Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 14:26:07 GMT -5
I was listening to talkRADIO yesterday. One film ‘expert’/critic was on there - and he appeared to be very confused over the fact that there will be multiple versions of Batman on the big screen. He referred to the forthcoming Robert Pattinson movie, Michael Keaton’s possible return to the role, and the Joker movie. He talked about the DCEU at length, by the way, but I’ll refer to him as ignorant because Joker is not a Batman film.
I don’t get why some critics - and he’s not the first - have a problem with multiple incarnations of a character. Let’s hope they never become fans of Sherlock Holmes and Dracula.
In 1983, two Bond films were released, one starring Sean Connery, the other starring the late Roger Moore.
At any one time, there might be multiple incarnations of Sherlock Holmes, both on the big and small screens.
No-one is confused, so why do critics, at least here in Britain, make a big issue of it.
Okay, Holmes is public domain while Batman is owned by DC, but I do not get the confusion.
When I was a kid, I never got bogged down in anything like that. God knows how many versions of Dracula, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan I saw. But put aside public domain characters. When the late 80s Superboy series aired, despite it being produced by the same people who produced the first three Reeve movies, I never linked them in my head. I never got confused. That show was still airing on satellite TV a year before the BBC aired The New Adventures of Superman, but I never got confused over that, either.
How hard can it be for these critics to figure out that characters, public domain or not, are gonna have multiple incarnations? I never linked the Reeve movies with Superboy or The New Adventures of Superman. I know Superman Returns is a “spiritual sequel” to the Reeve movies. But while I’m not Einstein, I know they are not anything to do with Henry Cavill’s interpretation.
If anything, I feel WB has been pretty clear about what is standalone/canon - and what isn’t. Yet this talkRADIO guest was getting in knots about Batman. Well, sorry, but he’s not exactly gonna be eligible for Mensa membership, is he? I don’t remember this confusion when Christopher Nolan began producing Batman films, I don’t remember critics (or anyone) asking, “So how does this link to the Burton and Schumacher films?” Gosh, my mother has probably never read a superhero comic in her life, but she has seen a small number of superhero films. Even she gets it. If she can, why can’t these critics?
I don’t know, maybe they are deliberately looking to cause controversy - or are just being obtuse.
I don’t get why some critics - and he’s not the first - have a problem with multiple incarnations of a character. Let’s hope they never become fans of Sherlock Holmes and Dracula.
In 1983, two Bond films were released, one starring Sean Connery, the other starring the late Roger Moore.
At any one time, there might be multiple incarnations of Sherlock Holmes, both on the big and small screens.
No-one is confused, so why do critics, at least here in Britain, make a big issue of it.
Okay, Holmes is public domain while Batman is owned by DC, but I do not get the confusion.
When I was a kid, I never got bogged down in anything like that. God knows how many versions of Dracula, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan I saw. But put aside public domain characters. When the late 80s Superboy series aired, despite it being produced by the same people who produced the first three Reeve movies, I never linked them in my head. I never got confused. That show was still airing on satellite TV a year before the BBC aired The New Adventures of Superman, but I never got confused over that, either.
How hard can it be for these critics to figure out that characters, public domain or not, are gonna have multiple incarnations? I never linked the Reeve movies with Superboy or The New Adventures of Superman. I know Superman Returns is a “spiritual sequel” to the Reeve movies. But while I’m not Einstein, I know they are not anything to do with Henry Cavill’s interpretation.
If anything, I feel WB has been pretty clear about what is standalone/canon - and what isn’t. Yet this talkRADIO guest was getting in knots about Batman. Well, sorry, but he’s not exactly gonna be eligible for Mensa membership, is he? I don’t remember this confusion when Christopher Nolan began producing Batman films, I don’t remember critics (or anyone) asking, “So how does this link to the Burton and Schumacher films?” Gosh, my mother has probably never read a superhero comic in her life, but she has seen a small number of superhero films. Even she gets it. If she can, why can’t these critics?
I don’t know, maybe they are deliberately looking to cause controversy - or are just being obtuse.
