The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > Batman World

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2011, 11:02 AM   #351
GothamAlleys
Side-Kick
 
GothamAlleys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,700
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Its not that. When someone says Batman doesnt kill its not true. When someone says people think Burtons Batman is primarily based on the '39 batman just because he killed its not true as well. When someone says batman doesnt sit alone brooding its not true as well. When someone says Batman wasnt dark and was just a muskeeter type of a hero its not true as well. And when that person with those statements tells others theyre wrong and he knows better cause hes a fan for a longer tie, then when the stuff gets nasty

__________________
GothamAlleys is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:07 AM   #352
Mister Meddle
The Barber of Seville
 
Mister Meddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 2,385
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
I am not even going to answer this pathetic piece of failed sarcasm.
That must be slang for "you're completely right and I'm wrong".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
The Burton movies are about as corny. The Penguin was as corny and over-the-top as Mr Freeze. Twins, indeed!
Welcome to the Batman Universe, little Jimmy. A lot of characters are over-the-top. Th Penguin dealt with all types of emotions. It's hard to neither hate or feel sorry for him. Mr. Freeze just had his toy gun, his puns and his blue nightlights all over his suit. One gave children nightmares, the other was meant to promote the Batman & Robin action figures toy line for kids.

Quote:
I'd actually pick an episode of the Adam West show (first two seasons only) over the Burton movies. At least those make sense, storywise and have better writing. Oh, and there's no midget Batman at work. And they actually stole the plot from an episode to make Batman Returns!
Have fun watching Batman surfing with the Joker on some local beach.

If Keaton is considered as a midget then you probably don't get out quite often. Somehow that's not surprising.

__________________
"I'm not in this business to protect the rules, I serve justice"
Mister Meddle is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:19 AM   #353
GothamAlleys
Side-Kick
 
GothamAlleys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,700
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

And btw, I know there are different interpretations and sources to draw from. Burton is mainly earliest batman and the early 40s. Schumacher is mostly 70s, Nolan is mostly 80s. But this is another instance where the poster is not right saying one of them is more Batman than the other when they draw from different eras and interpretations

__________________
GothamAlleys is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:48 AM   #354
Cain
Man of Tomorrow
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Live from New York
Posts: 5,163
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamAlleys View Post
And btw, I know there are different interpretations and sources to draw from. Burton is mainly earliest batman and the early 40s. Schumacher is mostly 70s, Nolan is mostly 80s. But this is another instance where the poster is not right saying one of them is more Batman than the other when they draw from different eras and interpretations

Not in Batman & Robin. That was totally more in line with the silver age Batman that will spend time being a scout master to boy scout troops & fight crime alongside a masked dog. Just without the charm because Clooney seems completely uncomfortable and tortured in the batsuit & he's not good at playing it straight.

__________________
Pull list: Saga, The Manhattan Projects, Thief of Thieves, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Future's End, Action Comics, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Lantern Corps, Red Lanterns, Swamp Thing, Justice League, Justice League 3000, Justice League United, Earth 2, Earth 2: World's End, Worlds' Finest, Batman '66, Batgirl, Gotham Academy, Multiversity, X-O Manowar, Unity, Bloodshot, Archer & Armstrong, Daredevil, All-New X-Men
Cain is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 01:31 PM   #355
circa81
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
They're the closest outside of the Ang Lee Hulk movie that superhero movies ever got to being "art films" for better or worse.
Oh wow, someone here other then me loves Ang Lee's Hulk. *salute*

circa81 is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 03:31 PM   #356
CConn
Fountainhead of culture.
 
CConn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Peter North's Southern Headquarters
Posts: 57,587
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore
Good. Then make something out ouf your life, stop being a virgin, start doing science or a business carerr and stop spending your 20s(?) reading comics.
Um, I have a wife. And I have a rather successful career.

Do you have any other challenges for me that I've already completed?
Quote:
It does. You need my 180 IQ to make sense out of it.
Why don't you just say its, 230. It'd be just as believable.

