Out of curiosity, is there anyone around here who disliked Michael Keaton's Batman?

[The Chairman]

Singer wasn't an X-MEN fan....?

Are you sure? I mean.....I don't know if he's read any comics......I know he has read any Superman comics.....but he's a fan of the characters.......I mean, he'd have to be if he ever got interested in making a film of it. Same with Burton, he was a fan of the character and the potential of the character....just didn't read the books.

That's essentially what I meant. He's obviosuly a fan of comic book movies, as Donner's Superman The Movie, along with Jaws, inspired Singer to become a director.

 

[atomicbattery]

Speaking of Adam West, the box office success of the 1989 'Batman' owed a great deal to the 1966-68 television show. The series was a genuine phenomenon- some forty million people watched it every week in the first season (To give some perspective, this was in a country with a population of less than 200 million. Contrast that with the current television phenomenon, 'American Idol', which averages around thirty million viewers in a country of over 300 million. In 1966 one of every four or five Americans watched 'Batman' every week, while today one in ten watches 'Idol".).

Twentythree years after the 'Batman' television series, nearly every baby boomer in the country was primed to see 'Batman', the movie, and take their kids along, too.

I've seen several posters here tout the box-office success of the 1989 'Batman' as evidence of Michael Keaton's success in the role. A far greater measure of the public acceptance of his performance and the Burton interpretation of the character would be the box-office of 'Batman Returns'. Audiences went to see 'Batman' because it was Batman. Audiences would see 'Returns' based on their reactions to the Burton-Keaton version.

When audiences react positively to a film, sequel box-office will often rise (Bourne Identity-Supremecy, X-Men and X-II). In the case of 'Batman Returns', there was an unprecedented drop in box office receipts of some ninety million dollars. If you want to use box-office, that would be your public verdict on the Keaton Batman.

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

Actually he DID know the tv series at least because he said several times that he thought they wanted him in the movie because they were doing (he thought) a version of the tv show and he was surprised when they told him they wanted to do a dark version. That's when he became interested and Burton showed him Dark Knight Returns which he loved and in which he based his performance. I don't care how he felt before, he started to love the character afterwards and to this day shows respect to it and that's the most important thing and like it was pointed out Bale didn't care for it in the beginning either. Only after they brought him Arkham Asylum and Year One did he became interested.

 

[The Joker]

And Batman was most decidedly uncool after 'Batman and Robin'.

No, Schumacher was decidedly uncool after Batman and Robin. Batman the character was still very much cool.

Catwoman is not suddenly an uncool character because of CINO.

When audiences react positively to a film, sequel box-office will often rise (Bourne Identity-Supremecy, X-Men and X-II). In the case of 'Batman Returns', there was an unprecedented drop in box office receipts of some ninety million dollars. If you want to use box-office, that would be your public verdict on the Keaton Batman.

That tells you nothing about the public verdict of Keaton.

Spider-Man 1&2 are in the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time, and both are critically acclaimed movies. But SM-2 didn't make as much as SM-1 did. But it is hailed as being better than the first one by critics and fans.

 

[El Payaso]

I think that, if you were a Batman fan before the movie opened in 1989, one of the most offensive things about Michael Keaton was how he acted as if playing the role was beneath him, that he never would have considered it if it had not been for Tim Burton.

As a Batman fan before and after batman 89 and a movie lover all my life I only can be offended by your implication that artist's results and skills must be measured according to what they say about a movie or a role.

Brando on Stanley Kowalski: "Kowalski was always right, and never afraid. He never wondered, he never doubted. His ego was very secure. And he had the kind of brutal agressiveness that I hate. I'm afraid of it. I detest the character".

So according to your 'brilliant' way of appreciating acting, Brando did a terrible work.

No matter what Keaton could have said - specially before the movie was even starting to be done - but the results are there and that's what we must appreciate.

Your attempt to bash Keaton according to his early declarations and reactions shows that you are more a prejudice lover and have little to say about what he did as Batman.

