|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 3, 2018 23:53:35 GMT -5
This is going to be controversial, but I'll say it nonetheless: Tim Burton's version of Batman in the 1989 movie is the best version of Batman in any medium, and his versions of the Penguin and Catwoman are too. Oh, and Andrew Garfield is far-and-away the best screen Spider-Man. Tim Burton's batman was a sideshow with a balding, dumpy comedic "actor" playing anything other than a legitimate Wayne/Batman. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker acted like he was a stammering escapee from the looney bin--and missed his meds for a month. then. There's his facial
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 4, 2018 8:56:17 GMT -5
Let us take some steps back in time for Batman from Burton and remember a few things. Superhero movies were NOT a guaranteed sale then and Batman was a risk on Warner's part. They were willing based upon Tim Burton's vision and excitement for making the movie. Burton is responsible for giving us a truly PERFECT Gotham City imagining, a very strong Batman which was fairly true to the history and spirit of Batman and without Burton's Batman there may not have been more superhero pictures being made. The Joker is closer to the comic book version allowing for Nicholson's over the top performance. Burton proved that a comic book movie could and would sell and make big money if it had the proper elements and was treated respectfully and not made to be silly or being camp.
Another thing is that NOBODY wanted to be taking on the lead superhero roles as it was considered a long foregone doom and end to most careers. Mostly only hungry new/unknown actors were willing to take the plunge. Burton saw something dark within Michael Keaton which spoke to the craziness and mind set it would take for a man to basically put aside a personal life and love while devoting his entire energies and life to train and become a creature of the night hunting criminals. This is NOT normal or acceptable in society or reality and I personally think Keaton gets short shrift for his portrayal of both Batman and for Bruce Wayne. Also if Burton hadn't stuck with Keaton then we wouldn't have big name leads and co-stars these days taking parts in our beloved comic book movies.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 4, 2018 9:21:10 GMT -5
Let us take some steps back in time for Batman from Burton and remember a few things. Superhero movies were NOT a guaranteed sale then and Batman was a risk on Warner's part. They were willing based upon Tim Burton's vision and excitement for making the movie. Burton is responsible for giving us a truly PERFECT Gotham City imagining, a very strong Batman which was fairly true to the history and spirit of Batman and without Burton's Batman there may not have been more superhero pictures being made. The Joker is closer to the comic book version allowing for Nicholson's over the top performance. Burton proved that a comic book movie could and would sell and make big money if it had the proper elements and was treated respectfully and not made to be silly or being camp. Another thing is that NOBODY wanted to be taking on the lead superhero roles as it was considered a long foregone doom and end to most careers. Mostly only hungry new/unknown actors were willing to take the plunge. Burton saw something dark within Michael Keaton which spoke to the craziness and mind set it would take for a man to basically put aside a personal life and love while devoting his entire energies and life to train and become a creature of the night hunting criminals. This is NOT normal or acceptable in society or reality and I personally think Keaton gets short shrift for his portrayal of both Batman and for Bruce Wayne. Also if Burton hadn't stuck with Keaton then we wouldn't have big name leads and co-stars these days taking parts in our beloved comic book movies. Keaton did a fine job. I was amazed when Batman started firing machine guns and rockets at Joker. (And chagrined when they all missed.) Adam West never played it like that!
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 4, 2018 9:30:11 GMT -5
Re-rebuttal: Also: I've never paid for an autograph, and don't see it happening. What is this? It looks terrible, but yet, I still want to see it.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 4, 2018 9:38:10 GMT -5
I'm going to the NYCCC this Sunday and I dread handing someone a book and them asking me for money to sign it. I hear you on that. The last show I attended where folks would sign for free was four or five years ago. George Perez, Ron Frenz, and Herb Trimpe all took my books, asked me why I picked those particular ones, and signed while I explained. Even Bill Sienkiewicz signed a couple of books for free, although he did ask for $5 for two signatures beyond the first two (which I paid to get a couple Moon Knights signed, as I used my free ones on New Mutants and Thor covers). I went to a rinky-dink show in Youngstown a couple of years ago and every creator there was asking fairly big bucks ($10 or more) for even one signature, and these weren't the biggest names (Darryl Banks, Michael Golden, Arthur Suydam), but I get it. They travel on their own dime and make a little off the appearance fee, and selling prints and their signature is a way to make it a more-profitable weekend for them. Sucks for us collectors who have no intention of selling and would just like a book or two signed, but they have every right to make a buck as well.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 4, 2018 10:09:43 GMT -5
Re-rebuttal: Also: I've never paid for an autograph, and don't see it happening. What is this? It looks terrible, but yet, I still want to see it. Couldn't find the whole thing online, but I've seen bootleg DVDs at shows.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 4, 2018 10:39:13 GMT -5
This is going to be controversial, but I'll say it nonetheless: Tim Burton's version of Batman in the 1989 movie is the best version of Batman in any medium, and his versions of the Penguin and Catwoman are too. Oh, and Andrew Garfield is far-and-away the best screen Spider-Man. I can agree up to a point. Burton's was the best live action portrayal. I'll still give Mask of the Phantasm the best Batman movie award. Burton's first film and TAS are both so good, I think they're pretty even in quality. Easily by far.