Although people with astromically high IQs have often suffered from severe social inadequacies and struggled to successfully comprehend more ambiguous social and psychological concepts. That could be a pretty good description of you.
Quote:
Then why was he looking at a wall and not Gordon? He had to turn around when Gordon asked him. And it's not like he reacted any different when he was having dinner / lunch / whatever with Vicky.
Because on a certain level, he didn't give a **** bout Vicky. That's part of the psychosis. The people in Bruce Wayne's life are just there. Distractions. Nothing of real importance.
Quote:
It's not more extreme, it's totally different. Batman / Bruce Wayne was largely a crime-fighting swashbuckler in those early stories, wise-cracking and not brooding at all, as far as i can remember.
Generally I find all characters from that era had a very similar characterization ("swashbuckling" is a pretty good term for it), but when compared to Superman, Wonder Woman or some of the other popular characters from that era, Batman was definitely a darker, more somber character than most. And, again, he pursued his mission to fight crime rather obsessively.
Quote:
No, it doesn't. What do you know about psychology? Nothing. You got your knowledge from comic books.
Why would you assume any of that? I minored in Psychology. And even outside of that, I've investigated the science through various books and journals. It's kind of a passion of mine. And didn't you say I should explore science?
Quote:
Only vague. Of course, Miller's work and Burton's combined was the death of Batman as a character to me.

Frank Miller doesn't know **** about Batman, and even he didn't like the Burton movies.
Here's the thing though. You said Burton's Batman was a perversion to the comics. Not that it was a perversion to the comics you personally prefer.

Objectively speaking, Miller, Morrison, etc.'s work is just as valid and legitimate as O'Neil's or anyone else's.

But I don't think you quite grasp the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
Quote:
I'm very well at that. When I see Batman Returns I see a movie that doesn't make sense, is totally campy in a grimdark way and has nothing to do with the comics. Keaton giving funny looks doesn't count then anymore.
You just admitted it right there. It doesn't make sense to you. You're - for whatever reason - unable to comprehend anything outside of the aesthetical features of the film.
[quote]I can understand and Burton's "artistic ambitions" and "it's-teh-German-expressionism"(which one of you has actually ever watched a movie out of that era?), but the movie is still a failure as a movie and a Batman movie.[/QUOTEYyes, I understand that you can understand the visual aspect of Burton's films. The problem is, there's tons more ambiguous things about the films that you're totally oblivious to.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a giant Batman Returns fan myself. It is a bit too dark and gothic for my tastes. That said, I'm still perfectly capable of understanding it's merits, and why others hold it in such high regard. It's probably just my old IQ in action again.

__________________
It's like a non-consecutive 24-hour dance party.
CConn is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 04:44 PM   #357
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 3,002
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
Same could be said about Batman Returns.

Wrong. I was there. Kids AND adults hated it or where just totally confused.

it flopped because it had double the budget and made 100 million$ less than the first one. That's a flop. of course, you guys know nothing about economic thinking, especially if you are talking opportunity costs into account it was close to being a real flop.
Sorry double post

__________________

Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 04:45 PM   #358
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 3,002
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
Same could be said about Batman Returns.

Wrong. I was there. Kids AND adults hated it or where just totally confused.

it flopped because it had double the budget and made 100 million$ less than the first one. That's a flop. of course, you guys know nothing about economic thinking, especially if you are talking opportunity costs into account it was close to being a real flop.
No the same can't be said about batman returns. It didn't have overtly campy dialogue, bat nipples or butt shots.

Kids AND adults hated it? That might be so in whatever podunk area of America you were living in at the time. I don't recall anyone hating Batman Returns and I was there also. I saw it in the theatre twice and never saw anyone walk or kids crying or any of that BS that was reported about it being too dark at the time.

Batman Returns didn't flop. Saying it made 100 million less than the first one doesn't make it a flop. Rarely do sequels surpass the originals in terms of box office anyway. Batman Returns also made huge revenue in the merchandising. Batman Returns didn't make as much as the studio would've liked... that's totally different than a flop.

__________________


Last edited by Ponyboy; 11-27-2011 at 04:56 PM.
Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 04:47 PM   #359
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 3,002
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
No, a adaption true to the comics would be possible, including the costume. At least I believe that. But then again, I am not a parrot that repeats things he's heard from other people!
I never said it wasn't possible. Boy, you are a piece of work. It's totally possible... they could make it EXACTLY like the comics. They could make Batman look exactly like Breyfogle's Batman... white eyes... huge pointy ears and a the gray and blue suit. Would it succeed? THAT is what is questionable. Since you are now resorting to INSULTS I daresay you're walking the troll line. Careful partner.