-In the January 23, 1989 Newsweek ('Return to Gotham City', p.68) Keaton said "'I read the script out of politeness'... It's clear that Keaton, Burton... are working hard to subvert the traditional concept of the basic story." (You can say that again.)

Huh? Keaton talking about himself in the third person?

Well, if he was talking about Burton's Batman, it is clearly his own opinion, no more. Doesn't affect in anything his results as Batman.

-In the July 1989 issue of Premiere ('Batguy", p.50): "When he was first offered the role, he was unenthusiastic... When Burton called about Batman, Keaton hesitated again. 'I don't know the comic book, the television series, none of that. Never cared about any of it,' he says... Still, out of curiosity and as a favor to Burton, who had directed him in 'Beetlejuice', Keaton read the script."

Wait a minute. If he wasn't a fan and knew none of Batman, how could he know how 'subverting' the Burton version was going to be?

Or even better, how can you take for serious his opinion about the matter so you quote him as an attempt to show us how 'bad' he was?

If we accept your theory that expressing an opinion is somehow a sign of bad acting of course.

-In the June 29, 1989 Rolling Stone ('Batman- Can Michael Keaton Fill the Cape?', p.44) Keaton said "When Tim first came to me with the script, I read it out of politeness."

Fantastic.

A great Batman AND a polite guy.

He went out of his way to emphasize this in interview after interview.

This is the man who played Johnny Dangerously.

Playing one of the handful of great popular culture icons of the 20th century, however, held no interest for him.

So?

After he started he onbviously changed his mind so all this crap is even more irrelevant.

And if he didn't change it, then hell he was a damn good actor to play so good some character he hated.

If you call yourself a Batman fan, and you read the disdain in those comments, I think you have to ask yourself: Are you really a Batman fan?

If you call yourself a Batman fan, and you read those comments as a proof of anything, I think you have to ask yourself: Am I really a Batman fan or am I just a rabid fanboy?

 

[El Payaso]

Speaking of Adam West, the box office success of the 1989 'Batman' owed a great deal to the 1966-68 television show. The series was a genuine phenomenon- some forty million people watched it every week in the first season (To give some perspective, this was in a country with a population of less than 200 million. Contrast that with the current television phenomenon, 'American Idol', which averages around thirty million viewers in a country of over 300 million. In 1966 one of every four or five Americans watched 'Batman' every week, while today one in ten watches 'Idol".).

So we should say that Batman Begins owes his success to the previous franchise only?

If any, most of the audience should have been dissapiointed with B89 since it was the opposite of the 66 Tv series.

Twentythree years after the 'Batman' television series, nearly every baby boomer in the country was primed to see 'Batman', the movie, and take their kids along, too.

They had time enough to stop seeing the miovie, give it a bad mouth to mouth and not buying the products related to the movie.

But they didn't. So your poor theory doesn't work.

I've seen several posters here tout the box-office success of the 1989 'Batman' as evidence of Michael Keaton's success in the role. A far greater measure of the public acceptance of his performance and the Burton interpretation of the character would be the box-office of 'Batman Returns'. Audiences went to see 'Batman' because it was Batman. Audiences would see 'Returns' based on their reactions to the Burton-Keaton version.

The evidence is that everyone involved wanted Keaton for the sequel and even after Returns they wanted him back for B Forever.

When audiences react positively to a film, sequel box-office will often rise (Bourne Identity-Supremecy, X-Men and X-II). In the case of 'Batman Returns', there was an unprecedented drop in box office receipts of some ninety million dollars. If you want to use box-office, that would be your public verdict on the Keaton Batman.

Unprecedent? It never happened before?

Returns was good and risky enough to make his own way and stop pleasing the masses. That's all.

 

[atomicbattery]

Spider-Man 1&2 are in the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time, and both are critically acclaimed movies. But SM-2 didn't make as much as SM-1 did. But it is hailed as being better than the first one by critics and fans.

