|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 7, 2018 14:15:57 GMT -5
The one thing that Batman must have is self-determination against seemingly impossible odds. Keaton had this Where? Self determination--to truly serve a character like Batman--must have valid, logical reasons..motivators behind it all, to justify his beliefs and the actions he takes--which were in the Nolan Bat-films. In the Keaton film, one flashback to the Waynes' murder did not establish that, and there was no serious development for Wayne's choices in the run-up to his first appeared in costume. He was just Batman to be Batman. West's Batman was--increasingly over three TV seasons--a caricature of the stoic Boy Scout so stiff and finger-wagging that he would even make Silver Age Superman look like a delinquent. His "determination" was never established on the series. As far as self-determination goes, he leaned heavily on Robin, not only for help in physical conflicts, but in figuring out the crimes of their villains. He was by no means a one-man motivator. Adding to that, not once in 120 TV episodes and one movie did he ever give even a hint of the reason for being Batman, and why he had no choice but to go that route. He might as well have been any police academy recruit who shows up because he "wants to do good..." In the pilot, he--as Wayne--mentioned his parents' murder--but that as an isolated, face value statement had no bearing or deliberate (on the part of Lorenzo Semple Jr's script) bearing on why he was Batman. The serials were just abysmal, with typical serial plotting of the "hero" magically coming up with answers for situations he could not know anything about (see: Dr. Daka's plots in the 1943 serial), or was just a guy running from one beatdown...at the hands of random men...to another. Both played the "lazy, sleepy playboy" bit to ridiculous degrees, as well. I'm sure you remember that in the comics, Bruce Wayne did not design or manufacture 100% of his gadgets / vehicles. One, you're referring the first of the Nolan films, where it logical to have Wayne go through a development process, and not know-it-all from the start. Further, in the comics, Alfred (and Dick Grayson) have been both conscience and occasional moral center for Wayne over the decades (depending on the writer), which is what builds on the "Batman family" part of his world, and how he approached life on the streets. Keaton's Batman was just some oddball--Burton's "techno geek" with no true growth or purpose. He was gravely-voiced and staring at people for no apparent reason serving the character or story.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 14:25:47 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. I'm sorry, the excuse that 'Schumacher just did as he was told by the studio' doesn't work. Warner Bros never demanded: - Nipples on the batsuits - Multiple ass shots - Endless snow and ice puns - Endless plant puns - Blinding, garish, neon colours - The whole film looking like a fashion show on acid - Poison Ivy acting like a drag queen - Bane as a dumb henchman with slapstick noises - Fight scenes that are shot and edited so badly you can't actually see what's going on - and there's not even any shaky cam - An nice, amiable Batman who is the least interesting character in the whole movie And so on. Sure, Warner Bros and McDonalds and so on had a lot of input into Batman & Robin, but that is not what made it a bad film. Batman & Robin clearly takes all the worst aspects Schumacher brought to Batman Forever and ramps them up to an unbearable degree. As for what you say about Tim Burton having freedom on Batman - he had a degree of free reign on Batman Returns, but on the first movie he had the studio breathing down his neck to a degree Schumacher never had to endure. The stress of it made Burton ill, and Jack Nicholson had to stick up for Burton to Warner Bros execs.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 14:35:08 GMT -5
Keaton's Batman was just some oddball--Burton's "techno geek" with no true growth or purpose. He was gravely-voiced and staring at people for no apparent reason serving the character or story. That's just silly. Watch the film again, if you can bear it. Bruce's parents are killed by Jack Napier. This messes Bruce up. He becomes psychotic. He spends his life and his inheritance beating up criminals as revenge. He finds Napier again, who becomes the Joker, and finally kills him, which is the catharsis he's been looking for since his parents died. There's your growth and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 15:30:56 GMT -5
Keaton's Batman was just some oddball--Burton's "techno geek" with no true growth or purpose. He was gravely-voiced and staring at people for no apparent reason serving the character or story. That's just silly. Watch the film again, if you can bear it. Bruce's parents are killed by Jack Napier. This messes Bruce up. He becomes psychotic. He spends his life and his inheritance beating up criminals as revenge. He finds Napier again, who becomes the Joker, and finally kills him, which is the catharsis he's been looking for since his parents died. There's your growth and purpose. When, he did killed the Joker -- that's ends the suspense and killed for an encore and that's why I did not like that one bit; Keaton's performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman was excellent; I didn't think that Kilmer was good as Bruce Wayne but he did a good job as Batman. Forget about George Clooney -- he's a jerk as Bruce Wayne and Batman at the same time. Personally all four of the films has flaws. I just can't stand the last two at all for all it's worth. I just find the killings of the Joker and the Penguin too much for me to bear. The killing of Two-Face in Kilmer film was sad; the acting of Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman was not my favorite impression of Catwoman. I wanted Sean Young to portray Catwoman -- instead they went to Star Power in Pfeiffer instead. For the record -- I haven't seen any of these four films in the past 10 years and right now -- I'm not going to bother with these films anymore. They have too many flaws and that's why I just can't stand watching them. Right now -- the best Batman for the record is still ... Drumroll Please Adam West
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 16:06:16 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Oct 7, 2018 17:15:31 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made.