__________________


Last edited by Ponyboy; 11-27-2011 at 04:56 PM.
Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 05:09 PM   #360
CConn
Fountainhead of culture.
 
CConn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Peter North's Southern Headquarters
Posts: 57,587
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponyboy View Post
I never said it wasn't possible. Boy, you are a piece of work. It's totally possible... they could make it EXACTLY like the comics. They could make Batman look exactly like Breyfogle's Batman... white eyes... huge pointy ears and a the gray and blue suit. Would it succeed? THAT is what is questionable. Since you are now resorting to INSULTS I daresay you're walking the troll line. Careful partner.
Don't let it upset you too much. I don't think he even comprehends half of what he's reading.

__________________
It's like a non-consecutive 24-hour dance party.
CConn is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 05:34 PM   #361
Cain
Man of Tomorrow
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Live from New York
Posts: 5,163
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponyboy View Post
No the same can't be said about batman returns. It didn't have overtly campy dialogue, bat nipples or butt shots.

Kids AND adults hated it? That might be so in whatever podunk area of America you were living in at the time. I don't recall anyone hating Batman Returns and I was there also. I saw it in the theatre twice and never saw anyone walk or kids crying or any of that BS that was reported about it being too dark at the time.

Batman Returns didn't flop. Saying it made 100 million less than the first one doesn't make it a flop. Rarely do sequels surpass the originals in terms of box office anyway. Batman Returns also made huge revenue in the merchandising. Batman Returns didn't make as much as the studio would've liked... that's totally different than a flop.

Batman Returns was in the top 10 high grossers of that year and doubled it's production budget domestically. Nothing was ever going to surpass the juggernaut that was the 1989 movie for quite sometime. It was a pop culture phenomenon. The movie was an event and it's commercial success reflects that.

Not even Forever could do it; it just out grossed BR domestic by about 20 mill. The '89 movie was WB's highest earner of all time until The Matrix came out. Then a few years later Batman & The Joker returned to reclaim that spot once again.

It's not an every day occurence that movies gross the amount of money that Batman did; adjust it's domestic take for inflation and it's only 33 million dollars short of TDK's domestic take. It's not something every movie manages to achieve. BR may not have had done the business WB wanted but it was hardly bad bank that it made back nevertheless. It was a financial success.

__________________
Pull list: Saga, The Manhattan Projects, Thief of Thieves, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Future's End, Action Comics, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Lantern Corps, Red Lanterns, Swamp Thing, Justice League, Justice League 3000, Justice League United, Earth 2, Earth 2: World's End, Worlds' Finest, Batman '66, Batgirl, Gotham Academy, Multiversity, X-O Manowar, Unity, Bloodshot, Archer & Armstrong, Daredevil, All-New X-Men
Cain is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 05:36 PM   #362
Cain
Man of Tomorrow
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Live from New York
Posts: 5,163
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by circa81 View Post
Oh wow, someone here other then me loves Ang Lee's Hulk. *salute*
My favorite piece of Hulk media outside of the comics so far

__________________
Pull list: Saga, The Manhattan Projects, Thief of Thieves, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Future's End, Action Comics, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Lantern Corps, Red Lanterns, Swamp Thing, Justice League, Justice League 3000, Justice League United, Earth 2, Earth 2: World's End, Worlds' Finest, Batman '66, Batgirl, Gotham Academy, Multiversity, X-O Manowar, Unity, Bloodshot, Archer & Armstrong, Daredevil, All-New X-Men
Cain is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 06:40 PM   #363
Frodo
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,507
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

BR wasn't a flop by any means. But it wasn't recieved by the public the way B89 was . There were a few reasons for that but as someone who was around and aware back then I can maybe shed light on a few reasons .

1)This film was released to a 1992 america which was much more socially conservative then as opposed to today. Hence the complaints of parents groups about Catwoman's sexiness and the violence among other things. B89 did get some flack from parents in terms of the Joker handshake scene, but you didn't have the boycott of McDonald's or whatever that BR got. This was also the pre Marvel, Nolan, and Watchman era of comic book flicks in which truely mature and thoughtfull comic book films were a decade away. Superman, Batman, the Hulk tv show, and the Crow were the exceptions at the time, not the rule.

