|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 4, 2018 14:54:32 GMT -5
Dude, that Legends show was awful.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 4, 2018 15:06:59 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. For Warner Brothers up to that time, they had three of four superhero films turn into box-office hits ( Superman III being the weakest performer, but still a hit) , the only failure being Supergirl, so its not as if Warners had dealt with a dodgy subject matter they considered risky ( Superman IV was a Cannon production, BTW). The Salkinds proved superhero films could be massive hits, and treated with respect (for the most part) in the adaptation, so approaching Batman--in a decease where fantasy films reigned supreme) was not a frightening undertaking. Burton was hung-up on subverting what is widely accepted as appealing or heroic. The week of Batman's premiere, Burton was interviewed by NBC, where he mentioned his Batman being more of a "techno-geek" and not a "square jawed hero". Yeah. Think about that--not a formidable here who also has technical skill, but Burton drew a line in the sand to push his Batman into the oddball/geek zone his films occupy. He's dealing with Batman, not a then-modern version of M*A*S*H's Radar O'Reilly. That explains why short, non-athletic, balding comedic actor Keaton was cast as a character known (in the comics) as a muscular, suave athletic guy with astounding fighting abilities. Burton purposely ran to the opposite in every way--back to his comfort zone of the oddball or misfit kind of characterization, which Bruce Wayne/Batman is not in behavior or appearance. Superman the Movie (1978) broke that ground with movie adaptations. Although Reeve was largely unknown, Hackman and Brando were among the world's biggest stars and received top billing. The Donner film established so many templates still used in one way or another by comic book (superhero) movies with tone differences being one of the few contrasts.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 4, 2018 15:11:51 GMT -5
Dude, that Legends show was awful. Yes, it was...beyond awful, to be honest. I'll just say this: they had a "superhero" called "Ghetto Man".....where to begin......
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 4, 2018 15:21:33 GMT -5
I certainly disagree with a lot of what has been said to defend the Burton movies. Nothing against Keaton or his performance. It was the writing rather than the actor which was the problem, but it was a huge problem. There's only so much an actor can do to save a script when lines like 'mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it' are said for no reason out of the blue. The idea that the movies were meant to deconstruct Batman rather than actually show a heroic character is interesting, at least. But even if so, I don't think it's good deconstruction. I think a good deconstruction would give the title character something to do instead of focusing on Nicholson the whole time and explore the problems with Batman's philosophy and methods, not pretend they don't exist in the first place. And if they're going to go so far as to make him a murderer like that, then don't present him as the good guy. Own up to the villain you've created instead of having him vow to defend Gotham from the "forces of evil" and ending on a heroic shot. Ultimately it's not saying anything about the character other than 'he's nuts.'
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 4, 2018 17:03:50 GMT -5
Dude, that Legends show was awful. Yes, it was...beyond awful, to be honest. I'll just say this: they had a "superhero" called "Ghetto Man".....where to begin...... To be fair, it was a comedy special. I guess it was nice to see them all on the screen. Not that nice though...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 18:25:32 GMT -5
Don't like the Michael Keaton movies at all and I *hate* Batdance. Give me any other late 80s song, even Milli Vanilli.
Probably the only one here who likes Ben Affleck as Batman Didn't mind Bale either. I like Affleck as Batman.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 4, 2018 20:30:51 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. For Warner Brothers up to that time, they had three of four superhero films turn into box-office hits ( Superman III being the weakest performer, but still a hit) , the only failure being Supergirl, so its not as if Warners had dealt with a dodgy subject matter they considered risky ( Superman IV was a Cannon production, BTW). The Salkinds proved superhero films could be massive hits, and treated with respect (for the most part) in the adaptation, so approaching Batman--in a decease where fantasy films reigned supreme) was not a frightening undertaking. Burton was hung-up on subverting what is widely accepted as appealing or heroic. The week of Batman's premiere, Burton was interviewed by NBC, where he mentioned his Batman being more of a "techno-geek" and not a "square jawed hero". Yeah. Think about that--not a formidable here who also has technical skill, but Burton drew a line in the sand to push his Batman into the oddball/geek zone his films occupy. He's dealing with Batman, not a then-modern version of M*A*S*H's Radar O'Reilly. That explains why short, non-athletic, balding comedic actor Keaton was cast as a character known (in the comics) as a muscular, suave athletic guy with astounding fighting abilities. Burton purposely ran to the opposite in every way--back to his comfort zone of the oddball or misfit kind of characterization, which Bruce Wayne/Batman is not in behavior or appearance. Superman the Movie (1978) broke that ground with movie adaptations. Although Reeve was largely unknown, Hackman and Brando were among the world's biggest stars and received top billing. The Donner film established so many templates still used in one way or another by comic book (superhero) movies with tone differences being one of the few contrasts. Batman was in development for nearly 10 years, though; so, it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Unlike