|
Post by beccabear67 on Oct 6, 2018 15:54:12 GMT -5
I only recently saw the Superman vs. Batman movie (introducing Wonder Woman) so that'd be my movie Batman. He needs to stop smoking though or not stay out in the rain when it's cold so much... that raspy voice! I'm not much of a Batmaniac, even less so for WW actually, so if I liked the movie that'd be high praise. The ideal comic Batman for me would have Dick Giordano involved, aside from that if it's Adams, Rogers (Austin being a graduate of Giordano's school of inking he can stand in for him there), or Golden it's going to be decent.
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Oct 6, 2018 21:23:09 GMT -5
Anything by Adams/Rogers/Austin/Walt Simonson, and especially Aparo. Afterward? Don Newton, Norm Breyfogle...and, um, still especially Aparo.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 6, 2018 21:35:56 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. That's the kind of line some comedians toss out about the character, which tried to make him seem strange or freakish, when Batman of the comics is one of the more level-headed of superheroes, even with his "war" on crime motivations. Batman was not Dracula or some other type of freak no one could relate to, and certainly not Tim Burton's obsession with oddball/misfit characters like those seen in his films before and after Batman. Again, the NBC interview where he said Batman is more of a "techno geek" instead of the "square jawed hero" exposes how he was Hell-bent on making Batman anything other than how he was developed in the comics, hence casting short, balding, non-athletic / leading man Keaton as Wayne/Batman. That's Burton's obsession, and the only thing missing from the Burton playbook is that he did not make Keaton as pale as a ghost. If Warners (and the public) were hoping to avoid a Batman retreading the 1966 TV series, they ended up with Bizarre Man instead, that set the course for a movie franchise (from Burton and Schumacher) that was more weird style and endless wrongheaded decisions than anything that could be called Batman. Its astounding that in the 75 years since the first live action Batman was produced (Columbia's Batman serial), it was not until 2005 with Nolan's Batman Begins that a Wayne/Batman was presented that was as close to the source unlike any other adaptation before.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 6, 2018 22:23:34 GMT -5
So when Batman dresses up in a batsuit, it's supposed to scare criminals, but when Batgirl puts on hers, it's.....sexy?
Well, put Batman in high heels and lipstick and we'll talk.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 6, 2018 22:53:39 GMT -5
Its astounding that in the 75 years since the first live action Batman was produced (Columbia's Batman serial), it was not until 2005 with Nolan's Batman Begins that a Wayne/Batman was presented that was as close to the source unlike any other adaptation before. I didn't see Bale as even coming close to the mark with his outings. The one thing that Batman must have is self-determination against seemingly impossible odds. Keaton had this, Adam West had this, Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery had it as well; Christian Bale however, was far too willing to rely on the drive, intelligence, and principles of others to be his own man. It wasn't until Ra's Al Ghul showed up and told him he could better spend his time doing pretty much anything other than picking fights with random tough guys in prison that Bale's Batman got his purpose; it wasn't until his girlfriend lectured him about not taking a human life that he adopted his code against killing; it was Lucius Fox who came up with his gadgets; Alfred who similed Bale through every lesson he had to learn - this was a Batman who delegated his thinking, inventing, and morals to his keepers. I guess I could understand if Bale's Batman underwent some sort of arc whereby he became his own man - and indeed, the end of the second film suggested that from here on in, he'd be distancing himself from Fox and Gordon - but the way things were going, it probably would have taken about seven or eight films before Bale's Batman grew up.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 7, 2018 4:25:33 GMT -5
