I think that the main problem is that Burton made his own thing, not an adaptation of batman and his world.
Yes, Burton did his own thing. Guess what? A lot of elements of it caught on, even in the comic books. And Burton definitely made an "adaption of Batman and his world". What he didn't do was a "literal translation." Neither is Nolan.
He made his own batman with everyman michael keaton, his own joker with fat and old jack nicholson and his own penguin with the freak apparence of danny de vito. It pissed myself and another fans because we were waiting for an adaptation of batman, not tim burton vision about batman and his world.
So you wanted a Batman in blue and gray spandex, a Joker who didn't usually kill, and a Penguin who wore a blue yellow and purple tux and commited crimes involving birds and umbrellas? Would you have preferred actors that WEREN'T of the caliber of Keaton, Nicholson and DeVito? Nevermind that Nolan's taking the same approach, casting huge or well known pop culture names as the main villains and supporting cast. Is that what I'm getting from your comments? You all spit on Burton's changes and are so ready to accept Nolan's...many of which actually seem to deviate more from the comics than Burton's did (changes which were mostly VISUAL changes to characters, not character or mythos changes). It's pretty funny.
Actually, posting that batman was the main focus in the burton movies its false. Nicholson's joker has a lot of more screentime than Keaton and is the main focus, same with devito's penguin and michelle's catwoman in returns. The villains were the main focus and they have more screentime than batman.
Don't know about Nicholson, but he definitely wasn't the main focus. He had a lot of screentime so his character had WEIGHT, depth, and a complete origin, as well as a strong continuing character. Nothing more, nothing less. The story is titled BATMAN. It begins with Batman, everything we see is in relation to how it affects Batman, not Joker. batman gets the girl, saves the day, and has the most emotion shown onscreen. In every sequence that he's onscreen, Batman gets the upper hand and shows up anyone else. It's his film.
And as far as your comments on RETURNS go, not true. Keaton has more screentime than Penguin and Catwoman in RETURNS, and a lot of their screentime is when he's onscreen with them, or in scenes with them.
The arguement that because someone was unfit and did a good job despite is a awful argument.
Not really. And at least you spelled argument right once in that sentence.
Let me get this straight
Keaton is physically unfit, but is a good actor and makes up for it.
Physically unfit? Have you ever heard about Keaton training with kickboxing and martial arts before BATMAN, and how his mentors raved about him? Do you see excess flab hanging off him when he is shirtless, or in a tight shirt?
Bale is physically a match, and is a good actor, so therefore wouldn't he take Keaton's place.
No. Since they're part of two different franchises. Did Keaton make people forget about Adam West? Did Conroy make people forget about Keaton? Does the comic book make you forget about all other versions? No. No it doesn't.
Joker was great, but just because JN did a good job of acting insanely clownish. But the origins were changed drastically, especially Joker's. Joker was a down and out comedian tricked into doing a raid under the guise of the Red Hood.
Ooh, "The Red Hood". How cinematic.
He had no prior criminal record...we are aware of, or really of any importance.
Furthermore he didn't murder Bruce's parents, Joe Chill did. They didn't really change him character wise, I agree. But just because some vague originesque story is done does not mean that they were faithful to the character
Not slavishly faithful to the character, no. Adaptions rarely are. Shall we talk about how the movie WAS faithful to The Joker's character? Seriously, do you need it pointed out?
Also (I don't think Joker looked that different BTW) physical build is a big deal when casting I think.
Not to most moviegoers apparently. Seems they wanted to see one of the best men for the job.
For example Ashton Kutcher may be cool and all, but I sure as hell wouldn't make him a superhero (superman rumors a while back).
Do you have any idea how big Ashton Kutcher is and how ripped he could get? Or the fact that he was in the running and impressed in screentests for both the Batman and Superman roles? You just counteracted your own argument.
The size, or ability to gain such size is a big deal in these types of movies.
Not in BATMAN, where Burton dared to do something new with the superhero/action genre.
You have to believe the person could go out and fight crime.
