Batman

15455575960121

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    peter wrote: »
    They aren t really the first four, but I would rank that continuity:

    1 BATMAN RETURNS
    2 BATMAN
    3 BATMAN FOREVER
    4 BATMAN & ROBIN

    I’m with you... love BATMAN RETURNS

    It has an operatic feel to it, and the best villains and girls. I do like Palance and Carrey, though. And the sets in BATMAN are as good as in BR.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Upon recent rewatches:

    1. Batman
    2. Batman Returns
    3. Batman & Robin
    4. Batman Forever

    Batman & Robin is technically “worse” than Forever, but it made me laugh more so I enjoyed it more. I love both of Burton’s films a lot.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Batman Returns owes little to the Batman character. It's a huge mess of a movie. Pfeiffer is fantastic but the whole thing looks like it was shot on a soundstage.

    Not my idea of a Batman film. Great score from Danny Elfman though.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,092
    The two Tim Burton films are superior by some distance to the other two, though my issue with Batman Returns is Batman is hardly in it, the film does look great on Bluray though.
  • Posts: 2,917
    I don't get the idea that Batman is hardly in Batman Returns--he gets to enjoy a pretty affecting love story with Catwoman after all.

    Not sure I understand the "shot on a soundstage" complaint--that could be equally applied to the previous film, and both are meant to take place in claustrophobic and highly stylized urban environments.

    I also disagree that BR "owes little to the Batman character." It's not like anyone could mistake this for a Spider-Man film! Burton's Batman is that of 1939, before Robin came along to make everything kid-friendly. His Penguin might have a totally different backstory from the comics version, but the character still has his umbrella gimmick. And Catwoman is better than any comics version. The film might have a messy plot, but it does a wonderful job of presenting Batman as a gothic creature of the night fighting incredibly grotesque villains.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,092
    I have always viewed Batman Returns as a Tim Burton film that Batman appears in. (I do like Tim Burtons work, not so much his recent films admittedly)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 2019 Posts: 9,509
    You nailed it @Revelator --
    The film might have a messy plot, but it does a wonderful job of presenting Batman as a gothic creature of the night fighting incredibly grotesque villains.
    This is what I love about this film-- it's all about the characters. The story is quite secondary. It's all about Selena/Catwoman, Penguin and Bruce Wayne/Batman. It's a gothic-character piece.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    peter wrote: »
    You nailed it @Revelator --
    The film might have a messy plot, but it does a wonderful job of presenting Batman as a gothic creature of the night fighting incredibly grotesque villains.
    This is what I love about this film-- it's all about the characters. The story is quite secondary. It's all about Selena/Catwoman, Penguin and Bruce Wayne/Batman. It's a gothic-character piece.

    It's as close to an actual opera as comic book cinema has ever been. I love it dearly.

    I wrote about it a few months back after seeing it in 35mm on the big screen. One of the big things that stuck out even more for me this time (it had been many years since I'd seen it) was the extreme darkness of it all. It's obviously quite campy in parts, but for all the real-world grittiness of the Nolan flicks, even they didn't feature a villain whose plot was the massacre of an entire city's children by drowning.

    That is grim.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    It's more a Tim Burton film than a Batman film.

    It's silly and fake looking. Batman is a dark no nonsense vigilante. Here he's just something to hang Burton's obsessions on.

    Thankfully Nolan wiped the slate clean and gave us a real Batman.
  • edited May 2019 Posts: 2,917
    It's more a Tim Burton film than a Batman film.

    It's silly and fake looking. Batman is a dark no nonsense vigilante. Here he's just something to hang Burton's obsessions on.

    Thankfully Nolan wiped the slate clean and gave us a real Batman.

    There's no such thing as "a real Batman." The campy Batman of the 1950s and 1960s was no less "real" than the grim, Marvel-influenced Batman of later eras.

    And no, BR isn't more of a Burton film than a Batman film. Every Batman product is influenced by the tastes and personality of the person making it. That's what gives each Batman product its individuality. Using that to attack BR as a Burton film is no better than attacking Nolan's Batman films for just being something to hang Nolan's style and obsessions on (civic lessons, over-elaborate plotting, drab cinematography, "realism" that excludes comic book fantasy, etc.)