2) You also have to keep in mind that when people thought of the Penguin in 1992 , they thought of the 60's show version. When Burton showed up with this radically different version of the Penguin who looked horrid and bit noses off , audiences were pretty shocked. It was a radical break from the status quo. Yes, Devito and Burton stated in interviews that this Penguin would be different ,but in those days you didn't have the social and ad media you have today ,so the majority of people going in weren't prepared for what they were gonna see. You had the making specials of course , but those were few and far between in those days.

3)It was a big hit money wise, but like Spiderman 3 ,there was a feeling that the film missed the mark or was considered "too dark". Hence WB decided to shift gears and go lightier a few years later. In other words , the reaction wasn't so bad that the francise was dead , i.e. Batman and Robin, but the studio did wanna make changes to appeal to the families , and hence make more money. There was a reason WB shifted in tone , so its not like it was an irrational decision on their part . And to be fair , BF make more money then BR , though much of that I believe was due to the growing success of Jim Carrey.

4) Batman 89 was a cultural phenom and I suppose any sequel to it would have had a high bar to reach. However people were pretty psyched in 1992 for the Batman 2 so its not like alot of the excitment disappeared over 4 years. Ultimately, it wasn't the film the GA were expecting , or ready to see at the time.

That's why I think , we always have to keep in mind the context of the times in which these films are made in . I wouldn't be suprised if the next generation starts picking apart the Nolan films and saying" They didn't do this or that ...".

Frodo is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 06:57 PM   #364
Cain
Man of Tomorrow
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Live from New York
Posts: 5,163
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Well I was 9 and I will say amongst kids the movie was the ****. Every kid in my school thought Keaton was bad ass and loved how grimy and "adult" everything felt. I will say I guess that's exactly why parents had a titty attack but my parents were always somewhat liberal in the sense that I've been watching R-rated movies with their approval all my life.

The Exorcist was scary, Tony Montana was violent compared to them in my eyes Batman was child's play. But yeah as an adult looking back you could see why parents had a fit. S&M costumes and references in a movie with a happy meal tie-in isn't exactly the most wholesome thing in the world.

I literally grew up on action, sci-fi and horror more so than animated movies and family flicks like most other kids did. Commando, Robocop, Aliens, The Terminator, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Thing, 48 Hrs. <---- that was a huge bulk of my childhood. So to me the movie never felt "scary" nor "really violent" or anything.

This was another reason BF didn't intially resonate with me. It felt like watered down **** compared to the Burton movies which felt to me like "real movies" since it was more in line with my more precocious sensibilities as a kid. I kind of grew up backwards or "grew down" lol in that now I find charm and likeability in BF as a 28 year old but as a 12 yr old it repulsed me when it's the opposite effect with other bat fans, that's interesting.

__________________
Pull list: Saga, The Manhattan Projects, Thief of Thieves, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Future's End, Action Comics, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Green Lantern Corps, Red Lanterns, Swamp Thing, Justice League, Justice League 3000, Justice League United, Earth 2, Earth 2: World's End, Worlds' Finest, Batman '66, Batgirl, Gotham Academy, Multiversity, X-O Manowar, Unity, Bloodshot, Archer & Armstrong, Daredevil, All-New X-Men

Last edited by Cain; 11-27-2011 at 07:10 PM.
Cain is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:22 PM   #365
TruerToTheCore
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth-1
Posts: 2,936
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...


Last edited by TruerToTheCore; 11-27-2011 at 11:27 PM.
TruerToTheCore is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 11:33 PM   #366
GothamAlleys
Side-Kick
 
GothamAlleys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,700
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Of course. thank you. Youre so right. I only like it because I was a kid at the time it came out. Im so stupid. Why would anything I like would be relevant because of the box office success. Thank you very much. I shouldve realized that before. What I like , whatever the arguments and reasons are, its stupid cause Im just stuck with my childhood and nevermind the history, nevermind the reasons, Im just a dumb guy who should get a wife and forget the past. How I could not see that before? Burtons movies are nothing like Batman, Schumacher got it right but nevermind, who would care when theres Nolan around? Everything else is crap and irrelevant no matter what Nolan says

__________________
GothamAlleys is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:37 AM   #367
Ponyboy
I'm the real Peterman.
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posts: 3,002
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...
Age doesn't make one wise.

