He was a strange guy in his castle
Again, you choose to ignore the evidence I provided. He was a strange guy in his castle..... who had a good time with women. You still claim all he did was be sad. I've proven you wrong on this.
No, stereotyping. What I'M giving YOU are "Simple facts" which you choose to ignore.
THERE is no DIFFERENCE! The real change came with ZERO HOUR.
Behavior-wise? Yes.
But the post-crisis Batman was the same guy the pre-crisis Batman was. Just some "window dressing" changed.
Change of continuity is more than window dressing. I said that the Crisis removed events that you depicted as necessary in your fight against Burton film appreciation. Now it doesn't matter? Pick an argument and stick to it. The Crisis angle isn't working for you, as I've already disproved you.
Man! Read the old stuff! He had friends and he talked to civilans in 39. He even asked for the goddamn way once! In a very friendly and polite way!
Well no ****. I would have never guessed. I meant he never held lengthy conversations with citizens as BATMAN, nor spoke anything more than a few words, which is clearly what you meant.
Calm down and you may start making a winning argument. Don't lose your temper.... it makes you seem like a child.
No no no. The "ski mask" escuse was just made to JUSTIFY Keaton. He wanted Keaton because he worked with him before. It was his ego. Not because he thought it made more sense. How? Even the most intimidating guy would get problems against a few people, especially with firearms.
So wait, you're throwing evidence out the window? You get to play that game now? I mean, I know you've been doing it, but this is the worst of all. I got my evidence for Burton's reasons DIRECTLY from authorized, released material. Straight out of Burton's MOUTH, and you're going to sit here and tell me that it's incorrect?
You have no interest in being fair. This is the proof positive. You just want to hate Burton's films, and you will twist things any way you can to make yourself look correct. Why would he lie? People like you will always hate him anyway, so I know damn well he doesn't give a damn.
And now? A fictional character is at the mercy of the writer, if he doesn't have body armor simply don't write a scene were he is hit by a bullet! BTW: In this fictional realm he could have used a more accurate Batman suit who just happen to be bulletproof because of some (magic, magic) fictional armor material that doesn't exist in our world. YOu know, like the original Batman. I guess you know that when the Joker shoots Batman in one of the early stories.
Magic.... it would be insulting to fans to deny Batman SOME kind of realism. If you want magic, stick to the 50s comics.
Of course he has muscles, how could he move without?
In the scene at the part he appears short. And especially with Basinger and Pfeiffer. Because they are girls you know.
Except that, you know, he has easily a half-inch to an inch on both of them. Just watched both films last night. I know what I'm talking about.
ATHLETIC? Keaton may be thin and cut but ATHLETIC? Doesn't athletic mean to be taller-than-average and a better-than-average built? Guys like Sean Connery or Bruce Willis are athletic guys - but Keaton?? Stop kiddin.
Seen it with my own eyes. He has a preportionately athletic build for his size. Once again, I bring evidence. You merely cover your eyes and yell "LIES!!" when presented with evidence. And then state your opinion, calling it fact.
I didn't want a bodybuilder, I want an alpha male type. You know, with charisma and - you know - a big chin.
Fine, if he can act. Bale can act. So go revel in the TDK forum and stay the Hell out of here if you dislike Burton so much.
Yes. Just because you can't beat me in an argument doesn't make me unfair. If you make a valid point, I will give it to you. But you haven't made a single one toward the argument.
This is the Batman Movie forum. This is the place of the Burton fans.
THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You're being a troll. And again, you accuse us of being idiots. Keep posting like this and you'll eventually get banned.
Since you have no constructive discussion of the Burton films, all you're doing here is trolling. You've been totally crushed in the argument, why don't you leave and stop
acting PATHETIC enough to keep complaining about a 15 year old film. Stop living up to the "geek who can't let anything go" stereotype. Guess what, there'll always be people who like what you don't. Thereby, going up to them and saying "what you like is stupid" is childish and silly.
I just think you overrate Burton's work. It's not really subtle at all. He is style-over-substance.
Because you're not smart enough to 'get' it, apparently.
60s series groupie? I hate this goddamn series! It's the reason why comic books have such a "funny" reputation.