Superman, they did have the campy spectre looming over them. The Superman tv show was played straight (even if aimed young), while Batman was played for laughs. Superman just had to prove adults would come out to see a film with a hero in tights, doing good deeds. Batman had to prove the same, plus that it could be one without winking at the camera. That was part of the problem with development. It had gone on so long that what the had started with was pretty much the Engelhart/Rogers material, which morphed into a mixture of that, Miller, and Burton's own freak show aesthetic. The fact that the Superman films were hits is probably why they continued trying for Batman. I don't hate the first Burton film, though I don't think it is the best batman film. It's the best of the first wave and Keaton is good in the role, though he is barely Bruce Wayne in the film, in regards screen time. he has nice moments with Vicky Vale and Alfred. He's limited by the suit, as Batman, and the lack of imagination in the stuntwork; but, beyond that, I think Burton did a pretty good job. batman Returns is another story. That was weirdness for weirdness sake, too much camp, too much freak show (it's Batman, not Tod Browning), and illogical story and too many characters competing for screen time, with the most interesting one shoved aside for a bad, offensive version of the Penguin, that said more about Burton's psyche than Oswald Cobblepott's. The Schumacher ones are horrible and make the worst of the tv series look like Shakespeare. For my money, the best Batman film is Mask of the Phantasm. it is better written than all of the live films, has better acting through voice than most of the films accomplished through physical performance, has a better story, executes it better and is more stunning visually. It also doesn't insult your intelligence, actually has Batman do some detective work, and treats Bruce Wayne as a real character, not just a personna. I never bought the idea that Bruce is the mask that Batman wears: I see them more as split personalities. Batman is the desire for vengeance and justice that was born when Bruce saw his parents gunned down. Bruce Wayne trying to improve life via the charitable work of the Wayne Foundation and taking in Dick grayson, and falling in love with Selina Kyle and others is still the same person as the little boy who delighted in a night at the movies, with his parents. I just think modern comics writers lost sight of that aspect and the character suffered for it, as everyone from Miller, to Moore to others fixated on Batman as obsession, because they couldn't grasp the more human side of the equation. Paul Dini and the BTAS writers got that and included it more and that film showcases it as its best, as Bruce clings to love and normal life, while battling the desire for vengeance. There is real emotional weight in that film that is lacking from the live brethren, including Nolan (who seemed incapable of handling the female characters).
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 4, 2018 20:52:38 GMT -5
Hoo boy - if I can just dive head first into this without looking...
Batman should only have a code against killing if the writers take care to avoid drawing attention to the flaws such a code produces in a world of recurring bad guys. Keeping in mind that there was nothing inherent in the character as created which necessitated a vow against taking a life (it wasn't Bill Finger's decision to give Batman such a code because "Batman's not Batman if he kills"; it was a mandate handed down by Vincent Sullivan driven by a concern that parents wouldn't let their kids read about superheroes who murdered their foes) this aspect of the character should only be maintained more as a courtesy to tradition than as a vital component to his psychological make-up and therefore should remain in place so long as all the other traditions which came along with this vow also remain in place.
What the Hell does that mean?
Here's what it means. When Batman stopped killing his enemies back in 1940/41 it was also decided that so too would his recurring cast of Rogues would stop killing as well. Sure, Batman and Robin still squared off against ruthless murderers, but these guys ended up getting killed by their own men, machinations, or just wound up in the electric chair and were neatly done away with. Gotham was no longer a place where you might get a face full of Joker venom for owning too much jewelry, turned into a Monster Man if you crossed Hugo Strange's path, or a lecture from Batman about the dangers of going to the police if your family is murdered because of rampant corruption - it was a place where you almost had to wonder if there was any sort of homicide rate at all during the majority of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's and why you could understand why it was such a populous city. Batman's adventures were a battle of wits against the cleverest and most devious minds his city had to offer, but once it was decided to do away with this formula by transforming his Rogues Gallery into a bunch of terrorists who killed scores of people on every outing, then just as that aspect of his mythos was discarded, then it became really immaterial whether or not Batman had a code against killing or not since clearly, the trapping which made this code make sense, were no longer in place. To put it another way - certain things in comics make sense only because we accept that in a fictional world, nonsensical things often work, ie. Superman disguising himself with a pair of glasses, slouch, and spit curl. However, once writers have established that these nonsensical things wouldn't work in their fictional world either, then those nonsensical things might as well be abandoned. In other words...
Batman's code against killing is meaningless and if someone wants to have him mowing down killers one month and giving the ol' "Killing him makes me no better than you" speech to a bunch of the kids the next, I really don't care. You might as well be asking me if I prefer Batman with short ears or long.
