WrathOfOtaibah said:Yep. G-Fex really is just another dumb kid who just learned what trolling is and tries his darndest to be one of the cool kids.
They tried to explain it with rocket science but we blew it up with a bombbean breath said:Therefore, we can say conclusively that Batman & Robin is not "great". This isn't rocket science.
KevinCow said:Batman & Robin is not a great movie.
I love it for being stupid and unintentionally hilarious.
But it's a bad movie. It's just so terrible, it manages to loop around and become amazing.
thanks for explaining 60s Batman to me AlfredBlitz2o said:this. It's enjoyable, but silly in actuality.
WrathOfOtaibah said:Nah, you're just an idiot.
Mr. Sam said:People saying this is better than Batman Begins fills me with a deep, deep sadness.
I've never been a fan of the logic of "Look at how badly they executed this! It's just abysmal! Therefore it's good."
What I find hilarious in that scene is how no one is bothered by Batman running around with a big bomb above his head. It's like an everyday scene for them.Harry Dresden said:The Best Batman Movie:
![]()
Mr. Sam said:I'm no, um, Nolanite (?) and I'm more than happy to point out the flaws of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I don't understand how one can accuse them of being outright boring. Their tone is more measured and understated than the previous broadway-theatre-haphazardly-smeared-on-the-silver-screen films, sure, but I'd say that makes them more effective than less.
If there's one thing I can't fault Nolan for, it's the realisation of his villains, barring maybe Two Face. Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker were all done very well, I thought. Mind you, Hamill remains my favourite Joker.
G-Fex said:There's nothing memorable about BB bro.
what? Bale's terrible batman voice? Katie Holmes terrible acting?
Oh remember that time that Scarecrow did uh...stuff..
I remember Batman crying for Alfred after he got set on fire, the rest is a blur.
Professor Beef said:The thing about Begins is that it's dreadfully boring the entire way through.
.Professor Beef said:The thing about Begins is that it's dreadfully boring the entire way through.
Messypandas said:i went to the world premiere of Batman and Robin
Not enough flashing lights and neon alley ways for your taste?Professor Beef said:The thing about Begins is that it's dreadfully boring the entire way through.
CHEEZMO™ said:How does he shut that door if the guy is in the frame?
how is this possible?G-Fex said:
Mr. Sam said:I'm no, um, Nolanite (?) and I'm more than happy to point out the flaws of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I don't understand how one can accuse them of being outright boring. Their tone is more measured and understated than the previous broadway-theatre-haphazardly-smeared-on-the-silver-screen films, sure, but I'd say that makes them more effective than less.
If there's one thing I can't fault Nolan for, it's the realisation of his villains, barring maybe Two Face. Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker were all done very well, I thought. Mind you, Hamill remains my favourite Joker.
Combichristoffersen said:Nolan took a campy comic book about a man who dresses up as a giant bat and fights, among others, a psychotic clown, a penguin-looking criminal mastermind and an insane guy who loves riddles and turned it into serious crime drama. I loved the Burtman movies because they managed to balance the camp and cheese with the serious stuff, while giving Gotham City a very gothic aestethic (and giving Batman one of the best damn vehicles ever seen on screen). Batman Forever was an OKish movie, although not as good as Batman '89 or Batman Returns, but Batman & Robin was where the camp and cheese took over and the movie just became a 'so bad it's good' movie. The two Nolan movies aren't really bad movies in and of themselves, but they're definitely not what I want from a Batman movie, and I found them to be really, really boring precisely because they did away with the camp and cheese of Batman's comic book roots, and reimagined Batman on film as a serious character. I did like Ledger's sociopathic Joker, although it was very different from Nicholson's more clownish Joker.