True colors = shown. Someone who claims to be such a fan of Batman should love the series. It was my first exposure to Batman. I wouldn't be a fan if it wasn't for the brilliance of the show. Camp be damned, it was still a fantastic action/adventure show.
You misunderstand. Growth and change in comic books is just something for comic book geeks.
So you want comics books to not get the same treatment as "serious material".... do you really even LIKE comics? Why would you want to read something pathetic and one-dimensional?
What about new readers? Why can't they enjoy Batman like I did when I was 8 years old?
Because things change... deal with it. Evne if the comics were still being written and drawn the same as when you were 8, nobody would experience it the way you did because..... you're you. Other people are other people.
They cannot buy those comics because they wouldn't understand it (too much continuity, too less "status quo").
Again, you act as if the human brain as no ability to learn CONTEXT. Context is the magical thing that allows YOU to enjoy the Batman comics that existed before you were born.
Actually a lot of modern comic book writers try too hard to be "mature" when in fact it's just stupid what they right. Violence doesn't equal maturity, but a lot of fans and writers never learned that lesson.
I actually agree with this only in the context of comic book geeks. Like, the bad, hardcore type. They think violent = mature and it annoys the Hell out of me (Like the lot that scream "The movie has to be rated R for the Joker to be right!!). But the writers.... they're just writing evolved material. I'm sorry, but things have to expand beyond the limited storytelling of your youth if they're to continue to thrive!
Like I said. You (and me) cannot judge the past of Batman before we started to read.
Go look up the definition of "Context."
Like so many people say that Batman's early adventures are SOOOO dark and gritty when in fact they were quite harmless for the time. Batman killing was not a big thing. Superman killed. Hawkman killed. Disney characters killed. Not to speak of guys like the Shadow or the hardcore-version of him, The Spider. Much more violence. And not to mention the EC Comics with real graphic torture.
True.
So we read our Batman now (who doesn't kill) and then read the original stories and think "What a raw guy compared to our modern version".
But back then he was not really a "wild" character.
That doesn't matter. What matters is that same comparison of modern to vintage. Focus on what's RELEVENT.
The same goes for the Silver Age. This was not stupid or campy, it was just the way every comic was back then.
I'm sorry, but "Batman becomes Bat-Baby!" and "The Bat Ape!" were stupid AND campy back in that time as well. It just so happens that all of the other comics were, too.
And suddenly in the 80s and 90s they wanted to make Batman some adults-only material. That was so stupid. Batman is a very "childish" fantasy.
Have you even READ a Batman comic lately? Dark and serious, yes. Adult-only material? Are you a monk or something?
SERIOUS does not equal "adults only". Do you think kids aren't allowed to read anything serious?
You know, lose your parents and then become a crimefighter. THat's not the idea of an insane guy, it springs more from a kid's mind. If this happened to me and my parents I would become a crimefighter.
Exactly. That's why no depiction of Batman is insane. It's quite logical. That's the depth of the character.
again, that's superficial. "Kane"'s Batman: easy-going, Keaton's Batman: depressed and deranged.
You're still gonna try and argue this? The 1939 comics didn't hold the psychological depth to show him brooding or show what would ACTUALLY happen if you had that trauma. You wouldn't be happy-go lucky. I'm sorry that you want a fantasy Batman like George Clooney that got over it.
Okay, then why isn't the Joker NOTHING like the old version? why is there an Alfred? why doesn't Batman operate in NEW YORK? why isn't Bruce Wayne a charming and funny guy? Why doesn't Batman say one-liners? Why does he wear a big rubber suit?
I said PRIMARY inspiration, blindy.
okay I start with John Byrne:
That's not even remotely negative. It's not favorable, of course, but it's hardly a scathing insult. But hey, a dark and serious film exploring Batman's psychology is bad, to you. You want him to be a happy Adam West style character.
Oh, wait, you hated the 60s series.
So, what the hell DO you want?
Frank Miller said it in an interview for Batman begins that they "finally" got it right.
Still not a really 'scathing' insult. He could have easily still like a lot of things about the previous films. I'm looking for something concrete and definitive. Like "I hated Burton's films."
JESUS!