Yes, SpideyII grossed 4% less worldwide than Spider-Man. Batman Returns grossed over 35% less worldwide than Batman. Umm, just a little difference.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, SpideyII grossed 4% less worldwide than Spider-Man. Batman Returns grossed over 35% less worldwide than Batman. Umm, just a little difference.

Nothing respect to Keaton. 35% or not, they called him for Batman Forever.

 

[atomicbattery]

They had time enough to stop seeing the miovie, give it a bad mouth to mouth and not buying the products related to the movie.

But they didn't.

Actually, 'Batman' had very mixed word of mouth. The forty million dollar opening weekend was absolutely shocking. No film had had even a thirty million dollar opening weekend before. The June 30, '89 issue of Variety reported that the film was now expected to rocket wll past $300 million in domestic gross. But it stalled at $251 million.

As an ad executive working on 'Batman Returns' was quoted in US magazine in June 1992 ('The Making of Batman Returns', p.62), 'People are cynical about this film, especially adults. The last time, everybody came in with their own ideas about what Batman should be, and so the movie didn't jell with everyone.'

And, as stated before, a very large part of the group that the film didn't 'jell' with were Batman fans. I would refer you once again to the exhaustively researched, highly-praised analysis of Batman as a cultural icon 'Batman Unmasked', by Will Brooker. The relevent chapter would be "'Batman' and Fandom: Anticipation and Rejection'. If you don't want to bother to read it, simply note the prominence of the words Fandom and Rejection.

 

[El Payaso]

I rather note the facts and what happened.

I might respect his opinion but I won't think his book is the Bible.

 

[Bat Attack]

WTF does "jell" mean?

 

[Bruce_Wayne29]

When audiences react positively to a film, sequel box-office will often rise (Bourne Identity-Supremecy, X-Men and X-II). In the case of 'Batman Returns', there was an unprecedented drop in box office receipts of some ninety million dollars. If you want to use box-office, that would be your public verdict on the Keaton Batman.

It WAS the biggest movie of 92 in worldwide box-office. That should tell you something. That drop if something tells you that due to being a darker movie it was less acessible to kids as the first one was.
Batman Forever was lighter (thus more kids went to see it and one can argue that Kilmer and O' Donnell brought more female public to a movie that otherwise girls wouldn't be so interested in) and it showed at the box-office but as history shows it it never made as much money on video/dvd sales and rentals as the first two...
I even find it funny because everytime I go to the mall to shop for dvds everytime they put dvds of the first two movies, the following week they're sold out while Forever and Batman and Robin are always on the shelves...
Even Spider-Man 2 didn't make as much money as the first one and I think almost everyone loves Tobey Maguire as Spidey...

 

[the_joker]

Why are we still debating about it? We're all entitled to our opinion - even though the Burton haters' opinions are seriously misguided. If you think the Burton's films were crap then fine, just don't feel the need to keep posting "evidence" in a vain attempt to try and prove to yourself and others that your opinion actually has grounds. Because nobody cares if Batman89 made less at the box office or whatever, because it doesn't prove anything. We can all watch the films ourselves and form our own judgement. And saying "burton crapfest should be burnt blah blah" doesn't make you cool, it makes you look stupid imo.

 

[batmaluco]

It WAS the biggest movie of 92 in worldwide box-office. That should tell you something. That drop if something tells you that due to being a darker movie it was less acessible to kids as the first one was.
Batman Forever was lighter (thus more kids went to see it and one can argue that Kilmer and O' Donnell brought more female public to a movie that otherwise girls wouldn't be so interested in) and it showed at the box-office but as history shows it it never made as much money on video/dvd sales and rentals as the first two...
I even find it funny because everytime I go to the mall to shop for dvds everytime they put dvds of the first two movies, the following week they're sold out while Forever and Batman and Robin are always on the shelves...
Even Spider-Man 2 didn't make as much money as the first one and I think almost everyone loves Tobey Maguire as Spidey...