What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.

Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.

What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.

I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.

__________________

Ponyboy is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 01:42 AM   #368
The Morningstar
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The place in between...
Posts: 10,150
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...
Burton's movies are grimdark camp?

Nolan's movies are grimdark melodrama with more spoon feeding than a nursery, crap action scenes, no visual flair, barely any Batman iconography and the most boring Batman ever.

Anyway, Batman Forever is decent. It had some truly great moments. Unfortunately, no where near enough. Which is annoying, because it had so much potential.

The Morningstar is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 07:13 AM   #369
CConn
Fountainhead of culture.
 
CConn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Peter North's Southern Headquarters
Posts: 57,587
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post
Folks, I will actually give this a rest, because I'm busy at work. They are old movies and they are also long in the past and thanks to the Nolan movies neither the Burton nor the Schumacher movies hold any relevance anymore. Nobody is ever going to convince me that Keaton was a good Batman and that the Burton are anything but grimdark camp, but you can of course believe what you want. Might have something to do that you were little kids when you saw the movie (probably on TV or VHS) and I was already a 12 year old fan who's read the comics for years...
And this is what we call waving the verbal white flag.

__________________
It's like a non-consecutive 24-hour dance party.
CConn is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 07:18 AM   #370
Bathead
The Oldest Geek
 
Bathead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sumwear in Pencilvainya
Posts: 5,046
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I remember Neal Adams being quoted as saying about Batman Forever, that it was "getting closer" to what Batman was about.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

__________________
Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't you got no friends at all?
Wanna see God?
*splat*

Last edited by Bathead; 11-28-2011 at 07:23 AM.
Bathead is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 07:48 AM   #371
Thebumwhowalks
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,377
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?
It's like Donner choosing to do a non-flying jumping Superman for the first movie, and fans who complain about that being rebuffed by 'It's still faithful to the comics.' It's a frickin annoying creative choice to have made.

I always remember back in 89 my pal asking me 'Why doesn't Batman just shoot the Joker when he busts in through that window(at the art gallery)?' In other words, 'if Batman is the kind of guy who will blow up a bunch of crooks with explosives, why doesn't he just carry a gun?'
and I couldn't really give him an answer as to why, because it doesn't make sense why he doesn't carry a gun.
He is prepared to kill the Joker and his henchmen when they make veiled threats to attack the populace during the parade...so why doesn't he just gun them all down when they are flooding the city with infected products? Sure, he figured out the formula by that time, but they were obviously going to do other similar deadly things right?

He carries a gun now and again in the early comics right? But again, the characvter didn't make make as much sense then, why go to the trouble of dressing up as a bat and fighting hand to hand, when you can just go round shooting folk? So, the character developed in the books to have a 'no kill' policy and we got the more interesting distinctive character that we all know.

Being 'faithful to the comics' is not always a good thing, when there are many different variations on the character, because the thing is, there were interpretations that did not make sense(the killer Batman), and ones that were pretty unpopular in the long run(sci-fi Batman).

Anyway, I am getting tired of talking about these movies, it's just the same stuff everyone disagrees on, and talks about all the time.
But that is part of the reason why i prefer watching BF, it's more faithful to the comics that worked in the long run, and were more popular, the type of Batman that will go on Forever in print. and the portrayal of the psycho killer Batman annoys me.

Thebumwhowalks is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 08:11 AM   #372
TruerToTheCore
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth-1
Posts: 2,936
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CConn View Post
And this is what we call waving the verbal white flag.
ah, c'mon. I'm just tired of responding to those walls of fanboy rage. Perhaps when I am in the mood I'll post some screens of how Batman was like before Burton...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamAlleys View Post
Of course. thank you. Youre so right. I only like it because I was a kid at the time it came out. Im so stupid. Why would anything I like would be relevant because of the box office success. Thank you very much. I shouldve realized that before. What I like , whatever the arguments and reasons are, its stupid cause Im just stuck with my childhood and nevermind the history, nevermind the reasons, Im just a dumb guy who should get a wife and forget the past.
Well... getting a wife helps.