Combichristoffersen said:Nolan took a campy comic book about a man who dresses up as a giant bat and fights, among others, a psychotic clown, a penguin-looking criminal mastermind and an insane guy who loves riddles and turned it into serious crime drama. I loved the Burtman movies because they managed to balance the camp and cheese with the serious stuff, while giving Gotham City a very gothic aestethic (and giving Batman one of the best damn vehicles ever seen on screen). Batman Forever was an OKish movie, although not as good as Batman '89 or Batman Returns, but Batman & Robin was where the camp and cheese took over and the movie just became a 'so bad it's good' movie. The two Nolan movies aren't really bad movies in and of themselves, but they're definitely not what I want from a Batman movie, and I found them to be really, really boring precisely because they did away with the camp and cheese of Batman's comic book roots, and reimagined Batman on film as a serious character. I did like Ledger's sociopathic Joker, although it was very different from Nicholson's more clownish Joker.
Not enough Batman in a fucking Batman movie. I get that it was an origin story, but literally the only things I remember from Begins werethetrin said:Not enough flashing lights and neon alley ways for your taste?
Combichristoffersen said:Nolan took a campy comic book about a man who dresses up as a giant bat and fights, among others, a psychotic clown, a penguin-looking criminal mastermind and an insane guy who loves riddles and turned it into serious crime drama. I loved the Burtman movies because they managed to balance the camp and cheese with the serious stuff, while giving Gotham City a very gothic aestethic (and giving Batman one of the best damn vehicles ever seen on screen). Batman Forever was an OKish movie, although not as good as Batman '89 or Batman Returns, but Batman & Robin was where the camp and cheese took over and the movie just became a 'so bad it's good' movie. The two Nolan movies aren't really bad movies in and of themselves, but they're definitely not what I want from a Batman movie, and I found them to be really, really boring precisely because they did away with the camp and cheese of Batman's comic book roots, and reimagined Batman on film as a serious character. I did like Ledger's sociopathic Joker, although it was very different from Nicholson's more clownish Joker.
MattKeil said:Yet another person who has no clue what Batman's "comic book roots" actually are.
It's basically about a billionaire that gets off on beating the crap out of the poor and mentally challenged. He disguises himself as a middle-class vigilante for damage control.Combichristoffersen said:I'm not gonna claim I'm intimately familiar with the old Batman comics, or Hell, even the more recent ones besides reading a few of them years ago (since I don't like super hero comics very much anyway), but please do educate me.
bean breath said:It's basically about a billionaire that gets off on beating the crap out of the poor and mentally challenged. He disguises himself as a middle-class vigilante for damage control.
Loxley said:I think a more comic-bookish approach to the character would be an interesting way to follow it up without people accusing WB of trying to capture what made Nolan's movies so great but without Nolan.
Loxley said:I seriously hate Batman & Robin. Loved it when I was 8, but now? Blech.
That said, I've actually decided that after we've had a few years for Nolan's Batman trilogy settle, I totally wouldn't mind a series of Batman movies that embraces a more comic book-ish interpretation of the character as opposed to the more realistic approach Nolan took. I'm not talking the Schumacher-approach, think a Batman: The Animated Series movie but live-action. Maybe kick up the noire aspects a bit more.
Don't me wrong, I fucking love Nolan's take on the universe, but I think a more comic-bookish approach to the character would be an interesting way to follow it up without people accusing WB of trying to capture what made Nolan's movies so great but without Nolan.
Combichristoffersen said:I'm not gonna claim I'm intimately familiar with the old Batman comics, or Hell, even the more recent ones besides reading a few of them years ago (since I don't like super hero comics very much anyway), but please do educate me.
That's cold.darkiguana said:Batman and Robin is the only movie that I ever seriously considered walking out on.
Sho_Nuff82 said:Then how can you comment on what makes a good Batman movie? Nolan heavily borrowed from Year One and The Long Halloween in order to craft his movies. Burton's movies inspired the Animated Series, which is widely considered one of the finest cartoons of the 90s and the definitive interpretation of the character. Schumacker's films were a desperate call back to the Adam West show combined with a bunch of unintelligible crap, and B&R is an absolutely broken film that doesn't even come close to succeeding in writing, action, costume work, or its portrayal of any of the three complex villains that it tries to tackle. It's a failure of a film that not only nearly killed the bat-franchise, it nearly killed superhero movies, period.