Those are TWO(!) stories. These are moments of melancholy. Thinking about the old times and how everything COULD have been. Not what they made Batman later: "Sitting depressed, lonely and brooding with weltschmerz in his batcave, out in Gotham he stands on the rooftops like a demon to bring pain to the evildoers to get his vengeance that could never be fulfilled" I mean the 70s guy who could actually smile and have fun and didn't think it's life is so bad.
The point is that you indicated that after saying goodbye at the gravesides, he didn't greive AT ALL. So you fail.
And did you miss all of the moments when Keaton smiled and had a good time with Vicki and Selina? Do you choose to be blind or something?
No, that's okay. Go on continuing to stereotype the film, because you think it helps you win.
Terms like "post-crisis" and "pre-crisis" DON'T work for Batman, because his portrayal was the same before Year One and after Year One. In 89 he was still the same guy who sometimes talked to civilians and walked around in BROAD DAYLIGHT!
It makes a Hell of a difference. Agreed that it isn't on the same scale a change as, say, Superman or Jason Todd, but a great majority of the pre-Crisis events were wiped away by (duh!) the Crisis! Therefore, Batman never made the final goodbye where he "had not shed a tear since."
And the '39 Batman didn't talk to citizens nor did he go out in the daylight. And the first interpretation must obviously be the most correct, right? So techincally, Burton had it more right then all of the comics that had him as a talkative, daylight-treading crusader!
But you'll be interested to know (as a Batfan, you SHOULD have known this) but an entire sequence for B89 that went unfilmed was a late afternoon-early dusk chasing of the Joker by Batman on horseback. So Burton and Hamm had no compulsion against putting Batman in the daylight. It only went unfilmed because Sean Young broke her collarbone while practicing horseback riding for said scene, so for technical reasons, it was cut.
His physique was the reason for that awful rubber suits. They should've got Tom Selleck, he could have worn a more faithful costume. Yeah, they didn't want to make a movie about a guy with a big chin and a broad chest, wasn't that what Burton said? So why did he do the movie? THat is what Batman is.
If you bothered to research, you'd know that there was much more to it than that. This isn't tracable to "Burton being an idiot" like you insinuate. Burton seemed to be the only person with synergy on the film, the only director under whom it would get off the ground. So without him, there would have been no theatrical Batman revival in '89, or maybe even at all if he hadn't dared to take the risk. And Burton couldn't believe a big, strapping guy would need to dress up like a Bat; ("He'd just wear a ski mask"). In Keaton, he saw not only the kind of mentality in the eyes that would be traumatized enough to do this insane thing, but also, Keaton needed ther suit to be intimidating, so it tied into the fact that Batman and Wayne were totally different people. Burton auditioned the physical type. He gave it a shot, but he couldn't see it really working. So his decision was arrived at for artistic reasons. And it's a change that is hardly worthy of complaint.
The suit was to make Keaton more imposing, yes, but the armor was just going to be there, period, to add a realistic element. It's for the same reason as
Batman Begins. Burton didn't just slap us in the face with it's use. Batman is shot in B89, and he lives because of that body armor.
Keaton does not appear short in the film. He doesn't appear tall either, but he doesn't appear short at all. And please, if you're trying to tell me that you assume Keaton has a physique without muscle, slap yourself. In films prior to Batman, Keaton's average physique can be seen. He doesn't have the musculature that the suit implies, but nor is he a lightweight. He has the body of an average, athletic man. I'm sorry if you wanted a bodybuilder, but it's obvious that Burton's artistic decision is lost on you.
My arguments are as "weak" as yours.
Not really. At least my arguments are based on logic and not just emotion. It just so happens I like what I'm defending. But hey, if you don't like the thing, why try to be logical about it, right?
You are defending what you like and I am attacking what I dislike.
Fair enough.
The guys who like the movie are on your side. That's the way every discuission goes.
Are you trying to imply that you're right and we don't "get it" because we like it? You're implying that we're foolish. They're on my side because I make sense. At least, according to everyone else.
He was a strange human being. It's right - we can't really say if he is insane - because we - hardly - do know things about him. But that's because it's DEEP, I know!
Actually, if you could read between the lines, you'd know a lot about the Batman of Burton's movies. Just because he doesn't deliver a monologue about himself doesn't mean the character went undeveloped. Nearly every scene he's in serves to develop him, no matter how small or quirky. It's all in the fine art of acting. You really should take an acting class, it will expand your mind to the finer parts of a performance.
It's when that psychobabble started, yes. But the answer for Batman's motivation is simple: He IS a good guy. I am not saying that these "exploring" things were bad. But just went to far. Batman became insane, Superman became dumb (HEY! Why doesn't that dumb guy end war on earth!), Green Arrow became a Punisher-like guy.
Again, you're stereotyping. Exploration of depth of character is generic psychobabble and it makes Batman all dark and not right? Are you a secret 60s series groupie? Because they're the only ones I've seen that stick to the idea that dark and serious Batman = not right. Not that I don't love the 60s series. And Batman has never been depicted as insane, with the exception of maybe "All-Star Batman and Robin." Not even in the 90s. Sorry to disappoint you.
Serial superheroes should be more treated like fairy tales and mythology characters.
So mythology isn't allowed to be deep? Then why did you bother reading any comics past the 1940s?
What depth is for some wannabe intellectuals is often just pretentious crap to other people.
[caveman]FIRE BAD![/caveman]
No real offense intended (really!) but youre argument is just about equal to the above.
Just an example: Today a lot of people think that Batman is totally obsessed and insane. But back then he wasn't. But when people read those old comics they have this "new" take in mind. So it's difficult.
Only stupid children who know only one version of Batman think that. And the fact that you tried to stereotype me as that when I have a far more intimate knowledge of the character (which wasn't rocket science, given my arguments) is insulting.
the early-Bob Kane Batman is something else.
Something else? Like what? Let's compare....
Kane's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.
Keaton's Batman: Dark, weird vigilante that worked only by night, hardly spoke, did only what was necessary and killed occassionally.
Yeah.... something else entirely. Even though numerous sources confirm that Burton and Hamm went directly to the Kane material for their primary inspiration. So the similarities are accidental, I'm sure.
A LOT of comic book writer thought that Burton did it wrong. Those movies aren't really loved by the comic book scene.
I haven't heard anything even remotely negative about the Burton films from anyone in the industry. Provide some links if you dare. And aside from Nolan fanboys who accept nothing else, the films are not hated in the least. So your insinuation is flawed. No doubt there are plenty that wouldn't consider them the prefurred adaptations, but the movies are not unloved by the comic scene. Or did you miss Kevin Smith, Bruce Timm, Michael Uslan, Alex Ross and others making positive comments about the films? If nothing else, the films are loved for how they helped make comics accepted in the mainstream again.
t:
In the scene at the part he appears short. And especially with Basinger and Pfeiffer. Because they are girls you know.