    As for "silly"--sillier than what? Batman and Robin? Batman '66? It's not against the law for a Batman film to have a sense of humor and absurdity, given the fact that it's about a man who dresses up as a harmless flying mammal. Burton's Batman himself has always been dark (that's why parents complained about BR in 1992) and no-nonsense (to the point of being lethal).

    "Fake looking"--in other words, it's look is intentionally stylized. In that sense, it's much closer to the original Batman comics of the 30s and 40s, which were drawn in a cartoony but expressionist style closer to Dick Tracy than Flash Gordon. One could therefore facetiously argue that Nolan's realism is not in the spirit of classic Batman, but in actuality Batman can accommodate many styles.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,790
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's more a Tim Burton film than a Batman film.

    It's silly and fake looking. Batman is a dark no nonsense vigilante. Here he's just something to hang Burton's obsessions on.

    Thankfully Nolan wiped the slate clean and gave us a real Batman.

    There's no such thing as "a real Batman." The campy Batman of the 1950s and 1960s was no less "real" than the grim, Marvel-influenced Batman of later eras.

    And no, BR isn't more of a Burton film than a Batman film. Every Batman product is influenced by the tastes and personality of the person making it. That's what gives each Batman product its individuality. Using that to attack BR as a Burton film is no better than attacking the Nolan films for being something to hang on Nolan's style and obsessions (civic lessons, over-elaborate plotting, drab cinematography, "realism" that excludes comic book fantasy, etc.)

    As for "silly"--sillier than what? Batman and Robin? Batman '66? It's not against the law for a Batman film to have a sense of humor and absurdity, given the fact that it's about a man who dresses up as a harmless flying mammal. Burton's Batman himself has always been dark (that's why parents complained about BR '92) and no-nonsense (to the point of being lethal).

    "Fake looking"--in other words, intentional stylization. In that sense, it's much closer to the original Batman comics of the 30s and 40s, which were drawn in a cartoony but expressionist style closer to Dick Tracy than Flash Gordon. One could facetiously argue that Nolan's realism is actually not in the spirit of classic Batman. In actuality, Batman can accommodate many styles.

    I concur!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,092
  • Posts: 9,846
    I got most of those toys when I was a kid and loved each of them
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited May 2019 Posts: 25,092
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I got most of those toys when I was a kid and loved each of them

    My youngest brother had them, I was a bit older so did not get those toys, though I still collect the odd Batman figurine.
  • Posts: 2,917
    I remember being disappointed that the Penguin looked nothing like the movie version.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,092

    Hush Trailer
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Rewatched the Dark Knight trilogy yesterday. I'll say this. The villains, action, music, and themes are all great. What more could be said about Ledger's Joker? That being said, I still find a lot of the writing clunky and I just don't care for Bale as Batman.

    Nolan is a great director but the only way I'd want him anywhere near Bond is if he had someone else writing.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,626
    Remington wrote: »
    Rewatched the Dark Knight trilogy yesterday. I'll say this. The villains, action, music, and themes are all great. What more could be said about Ledger's Joker? That being said, I still find a lot of the writing clunky and I just don't care for Bale as Batman.

    Nolan is a great director but the only way I'd want him anywhere near Bond is if he had someone else writing.

    Even Purvis and Wade?!
  • Posts: 9,846

    Hush Trailer

    not what I really wanted (I wanted Conroy Hamill etc) but I will still pick it up
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Rewatched the Dark Knight trilogy yesterday. I'll say this. The villains, action, music, and themes are all great. What more could be said about Ledger's Joker? That being said, I still find a lot of the writing clunky and I just don't care for Bale as Batman.

    Nolan is a great director but the only way I'd want him anywhere near Bond is if he had someone else writing.

    Even Purvis and Wade?!

    Lol neither of them are Richard Maibum but I don't think they deserve the hate they get.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,092
    Risico007 wrote: »

    Hush Trailer

    not what I really wanted (I wanted Conroy Hamill etc) but I will still pick it up

    DC are sticking with the New52 characters for two long in the animated films IMO.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's more a Tim Burton film than a Batman film.