There. I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 4, 2018 21:03:25 GMT -5
There's a simpler answer to the Batman no killing rule- You will run out of opponents if you kill them when you face them.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 4, 2018 21:31:10 GMT -5
There's a simpler answer to the Batman no killing rule- You will run out of opponents if you kill them when you face them. Oh absolutely - I just prefer how this detail was handled during Batman's first 40/50 years or so than in the past 30.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 5, 2018 5:44:05 GMT -5
Regarding the two Tim Burton Batman films, they, and Michael Kenton's take on the character, are by far my favourite on-screen version of Batman. I think Keaton captures the then-new, more serious, more "bad ass" Batman of The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke and Year One very well, while simultaneously embracing the innate ridiculousness of a grown man dressed in a big rubber bat-suit. And there is plenty of sly laughing at itself in those films.
For me, Batman and Batman Returns capture a nice half-way point between the ludicrously camp Adam West Batman and the joyless, unrelentingly gritty nature of the Christopher Nolan films. Burton's films couch the main characters in a semi-realistic setting, but they still have that "comic booky" thing -- the Batmobile still looks like a ridiculously over-the-top, super-cool Batmobile, rather than an Army surplus tank; the Joker and Penguin are just camp enough to make them enjoyable to watch, while still coming across as credible threats; and Gotham City is so gloriously and surrealistically stylized, that it almost functions as a character itself.
Regarding the references earlier in this thread to Superman's earlier success, as I think someone else has mentioned, Superman never had the ridiculously campy spectre of Adam West hanging over him. In the minds of the non-comic book buying public, the campy '60s Batman was Batman. So Warner Bros were taking quite a risk with that movie back in 1989.
I mean, yes, the earlier Superman movies had had a similar fight in terms of getting the great unwashed to take superheroes seriously, but, as I say, Batman was regarded as being ludicrously camp by the public at large well into the 1980s in a way that Superman never was (mostly as a result of the damage done by the Adam West TV show and all the re-runs of it in the '70s and '80s). I can still well remember, back in 1989, that the British tabloid press made a really big deal out of this new, grittier Batman that Keaton was portraying, and I also remember a lot of adults at around that time being shocked that this version of Batman wasn't all "Holy... [insert camp quip here]" and "Biff! Bang! Ka-Pow!!!".
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 5, 2018 8:41:22 GMT -5
Don't like the Michael Keaton movies at all and I *hate* Batdance. Give me any other late 80s song, even Milli Vanilli.
Probably the only one here who likes Ben Affleck as Batman Didn't mind Bale either. I agree. Otherwise I’d say Prince’s soundtrack was solid. Scandalous, Trust, and Partyman being some of my favorites. Not a top my favorite Prince album of mine but a solid one. Coupled with Danny Elfman’s score made it an aspect of Burton’s Batman films stand out. An aspect I can’t say has stood out in any other Batman film. Except maybe Mask of the Phantasm. That had a good score. Especially the opening credits.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 5, 2018 10:54:48 GMT -5
Don't like the Michael Keaton movies at all and I *hate* Batdance. Give me any other late 80s song, even Milli Vanilli.
Probably the only one here who likes Ben Affleck as Batman Didn't mind Bale either. I agree. Otherwise I’d say Prince’s soundtrack was solid. Scandalous, Trust, and Partyman being some of my favorites. Not a top my favorite Prince album of mine but a solid one. I liked Prince's Batman album a lot at the time -- and I still do. I'm a big fan of the purple one's 80s and early 90s output, before he disappeared up his own arse and started calling himself "symbol" or The Artist Previously Known As Prince or whatever. The Batman album, while not as strong as the preceding Lovesexy, had some great tracks on it, such as "The Future", "Partyman", "Vicky Waiting", and "The Arms Of Orion". As for "Batdance" specifically, although it's little more than a musical promo piece for the first Tim Burton Batman movie -- what with all the copious amounts of dialogue sampled from the film -- I thought that, actually, it was a wonderfully unorthodox single (as you might have expected from Prince). Arrangement-wise, it totally eschewed the common verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure of most pop songs and instead offered us three or four different groovy jams, ranging in style from pop, and slow funk to heavy rock, tied together with lots of sampled dialogue from the film. Surprisingly, given it's unusual structure, it was a big hit too: it reached #1 in the U.S. charts and #2 in the UK charts, as well as reaching #1 elsewhere internationally too. For me the best moment of "Batdance" is when Jack Nicholson says, "And where... and where... [boom! boom! boom!] ...is the Batman?" [cue screaming guitar solo]
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 5, 2018 13:13:22 GMT -5
Don't forget Electric Chair....here's an amazing performance of it from SNL circa 1989:
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 5, 2018 13:23:51 GMT -5
Burton purposely ran to the opposite in every way--back to his comfort zone of the oddball or misfit kind of characterization, which Bruce Wayne/Batman is not in behavior or appearance. Not in behaviour? Dude dresses up as a bat to risk his life fighting criminals, and hangs out in a cave.
|
|