episodes, but the team up was a new concept, and had every chance to fail...but it did not. We can credit that to the producers operating from the idea that Gotham City is--simply--real and the world knows the villains as well as the heroes. No overblown set-up was not required, and the natural, fantastic nature of the villains simply played as part of the reality, instead of telling the audience to pay attention to the fireworks.
Beneath Wayne Manor
User avatar
K.G. Bird
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:45 am

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by K.G. Bird »

SprangFan wrote:I'm going to agree with the consensus here that the problem with modern multi-villain films is that they spend too much time trying to "explain" the characters. Partly I think this is due to a basic contradiction inherent to all modern comics-based films: the filmmakers are always eager to capitalize on the popularity of comic characters, but at the same time they're embarrassed by the material. Thus we have to spend hour after hour, film after film, explaining why Batman (or whatever hero) does what he does, how he does what he does, etc. It's never enough to say, "He's got abilities, he uses them to fight crime." It's always got to be "oh, he does it out of revenge/guilt/psychosis" or what have you. Why would he wear a bat-suit? Oh, it's high-tech armor from some abandoned project. How could he invent the Batmobile? He didn't, it's another leftover he just spray-painted. How can he invent all those amazing things? He doesn't, he has a guy do it for him. Why does he do any of this stuff at all? Oh, well because he's messed up in the head. Everything exotic, or cool, or extraordinary is reduced to the commonplace and explainable, lest a character ever be allowed to stand out as remarkable or exceptional (which was supposed to be the whole POINT of superheroes in the first place). And If you feel obligated to spend all that time on "excuses" for the hero, then it follows that you need to "excuse" the villains, too, and if you have two of them, then you need TWO (strained and unlikely) excuses, and if you have three or four you need that many. Eventually the film collapses under its own weight: what other genre spends so much time trying to justify the mere existence of every character in the script?

The other factor here is the obsession with telling "origin" stories, as if they're the only ones with any power or meaning. All the major comic characters (and especially Superman) have had their origin stories retold about 50 times in the last 20 years in the comics and/or films, always with tweaks and adjustments, but more or less the same story over and over. No one seems able to tell interesting stories about existing characters, so they try to borrow some glory by "recreating" them all the time. It'd be wonderful if villains could just show up already established, with their powers and costumes a "done deal" (as they were on the Batman show), but it's just too tempting for screenwriters to explain "how they came to be." And once they've done that, they've pretty much said all they have to say, so the villains get killed off at the end to make way for the next batch.
I have a love/hate relationship with most superhero movies and it is mostly hate. Like it mentions above the people putting these movies together is trying to capitalize on the popularity of the character but has contempt for who they are or what they stand for. They will never get it. If someone watches a superhero film because it evokes some love or memories of this character the last thing these fans want is for you to recreate them into a new, darker character. The Dark Knight stuff since Keaton till now I personally can't stand. I love the Batman 66 show and original movie. But, it differs almost completely from these modern movies.

The best superhero movies I have seen is the X-Men movies. What arrogance would make you think that if fans love a certain character they will love even more a complete makeover of that character?
I disagree that these modern incarnations are more mature because they are morally ambivalent or ambiguous. Adam West was always stalwart and clear about right and wrong. I don't need to see a hero inebriated or going through some deep psychological turmoil. We want to look up to a hero not say, "Hey, he's as weak and flawed as me".
"Really Dick! I fear some recent romantic interlude has fevered your imagination. Aunt Harriet is..utterly..beyond..reproach".
User avatar
HerryGrail
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by HerryGrail »

I also think part of the problem is that these newer movies feature such big stars as the villains that you have to have a lot of "important" scenes and screen time to warrant the inclusion of marquee actors as villains. If they insist on all this "rebooting," then you have to tell all the stories over and over again I guess. (That said, I've only seen the first three 80's/90's movies and only the Joker one from the recent series.)

It's the same issue with Michael Caine as Alfred...you have to make him a big character with a big part because he's a big star. It throws off the balance, but to each his own. I remember liking the Ledger Joker movie more than the Nicholson one, but mainly because Nicholson plays himself and can be tiresome. As for the Batman actors in those films, I would have liked more charisma from the lead actors, kind of like you have with Downey in the Iron Man films, which have a very similar setup.

I remember walking out of the first Keaton film back when it came out...I just couldn't stand it. Not because it offended me; I just found it incredibly dull. I watched it again recently and appreciated it much more. (I also watched the second one for the first time; I hated the mousy-Catwoman subplot with Pfeiffer and didn't find her sexy in the role, but I admit I was amused by deVito as Penguin.)

Batman is a huge modern phenomenon with endless comics, cartoons, graphic novels, and on and on, all with a heavy dose of darkness. Those of us who love the 60's TV show best will always feel a bit like we're on the outside looking in. When I watch David Wayne play a drunk judge on Gunsmoke one day and the Mad Hatter the next, it's just cool...cool like nothing else, and it's as much a part of my history as the Dark Night stuff will be to today's young folks when they're my age.
robinboyblunderer
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by robinboyblunderer »

Interesting. SPOILERS FOR NOLAN FILMS: I just realized that except for a bit of Bane that is a lie anyway, these movies don't spend time on the villains' origins, which I think is a good thing. Oh, except for Two-Face but his is connected to the actions of the Joker.

While I think Michael Keaton did a good job as Batman, in that style, I think the movie's reputation will diminish. It's not a very smooth moving movie, it drags and is quite boring in places. I think there different versions of Batman are valid and can be entertaining but I have problems with the Batman movies in general.

I really hate the second one. The best thing is Michelle Pfeiffer's performance as Catwoman. I think she offered up an interesting version of the character while encased in that super-tight costume. However, the plot is a total boring mish-mash, hugely anticlimatic and I detested Devito's grotesque portrayal of the Penguin.

Interesting though, how many of the Penguin's plots in the show involved him pretending to be honest and he does the same thing in the movie. Didn't he run for mayor or something to? The '66 show did an excellent job with that episode, far superior to the film.

In recent years, the '66 show seems to be more appreciated; I don't know if they would ever attempt another campy, colorful version again, on tv or in films but at least people can respect the effort extended on the Adam West version.
User avatar
Ricky
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: 60's vs. 90's films

Post by Ricky »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CDeuN5Zmc

Watch the above YouTube clip. Its a funny mockery on "Batman and Robin" and they guy makes a comparison to it to the 1966 Batman.
Post Reply