And I don't hate the first Burton movie. I can see why people like it, what mainly does it for most people is the visuals and the score. I was just very disappointed back then. Because I felt that Keaton looked wrong and behaved totally odd. I was raised on the swinging Moench Batman who had four women at one (Nocturna, Julia Remarque, Vicki Vale, Catwoman).

But I still consider Batman Returns an insult and betrayal.

Quote:
How I could not see that before? Burtons movies are nothing like Batman, Schumacher got it right but nevermind, who would care when theres Nolan around? Everything else is crap and irrelevant no matter what Nolan says
Schumacher got it partially right, especially when it comes to Batman / Bruce Wayne. The neon and the camp was of course too much, but not that odd when you compare it to a 50s or 60s comic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponyboy View Post
Age doesn't make one wise.
Usually it does.

Quote:
What you should be saying is that you're giving it a rest because you cannot reasonably support your opinion even moderately well. You seemingly want a Batman film direct from the source material without any deviation.
How the **** can anyone support a feeling?

No, it doesn't really need to be direct from the source material, that would be odd, since Batman is not a single novel.
Quote:
Here's a case in point for a film which differs radically from the source... Arguably one of the greatest sci-fi films of our time is Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER. It's loosely based on a book by Philip K. Dick entitled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"... Now, the film differs from the book in many ways including the actual time during which the story takes place, some of the central themes, and even many of the characters. But that doesn't mean that Scott's film version is a failure, or a flop, or any less credible or valid as an adaptation of Dick's story.
I prefer the book. Like the Burton Batman the movie mainly looks good. I still like the movie, too. But well, Batman is an icon, so I expect him to be rooted in the source material. But this old "adaption" versus "interpretation" is found in every forum. It's boring, I just feel that Burton didn't get Batman.
Quote:
What Burton did with Batman was to adapt the character to the screen and give us a world that was believable. The concept that Keaton isn't a good Batman is alien to me. Anyone that appreciates nuance, subtlety, and underlying pain can appreciate Keaton's performance. I believe he gave something to the role of Bruce Wayne that we hadn't quite seen; making us understand why he was driven to be this Batman.
Keaton was AsBats (Asperger-Bats), not the real Batman. Fine performance for a different character, but wrong for Batman. Next time he should wear a cow mask to bring new light into Batman's psychology.

Quote:
I think Burton also gave the film a psychological complexity (however deep it may or may not have been) that intrigued casual movie goers that may have had no prior interest in Batman (perhaps because of the TV show). It's an grand take on the legacy, and it's also why the character endures in film today. To say otherwise is a blatant disregard for the obvious, of which I can only imagine must stem from some misguided sense you have of what Batman should and should not be.
I'd rather see the real Batman on screen, especially since it's was his first big exposure to the worldwide audience since the 60s. And thus he gave the people wrong ideas about the characters and we got those crappy 90s Batman comics.

Burton could have written an elseworld book instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Morningstar View Post
Burton's movies are grimdark camp?
Radioactive Secretary-Turned-Martial-Arts-Catwoman, Black-Goo-spitting-Penguin-being-buried-by-a-bunch-of-penguins, Rocket Penguins, Penguin-Controlling-The-batmobile-while-riding-a-giant-duck, Poodle-Catches-The-Batarang, I-Save-A-Baby-And-They'll-Want-Me-For-Mayor, Bruce-Wayne-is-sitting-and-suddenly-giant-batsignals-flash-which-would expose his identity in no time...

Seriously. It's so campy and it cannot be meant to be serious. Batman Returns is a campfest like the Adam West show, but the latter one was at least better written.

Quote:
Nolan's movies are grimdark melodrama with more spoon feeding than a nursery, crap action scenes, no visual flair, barely any Batman iconography and the most boring Batman ever.
Nolan's movies are not so dark IMO. And crappy action scenes.. gimme a break.. Burton's were even worse. The best action scenes are actually in the Schumacher movies (what probably no one wants to admit...)