This happened to me when I was going to purchase the Two-Disc Special Edition DVDs.
I looked on a store and there was several of each one of the DVDs.
A week later I went to make the purchase and there were only BF and B&R on the shelves, the Burton/Keaton movies were already sold out.
This happened last year, soon after Begins release.
Does this prove something? I don't think so.
Only that they are still giving profits to WB, and lots of people still love it.

BTW, very nice avatar.

 

[LongDong]

Why are we still debating about it? We're all entitled to our opinion - even though the Burton haters' opinions are seriously misguided. If you think the Burton's films were crap then fine, just don't feel the need to keep posting "evidence" in a vain attempt to try and prove to yourself and others that your opinion actually has grounds. Because nobody cares if Batman89 made less at the box office or whatever, because it doesn't prove anything. We can all watch the films ourselves and form our own judgement. And saying "burton crapfest should be burnt blah blah" doesn't make you cool, it makes you look stupid imo.

it keeps being debated because of jackass comments like this one here

 

[LongDong]

This happened to me when I was going to purchase the Two-Disc Special Edition DVDs.
I looked on a store and there was several of each one of the DVDs.
A week later I went to make the purchase and there were only BF and B&R on the shelves, the Burton/Keaton movies were already sold out.
This happened last year, soon after Begins release.
Does this prove something? I don't think so.
Only that they are still giving profits to WB, and lots of people still love it.

BTW, very nice avatar.

That pic cracks me up, it furthers the argument of how wrong keaton was. he looks like a midget who fell into a vat of latex rubber. What a manly jaw he has. Look, his double chin sticks out more than his jaw.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[WhiteRat]

Why are we still debating about it? We're all entitled to our opinion - even though the Burton haters' opinions are seriously misguided. If you think the Burton's films were crap then fine, just don't feel the need to keep posting "evidence" in a vain attempt to try and prove to yourself and others that your opinion actually has grounds. Because nobody cares if Batman89 made less at the box office or whatever, because it doesn't prove anything. We can all watch the films ourselves and form our own judgement. And saying "burton crapfest should be burnt blah blah" doesn't make you cool, it makes you look stupid imo.

No were not misguided.Its just unlike you,we want a good quality Batman movie that doesnt Butcher to death his character or the comics.Thank God for Nolan and Goyer because we finally got one. Talk about vain attempts to post "evidence" in a vain attempt to try and prove to yourself and others that your opinion actually has grounds-How about this recent one from the Burton camp-I even find it funny because everytime I go to the mall to shop for Dvd's,everytime they put out Dvd's of the first two movies,the following week they're sold out while Forever and Batman and Robin are always on the shelves.wow great convincing argument there. Then there is this one,and the dropoff if anything tells you that due to being a darker movie it wasnt as accessible to kids as the first one was.All that does is prove what I have been saying all along that kids around the country made Batman 89 a box office success at the movies because of his extreme popularity.But Batman fans were not so thrilled with it so obviously the numbers dropped off drastically for Batman Returns.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

And, as stated before, a very large part of the group that the film didn't 'jell' with were Batman fans. I would refer you once again to the exhaustively researched, highly-praised analysis of Batman as a cultural icon 'Batman Unmasked', by Will Brooker. The relevent chapter would be "'Batman' and Fandom: Anticipation and Rejection'. If you don't want to bother to read it, simply note the prominence of the words Fandom and Rejection.

Im not getting into this argument anymore, but i do want to address this book that you have mentioned. Twice.

Guys, do some review research on this book, or better yet, when you are at a book store, just browse thru it and read some excerpts. This book is garbage. The guy even supports the whole gay batman thing that was brought up back in the 50's. I can say i no longer own this book, i threw it in the garbage after i read it. There are alot of negative reviews about this book, and alot of "on the fence" reviews. I have seen very little positive or praisinf reviews. The most you read about from the reviews is the kudos they gave Brooker for all the "research" he put into it. Its just HIS take on the character with pieces of interviews he conducted.