Does anyone prefer those 60s Batman stories (which I found to be campy and downright daft) to, say, Joker's Five-Way Revenge or The Laughing Fish from the 70s?
Although I do collect 60s Batman it's my least favourite era...aliens, giant fish, Batman as King Kong, some midget moron called Gaggy...prefer the 70s and 80s (and beyond) by far.
There, I said it.
It's interesting, because when the serious Batman came back into the comics at the end of the 60s (the Neal Adams one), it was largely due to fans who had demanded the sober, shadowy avenger version of the character. Fanboy complaints about Batman being too silly/dark/camp/short etc go back waaaay beyond the internet era!
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 7, 2018 18:49:47 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made.
Does anyone prefer those 60s Batman stories (which I found to be campy and downright daft) to, say, Joker's Five-Way Revenge or The Laughing Fish from the 70s? Though I consider myself quite the admirer of things surreal and absurd, I've rarely been able to enjoy Silver Age Batman or Superman comics. Perhaps if they had more self-awareness. . . .
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 7, 2018 22:17:10 GMT -5
Adam West's Batman is the most accurate comic-to-screen transition ever - he is exactly like the Batman of the comics at the time the show was made.
Does anyone prefer those 60s Batman stories (which I found to be campy and downright daft) to, say, Joker's Five-Way Revenge or The Laughing Fish from the 70s?
Although I do collect 60s Batman it's my least favourite era...aliens, giant fish, Batman as King Kong, some midget moron called Gaggy...prefer the 70s and 80s (and beyond) by far.
There, I said it.
Though as I said I'm not a huge Batman fan in the first place, the Batman that I want to see is like this: Not like this:
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 8, 2018 1:41:42 GMT -5
David Michelinie's original female Venom concept would've made for a far better character than the one we ended up with, and I say that as a fan of Mr. Brock.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 8, 2018 7:38:57 GMT -5
David Michelinie's original female Venom concept would've made for a far better character than the one we ended up with, and I say that as a fan of Mr. Brock. I don't see it but that brings an interesting question- Who is the most popular female villain ? Do you buy a comic that features a female villain because she's in that issue?
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 8, 2018 8:06:58 GMT -5
David Michelinie's original female Venom concept would've made for a far better character than the one we ended up with, and I say that as a fan of Mr. Brock. I don't see it but that brings an interesting question- Who is the most popular female villain ? Do you buy a comic that features a female villain because she's in that issue? At the moment I suspect Hela is foremost in the world's awareness, unless you count Harley Quinn.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 8, 2018 8:32:43 GMT -5
I don't see it but that brings an interesting question- Who is the most popular female villain ? Do you buy a comic that features a female villain because she's in that issue? At the moment I suspect Hela is foremost in the world's awareness, unless you count Harley Quinn. I'm not sure that Hela has even appeared in any comic since the Thor movie.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 8, 2018 8:37:02 GMT -5
At the moment I suspect Hela is foremost in the world's awareness, unless you count Harley Quinn. I'm not sure that Hela has even appeared in any comic since the Thor movie. That may well be. I have only bought one floppy in the past ten years.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 8, 2018 8:40:10 GMT -5
I guess I'm thinking about a world class character the readers want to see like Thano, Dr. Doom, the Joker etc.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 8, 2018 8:47:56 GMT -5
I guess I'm thinking about a world class character the readers want to see like Thano, Dr. Doom, the Joker etc. I recall how Stan Lee wouldn't let Banshee be a woman as originally planned, because he wanted to avoid scenes of men (e.g. X-Men) punching women. That ethos necessarily limits the number of female villains, since there are relatively few female lead heroes to pit against them. George Perez did put Wonder Woman up against a bunch of women villains including Cheetah, Silver Swan, Circe, and those rogue Amazonians living in the Arabian desert. Emma Frost and Mystique and Rogue and Tessa all got co-opted by the good guys eventually.
|
|