View Single Post
Old 11-24-2012, 12:32 PM   #288
shauner111's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 16,038
Default Re: The Official Batman (1989) Thread - Part 3

Originally Posted by spidermanJLA!~ View Post
I do still believe that we haven't had an absolute legit Batman film yet. This film is great, but you have to dig pretty deep to pull out all the great aspects of it. Even Batman Begins was just Nolan's view of the character.
Superman- 1970s Superman
Spider-man- 2002 SM
Raimi's first Spider-Man was very similar to Burton's first Batman. SpiderMan 1 and to a larger extent, Spider-Man 3 were just as much "Raimis version of Spider-Man" as Batman 89/Returns were "Tim Burtons version of Batman". I may be in the minority here, but i believe Marc Webbs interpretation to be more accurate than Raimis first go at the character.

Tobey was great and likeable, but he never looked like Peter Parker to me. He was always more woosy than what i saw for Spider-Man, not nearly enough of smart-ass trash talking in the suit, organic webs, a very different suit for Green Goblin than looked more campy than scary. It's entertaining but felt like a half-assed origin to me. Raimi made up for it with the sequel and buried it with the 3rd. Even though Burton's best film was his first, he still twisted things around to fit "his" take on Batman.

Originally Posted by spidermanJLA!~ View Post
By a "legit" Batman film, I mean a film that has a perfect comic book/film aspect of Batman and not focused on anything but. There is no go-to Batman film to me. Every film had some sort of focus. 1989 was encompassed in style and theme/atmosphere. BB was grounded in realism and Nolan's own story. I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman. Burton was great, but I feel that he put too much of his style on Batman. However, it sure does come close. I want a film that says, "Oh yeah, that is Batman". Burton, like I said, come close, but oh but too far.
I agree that we haven't had a full-on 100 % accurate Batman movie. I'm sure the reboot will supply that for the fans. Dark stylized fantasy and fun, with serious scripts and actors with emotion and physicality. Accurate origins and looks for the villains. But then again..that's just the best of ALL worlds of Batman isn't it? What exactly is accurate, when the history has given us so many different eras?

Nolans trilogy was pretty accurate to the Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb way of thinking.

Ill agree with you about Burton. The style over substance things comes up a lot. When you look at 89' (visually) you see Gotham, Batman and Joker...and i say "that's Batman!". Yet everything else is far-off.

I disagree with you on this line "I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman." Batman Begins, the story, characters, felt more like Batman to me than Burtons movies even though the visual was more grounded and he used a lot of real locations. The films were more about Batman first and foremost than Burtons, who used the character as a backdrop. The villains were at the front. 89 could have been called Joker. Returns could have been called "Penguin" or "Catwoman".

It wasn't just Nolans own story. It was Year One and The Man Who Falls. Absolutely a Bruce Wayne/Batman centric film, and it's pretty damn accurate to that era. You're just thinking Batman 89' screamed it to you, because ur Gotham City is more gothic (when modern comics do show the city realistically like a New York) & because Batman shows up right away in Burtons first flick. So it SCREAMS BATMAN right away.

shauner111 is offline