And, no, i wont post links to these reviews. You all have a computer, look them up yourselves if you are interested.

Oh, and the statement "the exhaustively researched, highly-praised analysis of Batman as a cultural icon 'Batman Unmasked'". is one of the things that was on the book jacket. Thats what made me buy the book to begin with. Was i scammed by that one.

 

[Bat Attack]

That pic cracks me up, it furthers the argument of how wrong keaton was. he looks like a midget who fell into a vat of latex rubber. What a manly jaw he has. Look, his double chin sticks out more than his jaw.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[The Joker]

Guys, do some review research on this book, or better yet, when you are at a book store, just browse thru it and read some excerpts. This book is garbage. The guy even supports the whole gay batman thing that was brought up back in the 50's. I can say i no longer own this book, i threw it in the garbage after i read it. There are alot of negative reviews about this book, and alot of "on the fence" reviews. I have seen very little positive or praisinf reviews. The most you read about from the reviews is the kudos they gave Brooker for all the "research" he put into it. Its just HIS take on the character with pieces of interviews he conducted.

Thought so

LMAO!

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Im sorry, but i couldnt resist.

 

[batmaluco]

LMAO!
Some more of bad pictures from great movies:

 

[atomicbattery]

Guys, do some review research on this book, or better yet, when you are at a book store, just browse thru it and read some excerpts. This book is garbage. The guy even supports the whole gay batman thing that was brought up back in the 50's. I can say i no longer own this book, i threw it in the garbage after i read it. There are alot of negative reviews about this book, and alot of "on the fence" reviews. I have seen very little positive or praisinf reviews. The most you read about from the reviews is the kudos they gave Brooker for all the "research" he put into it. Its just HIS take on the character with pieces of interviews he conducted.

Amazon lists only seven editorial reviews of 'Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Culural Icon'. All are positive. Book got 4 out of 5 stars from eight reader reviews.
Three most notable publisher reviews:

Entertainment Weekly: 'Brooker cuts through the mumbo jumbo to deliver incisive analysis and very sharp reporting.'
Publishers Weekly: 'This heavily footnoted volume will appeal to avid students of pop culture and comics.'
super-heroes.net- 'A stunningly well-done, intelligent book.'

I agree that Brooker spends waaay too much time on the subject of Wertham and gay readings of Batman and Robin (it takes up most of the middle of the book and gets pretty tiresome). But as someone who reads anything Batman related in the print media, I have found it the most enormously researched single source on Batman.

There are four sections:

1 1939-45: Origins and Wartime
2 1954: Censorship and Queer Readings
3 1961-69: Pop and Camp
4 1986-97: Fandom and Authorship

My advice (for whatever that's worth), skip section 2, but absolutely read the rest- great stuff.

 

[LongDong]

Come come, at least get one where he is not in the middle of saying something and contortiing his face. At least compare apples to apples here, not find the worst pic you can and use that. I expect better out of you an

 

[the_joker]

it keeps being debated because of jackass comments like this one here

Right. I can see that you are such an intellectual that you need to resort to insults. Oh and in case you're too clever to work it out, I'm being sarcastic... "Jackass".

No were not misguided.Its just unlike you,we want a good quality Batman movie that doesnt Butcher to death his character or the comics.Thank God for Nolan and Goyer because we finally got one.

Well I only have two things to say to that:

A. Batman returns is a movie based on a comic book. If you want the real deal, then go and read the comic. Batman89 and BR were Burton's own interpretation made into the films. And a very good interpretation I might add.

B. And seeing as you seem to know so much about comics, you should already know that Nolan's Batman Begins is full of changes to the "orignal" Batman story. Like, Hello? Who is Rachel? She isn't even in any of the comics. There are many more differences in the movies, or as you like to put "butched" by the Oh-so wonderful Nolan and Goyer himself, either way there's loads, far too many for me to list here.