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 4, 2018 11:30:51 GMT -5
Keaton could have been great if he was given material to work with, but his character was written horribly when he was written at all. He has few lines, and half of them are cringeworthy. His character has no arc over 2 movies and is outright sociopathic. In terms of writing I actually think Burton's version of the character is the worst since the 40s serials. Every other live action Batman has these things called human emotions, internal conflict, is capable of feeling guilt or remorse, and has an actual character arc. While I wouldn't call it a better movie by any stretch, the scenes between Bruce and Alfred in Batman and Robin are better written and have more depth and emotion than the entirety of the 2 Burton films. The rest of the movie sucks, but those scenes are some of the best in any Batman film. Burton's films look good and sound good, and that's really it.
There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 4, 2018 12:57:58 GMT -5
Bale's Batman was just Patrick Bateman without an axe. I think Keaton was far less of a sociopath, if one at all.
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 4, 2018 13:24:56 GMT -5
Keaton straight up murders people. He sets them on fire, straps bombs to people while smiling, and has no compunctions about blowing up or throwing to their death everyone he fights. They had to make Joker kill his parents and make the Joker decide he's in love with Viki Vale because this Batman is so sociopathic he's incapable of feeling any guilt for accidentally dropping Napier and creating the Joker, so there was nothing personal about fighting a villain he himself created. Whatever you say about Bale's performance, his character was written to have a moral code and was capable of feeling guilty and expressing remorse for his actions, and the Joker's testing of that moral code makes their fight personal without having to force needless connections between them from Bruce's childhood.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 4, 2018 13:30:50 GMT -5
Tim Burton's batman was a sideshow with a balding, dumpy comedic "actor" playing anything other than a legitimate Wayne/Batman. Incredible....that could be word-for-word one of the complaint letters Warner Bros received back in 1988 when Keaton was cast. I respect your opinion, but surely by now we know Keaton as a fantastic, Oscar-nominated actor who can bring great intensity and likeability to his roles? He's gone way past Mr Mom.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 4, 2018 13:48:17 GMT -5
Keaton could have been great if he was given material to work with, but his character was written horribly when he was written at all. He has few lines, and half of them are cringeworthy. His character has no arc over 2 movies and is outright sociopathic. In terms of writing I actually think Burton's version of the character is the worst since the 40s serials. Every other live action Batman has these things called human emotions, internal conflict, is capable of feeling guilt or remorse, and has an actual character arc. While I wouldn't call it a better movie by any stretch, the scenes between Bruce and Alfred in Batman and Robin are better written and have more depth and emotion than the entirety of the 2 Burton films. The rest of the movie sucks, but those scenes are some of the best in any Batman film. Burton's films look good and sound good, and that's really it. There, I said it. You speak about depth and human emotions and subtlety, but the very point of Burton's Batman films is apparently too subtle for most fans. 1. If Batman existed, he wouldn't be a sane person. That's a more realistic statement than anything in the Nolan films. 2. If Batman existed, some good might come of his actions, but he'd probably do as much harm as good. Burton portrays Batman as violent and vengeance-filled, taking his pain out on the street criminals of Gotham. 3. Batman isn't a hero out to save Gotham from crime. He's a lonely psychotic who wants to kill the man who murdered his parents. Burton was influenced by the likes of A Clockwork Orange. You're not supposed to say, 'Yay, Batman's kicking ass,' you're supposed to be disturbed at how violent he is. 4. When Batman drops Jack Napier into the acid in Axis Chemicals, he does it because he recognises his face at the last instant. Thus Batman's own actions, his desire for vengeance, work against him in creating the Joker. 5. When Batman kills the Joker, he completes his character arc, because that's what he's been trying to do the whole time, that's why Batman exists, to get revenge for the death of his parents. 6. Vicki Vale literally represents hope and redemption (she often wears white), and gives Bruce something to live for other than vengeance. Bruce is locked into a cycle of violence, but he's killed the source of it, and now Vicki represents a way out. Batman Returns is even better. The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Shreck all represent different aspects of Batman psyche - the violent vigilante, the lonely orphan and the millionaire businessman. And that they all try to get along, and end up killing each other, says something about Batman that could never be said in more conventional means.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 4, 2018 13:58:13 GMT -5
Keaton could have been great if he was given material to work with, but his character was written horribly when he was written at all. He has few lines, and half of them are cringeworthy. His character has no arc over 2 movies and is outright sociopathic. In terms of writing I actually think Burton's version of the character is the worst since the 40s serials. Every other live action Batman has these things called human emotions, internal conflict, is capable of feeling guilt or remorse, and has an actual character arc. While I wouldn't call it a better movie by any stretch, the scenes between Bruce and Alfred in Batman and Robin are better written and have more depth and emotion than the entirety of the 2 Burton films. The rest of the movie sucks, but those scenes are some of the best in any Batman film. Burton's films look good and sound good, and that's really it. There, I said it. Well, first of all Keaton's Bruce Wayne is deliberately a muted, quiet, damaged performance, because he traumatised, but it's wrong to say there's no emotion. Keaton does more with just his eyes than any other Batman actor does with their whole body. And secondly, Burton's two films, especially Returns, are influenced by German expressionism. The sets, the atmosphere and the art direction inform the characters and their emotions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 14:00:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 14:29:33 GMT -5
What is this? It looks terrible, but yet, I still want to see it. Couldn't find the whole thing online, but I've seen bootleg DVDs at shows.
there was an official DVD release of this, so you don't need to find a bootleg copy, you can get it on Amazon or in stores... -M
|
|