Its astounding that in the 75 years since the first live action Batman was produced (Columbia's Batman serial), it was not until 2005 with Nolan's Batman Begins that a Wayne/Batman was presented that was as close to the source unlike any other adaptation before. I didn't see Bale as even coming close to the mark with his outings. The one thing that Batman must have is self-determination against seemingly impossible odds. Keaton had this, Adam West had this, Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery had it as well; Christian Bale however, was far too willing to rely on the drive, intelligence, and principles of others to be his own man. It wasn't until Ra's Al Ghul showed up and told him he could better spend his time doing pretty much anything other than picking fights with random tough guys in prison that Bale's Batman got his purpose; it wasn't until his girlfriend lectured him about not taking a human life that he adopted his code against killing; it was Lucius Fox who came up with his gadgets; Alfred who similed Bale through every lesson he had to learn - this was a Batman who delegated his thinking, inventing, and morals to his keepers. I guess I could understand if Bale's Batman underwent some sort of arc whereby he became his own man - and indeed, the end of the second film suggested that from here on in, he'd be distancing himself from Fox and Gordon - but the way things were going, it probably would have taken about seven or eight films before Bale's Batman grew up. But ... but ... realism.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 7, 2018 7:00:13 GMT -5
Am I the only guy who likes superheroes but does not find Batman particularly compelling? He's generally pretty one-note. When I go to Books-a-Million and see how 50% of the DC trade volumes are something Batman, I just shake my head. There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 7:19:25 GMT -5
Not in behaviour? Dude dresses up as a bat to risk his life fighting criminals, and hangs out in a cave. That's the kind of line some comedians toss out about the character, which tried to make him seem strange or freakish, when Batman of the comics is one of the more level-headed of superheroes, even with his "war" on crime motivations. Batman was not Dracula or some other type of freak no one could relate to, and certainly not Tim Burton's obsession with oddball/misfit characters like those seen in his films before and after Batman. Again, the NBC interview where he said Batman is more of a "techno geek" instead of the "square jawed hero" exposes how he was Hell-bent on making Batman anything other than how he was developed in the comics, hence casting short, balding, non-athletic / leading man Keaton as Wayne/Batman. That's Burton's obsession, and the only thing missing from the Burton playbook is that he did not make Keaton as pale as a ghost. If Warners (and the public) were hoping to avoid a Batman retreading the 1966 TV series, they ended up with Bizarre Man instead, that set the course for a movie franchise (from Burton and Schumacher) that was more weird style and endless wrongheaded decisions than anything that could be called Batman. Its astounding that in the 75 years since the first live action Batman was produced (Columbia's Batman serial), it was not until 2005 with Nolan's Batman Begins that a Wayne/Batman was presented that was as close to the source unlike any other adaptation before. You can't argue the problem with Burton's Batman is that it is Tim Burton's version of Batman - and then not admit that Christopher Nolan's version is equally a typical Nolan character.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 7:25:43 GMT -5
Not in behaviour? Dude dresses up as a bat to risk his life fighting criminals, and hangs out in a cave. That's the kind of line some comedians toss out about the character, which tried to make him seem strange or freakish, when Batman of the comics is one of the more level-headed of superheroes, even with his "war" on crime motivations. Actually weird is in the job description....
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 7:42:37 GMT -5
'He is an obsessed loner.' - Denny O'Neil
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 7, 2018 8:43:07 GMT -5
I actually think Batman Forever is a very underrated movie nowadays. It is very flawed, to be sure, especially in the way it handles the villains, but I find that the way it handles Batman/Bruce Wayne to be really really good. In Forever Bruce puts on the cape and cowl not because he seeks revenge, but because he blames himself for his parents' murder and 'subjects himself to a life of nightly torture' as penance, and his arc is overcoming that guilt so that he himself can come to see being Batman not as an obligation but as a choice. There are a lot of great touches to the writing, like his yelling 'Harvey! I'm Batman' after Two Face crashes the circus, to his 'I killed them' slip to Alfred hinting at his true mental state. It's a real shame the scene that ties the whole movie together was cut. In fact a ton of scenes were cut that never should have been. A much darker movie was actually filmed, but for whatever reason it was changed a lot in the editing. But even still, what's there is actually pretty good, and if you can find the 'Red Book' edit with the deleted scenes put back in, it's easily better than the Burton movies. There's a reason Vil Kilmer was Bob Kane's favorite live action Batman.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 8:51:52 GMT -5