Watch it, you're about to offend every short, overweight cop in the world.
Would you cast a fat guy as Lance Armstrong, no, no one would believe it.
Uh...Lance Armstrong is a real person. Batman is not.
There needs to be some ressemblence of the character in the actor.
There was. Dark features, handsome...black hair...somewhat had the jaw. And he looked great in the suit.
The physichal aspect is very important. If im not seeing a guy who looks Bruce Wayne or who looks the joker, i cant believe in the whole story.
I pity you.
The joker origin, well, i would preffer a fairled clown in the red hood that all the jack napier as old gangster guy story. Make of him the killer of Wayne's parents is absurd because batman motivation is against one particular guy, meanwhile if the killer is an unkowed, his motivation is against all the criminals.
Batman's motivation was exactly what it was in the comics...helping people and protecting Gotham from evil. Not just finding his parents killer or avenging their deaths.
"Because no one else can."
If you see batman, all the focus is about jack napier and his transformation on the joker, his relation with alicia, etc. we know a lot more about jack napier and the joker than about bruce wayne.
Shall we list the things we learned about Bruce from BATMAN and the things we learned about The Joker and see which list is longer?
I think that Bale will do a great job. And Keaton's performance wasnt that great.
What a well thought out, well-supported conclusion.
Jack Napier isn't Joker in the comics cos there's no Jack Napier in comics!
There is a JACK, though. I believe it's in that beloved "Red Hood" origin remake in THE KILLING JOKE.
Did it ever cross your mind that using Joker's exact origin might just put MORE of that undeserved focus on him? Think about it, You use Joker's origin about him being a failed comedian who loses his wife and unborn child and you're REALLY gonna draw attention away from Batman/Bruce Wayne. Audiences would have struggled with who to feel for in the context of the film.
Seriously. I don't think The Joker was ever meant to be a purely sympathetic character. There's an element of sympathy there, but he still chooses to do evil. Not only that, I think the idea of a failed comedian putting on a red hood to rob a playing card factory is lame, lame, lame, and much less interesting than the mob connection The Joker was given in BATMAN and the reason Jack was put into that situation.
Well, in the way that Burton used batman and bruce wayne, the joker's origin wasnt that important, he will be always the main focus of the film.
Only for people who can't see the forest for the trees.
That is the main reason on why i dont believe in the whole story of the movie.
What does how a man looks as a character have to do with not believing the story of a movie, especially when it ties INTO the story of the movie? See, in BATMAN, Bruce Wayne was more like your average man, and that was part of the story. So you should have believed it more, if anything.
Also, the costume should be only a costume, not an armor trying to simule a muscular body for a everyman guy.
I think it's trying to simulate a large bat creature. Not a muscular body. Doesn't Bale's costume do the same thing for him in the suit?
And the joker should be only tall, thin and young, not anorexic. I liked Nicholson performance, much more than Keaton's , but i think that he was only jack being jack with joker make-up.
Watch some Nicholson films for about a day. Then watch BATMAN. You should see what I mean fairly quickly. Definitely not a typical Nicholson performance.
That is one of the main problems of the film, we dont know anything about Wayne and his motivations. In a first film of a character , the focus should be in the main character, not in his foe.
Shall we list what we know about Wayne and his motivations that you were too busy worrying about what he looked like to see?
At the end of the film, you get the evidence that we know more about Jack Napier than about Bruce Wayne.
At the end of the film, I got the feeling that Batman was Gotham's new protector, and remembered how Bruce had gotten there. Since Joker was dead and all, and most of what I remembered about him was his evil ways.
Yeah, the relationship between Bruce and Vicky is more developed than the one between Jack and Alicia, but the main focus is jack napier and the joker, not Bruce Wayne.
Proof please.
We never really got to know Bruce Wayne or Batman. It was, "My parents got killed & so now I wear a cape." That was very incomplete storytelling.
We got to know him well beyond that. Shall I explain it? It wasn't incomplete storytelling, it was an introduction to a character, and one that assumed audiences weren't stupid and liked to think once in a while.