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...
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.
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.
Age doesn't make one wise.
Usually it does.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