I actually think Batman Forever is a very underrated movie nowadays. It is very flawed, to be sure, especially in the way it handles the villains, but I find that the way it handles Batman/Bruce Wayne to be really really good. In Forever Bruce puts on the cape and cowl not because he seeks revenge, but because he blames himself for his parents' murder and 'subjects himself to a life of nightly torture' as penance, and his arc is overcoming that guilt so that he himself can come to see being Batman not as an obligation but as a choice. There are a lot of great touches to the writing, like his yelling 'Harvey! I'm Batman' after Two Face crashes the circus, to his 'I killed them' slip to Alfred hinting at his true mental state. It's a real shame the scene that ties the whole movie together was cut. In fact a ton of scenes were cut that never should have been. A much darker movie was actually filmed, but for whatever reason it was changed a lot in the editing. But even still, what's there is actually pretty good, and if you can find the 'Red Book' edit with the deleted scenes put back in, it's easily better than the Burton movies. There's a reason Vil Kilmer was Bob Kane's favorite live action Batman. I like Forever too. The fascinating thing is that it actually 'cures' Bruce Wayne of his obsession, it provides a potential ending to his story - which of course it doesn't take up. Also, the whole movie is about duality and obsession, all the main characters have two identities, and are obsessed with something or someone. For all the complaints about camp and badly-filmed fight scenes, Batman Forever does go into the heads of it's characters, and it doesn't pull any punches. Dick Grayson is determined to kill Two-Face, and Bruce tells him that if he does, it won't be enough, and Dick will be locked into a cycle of violence forever.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 7, 2018 10:17:00 GMT -5
I finally got around to seeing Batman v. Superman. Surprisingly, I didn't hate it. I didn't like it but I didn't hate it. As with most Zach Snyder films, there are moments of cinematic brilliance undercut by the stupidity of the script and the objectivist Snyder's complete inability to grasp what makes the DC heroes great. Not sorry I saw it but I can't imagine ever watching it again.
Cei-U! I summon the ambiguity!
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 7, 2018 13:10:57 GMT -5
I actually think Batman Forever is a very underrated movie nowadays. It is very flawed, to be sure, especially in the way it handles the villains, but I find that the way it handles Batman/Bruce Wayne to be really really good. In Forever Bruce puts on the cape and cowl not because he seeks revenge, but because he blames himself for his parents' murder and 'subjects himself to a life of nightly torture' as penance, and his arc is overcoming that guilt so that he himself can come to see being Batman not as an obligation but as a choice. There are a lot of great touches to the writing, like his yelling 'Harvey! I'm Batman' after Two Face crashes the circus, to his 'I killed them' slip to Alfred hinting at his true mental state. It's a real shame the scene that ties the whole movie together was cut. In fact a ton of scenes were cut that never should have been. A much darker movie was actually filmed, but for whatever reason it was changed a lot in the editing. But even still, what's there is actually pretty good, and if you can find the 'Red Book' edit with the deleted scenes put back in, it's easily better than the Burton movies. There's a reason Vil Kilmer was Bob Kane's favorite live action Batman. Yeah, at its heart, Forever's a good Batman film. A re-edit would improve it tremendously. The only thing that can't be easily fixed is Tommy Lee Jones' godawful performance.
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 7, 2018 13:18:43 GMT -5
I think Forever gets unfairly lumped in with Batman and Robin because it shares a couple of weird features with it (neon lights and bat-nipples), and because they were both directed by Schuelmacher. But Schuelmacher was never given the kind of freedom Burton was with Batman and Robin or Nolan was. He wanted to make a more or less straight adaptation of Batman Year One, but had to make the movie Warner Brothers told him to make. Batman Forever tried to straddle the line because the studio wanted to pull away from how disgusting Returns was, and Batman and Robin ended up being a different movie entirely from any of the 3 before it because the studio wanted it to be a toy commercial in a way no previous movie was.
Much of the criticism of Schuelmacher is really misplaced. He didn't ruin much of anything the George Lucas can be accused of with the Star Wars prequels. He just did what he was told to do when he always wanted to make a darker movie than he was allowed to. The blame for the problems with his movies, especially the lousy Batman and Robin, rests squarely on the studio execs, not Schuelmacher.
|
|