    It's silly and fake looking. Batman is a dark no nonsense vigilante. Here he's just something to hang Burton's obsessions on.

    Thankfully Nolan wiped the slate clean and gave us a real Batman.

    There's no such thing as "a real Batman." The campy Batman of the 1950s and 1960s was no less "real" than the grim, Marvel-influenced Batman of later eras.

    And no, BR isn't more of a Burton film than a Batman film. Every Batman product is influenced by the tastes and personality of the person making it. That's what gives each Batman product its individuality. Using that to attack BR as a Burton film is no better than attacking Nolan's Batman films for just being something to hang Nolan's style and obsessions on (civic lessons, over-elaborate plotting, drab cinematography, "realism" that excludes comic book fantasy, etc.)

    As for "silly"--sillier than what? Batman and Robin? Batman '66? It's not against the law for a Batman film to have a sense of humor and absurdity, given the fact that it's about a man who dresses up as a harmless flying mammal. Burton's Batman himself has always been dark (that's why parents complained about BR in 1992) and no-nonsense (to the point of being lethal).

    "Fake looking"--in other words, it's look is intentionally stylized. In that sense, it's much closer to the original Batman comics of the 30s and 40s, which were drawn in a cartoony but expressionist style closer to Dick Tracy than Flash Gordon. One could therefore facetiously argue that Nolan's realism is not in the spirit of classic Batman, but in actuality Batman can accommodate many styles.

    Jesus. Just my opinion. Personal to me i prefer the Batman as Frank Miller wrote him.

    And the film is 'silly' in places. I didn't think i was comparing it to other stuff.

    I detest the Schumacher films and BR is definitely better than those.

    And obviously each director brings their own vision to a film which is fine as long as it suits the material.

  • edited May 2019 Posts: 1,708
    Batman 80th anniversary this month

    There were silly moments in Burton s Batman too : Jokers longbarrel revolver , Penguins yellow duck vehicle , Pengys Batmobile miniature , penguins with rockets etc

    (both Jokers museum escapade and Penguin running for mayor were borrowed from the old show)
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited May 2019 Posts: 3,996
    Tracy wrote: »
    Batman 80th anniversary this month

    There were silly moments in Burton s Batman too : Jokers longbarrel revolver , Penguins yellow duck vehicle , Pengys Batmobile miniature , penguins with rockets etc

    (both Jokers museum escapade and Penguin running for mayor were borrowed from the old show)

    If you read the whole thread, i was talking about 'Burton's Batman', specifically Batman Returns.

    I think Joker's 'longbarrel revolver was such a 'Jokerish' thing it just about works, but the Penguin's minature Batmobile was just embarassingly stupid.
  • Posts: 2,917
    I think Joker's 'longbarrel revolver was such a 'Jokerish' thing it just about works, but the Penguin's minature Batmobile was just embarassingly stupid.

    It was a "Penguinish" thing in the context of the film's characterization of the Penguin.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,176
    BATMAN RETURNS suffers from an overdose of Burton's self-indulgent style imprints. Like salt on food, a little goes a long way, but too much becomes lethal fast. The film constantly struggles to find an even tone as it unsuccessfully tries to pair a reserved Batman with a smoking-hot Catwoman and an outrageously repulsive Penguin. Nicholson's Joker was nothing if not an obvious callback to Romero; likewise, DeVito's Penguin might've worked a lot better as an updated iteration of Meredith. TAS was wise to tone the Penguin down and the Arkham games absolutely nailed it. But BR bastardized the character almost as much as BATMAN FOREVER did with Two-Face.