Quote:
Anyway, Batman Forever is decent. It had some truly great moments. Unfortunately, no where near enough. Which is annoying, because it had so much potential.
It had potential. Like Batman 89. But at some point both movies failed. What a waste. Thank god for Nolan's Batman Begins who had the dignity to approach the material by taking it seriously and not turning it into another fairly tale-camp party.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bathead View Post
I remember Neal Adams being quoted as saying about Batman Forever, that it was "getting closer" to what Batman was about.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.
And Neal knows what he's talking about it.

BTW, many comic book creators didn't even like the Burton movies, don't kid yourself. The list includes Frank Miller, John Byrne, Paul Dini, Neal Adams and many more.

TruerToTheCore is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 08:19 AM   #373
TruerToTheCore
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth-1
Posts: 2,936
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebumwhowalks View Post
The thing that bugged/bugs me about that Burton film is that he chose to portray Batman as a killer.
Now, you might say, 'he killed in the early comics', but, so what? When you have the first chance to see a live action serious attempt at a Batman movie, and maybe the only chance(if it flops, or doesn't make enough to warrant a sequel)who the hell wants to see a representation of the character before he was fully developed?

It's like Donner choosing to do a non-flying jumping Superman for the first movie, and fans who complain about that being rebuffed by 'It's still faithful to the comics.' It's a frickin annoying creative choice to have made.
Well, yeah. Batman not killing is kinda a basic compound of the character. But since it was there originally I wouldn't even have a problem with it.
Quote:
I always remember back in 89 my pal asking me 'Why doesn't Batman just shoot the Joker when he busts in through that window(at the art gallery)?' In other words, 'if Batman is the kind of guy who will blow up a bunch of crooks with explosives, why doesn't he just carry a gun?'
and I couldn't really give him an answer as to why, because it doesn't make sense why he doesn't carry a gun.
He is prepared to kill the Joker and his henchmen when they make veiled threats to attack the populace during the parade...so why doesn't he just gun them all down when they are flooding the city with infected products? Sure, he figured out the formula by that time, but they were obviously going to do other similar deadly things right?
Burton's movies don't make sense. They have no internal logic. A killer can hold a parade and no policeman shows up. And then, Batman has no problem killing poor henchmen (who probably have a sick kid at home and only do it because there's no universal healthcare) but then he doesn't kill the big fish. Seems odd to me. Bad writing.


Quote:
He carries a gun now and again in the early comics right? But again, the characvter didn't make make as much sense then, why go to the trouble of dressing up as a bat and fighting hand to hand, when you can just go round shooting folk? So, the character developed in the books to have a 'no kill' policy and we got the more interesting distinctive character that we all know.
IIRC he didn't really carry a gun IN the stories themselves, he used one which he took from a crook to defend himself and stuff like that.

Quote:
Being 'faithful to the comics' is not always a good thing, when there are many different variations on the character, because the thing is, there were interpretations that did not make sense(the killer Batman), and ones that were pretty unpopular in the long run(sci-fi Batman).
Depends. By faithful to the comics I usually think about the stuff that is a pretty consistent part of the mythology. What I don't like is changing the characters in a major way.

Quote:
Anyway, I am getting tired of talking about these movies, it's just the same stuff everyone disagrees on, and talks about all the time.
But that is part of the reason why i prefer watching BF, it's more faithful to the comics that worked in the long run, and were more popular, the type of Batman that will go on Forever in print. and the portrayal of the psycho killer Batman annoys me.
Agreed.

TruerToTheCore is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 08:47 AM   #374
Thebumwhowalks
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,377
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore View Post

IIRC he didn't really carry a gun IN the stories themselves, he used one which he took from a crook to defend himself and stuff like that.
Ok, i wasn't sure about that, I haven't taken a look at any of the old 'killer Batman' stories I have in a long while(I haven't read them all), but i recalled him having some kind of gun holster on his belt, maybe in that Doctor Death story, could be me mis-remembering, or it was just something that looked like a gun holster.

Thebumwhowalks is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 08:54 AM   #375
TruerToTheCore
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth-1
Posts: 2,936
Default Re: Was BF a "decent" Batman Film or Not?

I think the gun holster was there, just no gun. It's been years. Of course there is one panel where he holds a smoking gun but that's not actually part of the story.

TruerToTheCore is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.