    None of that would have mattered much to me if the film's action scenes had been a lot better. Unfortunately, Burton just didn't seem to care anymore. The '89 film had a couple of really impressive action scenes, but BR fails completely in that department with the exception of perhaps the rooftop fight with Catwoman. Slow, unimaginative, often ridiculous, never showing Batman as "cool", the action in BR cannot hold a candle to the action scenes in BATMAN, BATMAN FOREVER or even MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

    Burton was committed all right; just not to make a Batman film but to make a Tim Burton film.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited May 2019 Posts: 25,092
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BATMAN RETURNS suffers from an overdose of Burton's self-indulgent style imprints. Like salt on food, a little goes a long way, but too much becomes lethal fast. The film constantly struggles to find an even tone as it unsuccessfully tries to pair a reserved Batman with a smoking-hot Catwoman and an outrageously repulsive Penguin. Nicholson's Joker was nothing if not an obvious callback to Romero; likewise, DeVito's Penguin might've worked a lot better as an updated iteration of Meredith. TAS was wise to tone the Penguin down and the Arkham games absolutely nailed it. But BR bastardized the character almost as much as BATMAN FOREVER did with Two-Face.

    None of that would have mattered much to me if the film's action scenes had been a lot better. Unfortunately, Burton just didn't seem to care anymore. The '89 film had a couple of really impressive action scenes, but BR fails completely in that department with the exception of perhaps the rooftop fight with Catwoman. Slow, unimaginative, often ridiculous, never showing Batman as "cool", the action in BR cannot hold a candle to the action scenes in BATMAN, BATMAN FOREVER or even MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

    Burton was committed all right; just not to make a Batman film but to make a Tim Burton film.

    That's very close to my own opinion of the film, I plan a rewatch of the four 89 and 90:s movies soon.




    This show lost me at the 00.13 mark
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BATMAN RETURNS suffers from an overdose of Burton's self-indulgent style imprints. Like salt on food, a little goes a long way, but too much becomes lethal fast. The film constantly struggles to find an even tone as it unsuccessfully tries to pair a reserved Batman with a smoking-hot Catwoman and an outrageously repulsive Penguin. Nicholson's Joker was nothing if not an obvious callback to Romero; likewise, DeVito's Penguin might've worked a lot better as an updated iteration of Meredith. TAS was wise to tone the Penguin down and the Arkham games absolutely nailed it. But BR bastardized the character almost as much as BATMAN FOREVER did with Two-Face.

    None of that would have mattered much to me if the film's action scenes had been a lot better. Unfortunately, Burton just didn't seem to care anymore. The '89 film had a couple of really impressive action scenes, but BR fails completely in that department with the exception of perhaps the rooftop fight with Catwoman. Slow, unimaginative, often ridiculous, never showing Batman as "cool", the action in BR cannot hold a candle to the action scenes in BATMAN, BATMAN FOREVER or even MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

    Burton was committed all right; just not to make a Batman film but to make a Tim Burton film.

    Couldn't have said it better @DarthDimi.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,626
    Remington wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BATMAN RETURNS suffers from an overdose of Burton's self-indulgent style imprints. Like salt on food, a little goes a long way, but too much becomes lethal fast. The film constantly struggles to find an even tone as it unsuccessfully tries to pair a reserved Batman with a smoking-hot Catwoman and an outrageously repulsive Penguin. Nicholson's Joker was nothing if not an obvious callback to Romero; likewise, DeVito's Penguin might've worked a lot better as an updated iteration of Meredith. TAS was wise to tone the Penguin down and the Arkham games absolutely nailed it. But BR bastardized the character almost as much as BATMAN FOREVER did with Two-Face.

    None of that would have mattered much to me if the film's action scenes had been a lot better. Unfortunately, Burton just didn't seem to care anymore. The '89 film had a couple of really impressive action scenes, but BR fails completely in that department with the exception of perhaps the rooftop fight with Catwoman. Slow, unimaginative, often ridiculous, never showing Batman as "cool", the action in BR cannot hold a candle to the action scenes in BATMAN, BATMAN FOREVER or even MASK OF THE PHANTASM.

    Burton was committed all right; just not to make a Batman film but to make a Tim Burton film.

    Couldn't have said it better @DarthDimi.

    If you watch the behind the scenes of BR, that's exactly how they persuaded him to return. "What if this movie is just a Tim Burton movie, that has Batman in it?" I'm paraphrasing. I actually like the Batman 66 movie better than all of the Batman 90s movies, minus MOTP.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    As much as I disagree with almost everything you've written, that's as concise a takedown as any @DarthDimi :)
Sign In or Register to comment.