Youuuuu... Are my number one...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
LTTP: Batman '89 (It's awful)
- Thread starter neogaffer1
- Start date
- Status
I hate to bring this up, but how old are you?
This movie was universally considered awesome at the time. The sheer number of people wearing Batman shirts back in 89 is enough evidence. Number of people wearing Batman shirts in the past few years? Zero.
Case closed.
EdibleExplosives
Member
Yeah, not really a fan of the old Batman movies either.
This was the first thing I thought... the movie rocked.
OP IS AWFUL
(though Batman Returns is even better... these two movies are the only ones that present Batman as the legit tormented psycho he is. I do like the Nolan trilogy, though)
haha it really is
(though Batman Returns is even better... these two movies are the only ones that present Batman as the legit tormented psycho he is. I do like the Nolan trilogy, though)
haha it really is
freethought
Member
I see people in Batman and Superman tops all the time. I don't think it has anything to do with the films though. It's usually the yellow oval Bat-logo I was seeing Superman shirts long before MoS came out. I always wanted to see two of them bump into each other and have a bit of a fight before teaming up to beat up some rich bald dude and a clown.
While I am a fan of Nolan's films (even Rises is a decent enough film) sometimes when Batman shows up in those movies I think "why the fuck is there a dude dressed as Batman in this film?".
It wasn't really a problem in Begins but he seemed so out of place sometimes in the DK movies. It was jarring. Plus even Homer Simpson knows that Batman's a scientist.
Great films though, so is '89. Returns is the only one that's maybe aged poorly (but I too love Catwoman's crazy origin). Forever is just terrible and B&R is so bad it's good.
edit: What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age.
Danny Elfman deserves all the kudos for Batman's OST, especially Batman Returns. The pieces are almost operatic in composition:
Birth of a Penguin Part 1 (Intro)
Birth of a Penguin Part 2 (Title Sequence)
Selena Transforms
The Cemetary
Batman vs. Red Triangle Circus
Final Confrontation Part 1 (Penguins March)
The Final Confrontation Part 2 (Catwoman/Schrek)
The Finale (Penguin) (now this is a masterpiece)
Birth of a Penguin Part 1 (Intro)
Birth of a Penguin Part 2 (Title Sequence)
Selena Transforms
The Cemetary
Batman vs. Red Triangle Circus
Final Confrontation Part 1 (Penguins March)
The Final Confrontation Part 2 (Catwoman/Schrek)
The Finale (Penguin) (now this is a masterpiece)
My teeth are gnashing so hard I've probably already destroyed by enamel. I rarely get incensed over posts on the internet, but you're so, so horribly wrong. It's fine if you don't like Burton's Batman, but calling it awful? Really? Are you just upset because it's not a Die Hard-style explosion-fest like the Nolan films? As much as I enjoy the more recent Batman movies, 89 and Returns are the only times that a filmmaker captured the dark and theatrical flavor of the Batman. The 1990s animated series also nailed this, but nothing since has really come close. The jokes are corny at times, but that's the point! When the Joker makes corny one-liners, he's emulating the comics, especially as they were in the latter years of the Golden Age. Don't get me wrong, Ledger's joker is incredible, but was a very different character from the classical villain.
Why is Vicki Vale's career a problem? It's a plot device more than anything, and pretty adequately connects her both to crime and to the local billionaire Bruce Banner. I agree that she ought to have been explored more, but I don't think she's interested in Bruce because they're dating. She's interested in him because he's the Batman. Her career as a journalist explains why she would want to delve deeper into his personality and past, thus providing the audience with this information as well.
And you're completely missing the point with the Batsuit. It's not supposed to be some sort of military power rig like in the Nolan movies. Keaton's Batman puts style above practicality, which is why his Batmobile isn't a tank. If Batman was about being the most efficient fighter, he'd use a gun. But the reason he wears the cape is because Batman is all about the imagery. He doesn't want to just beat up criminals, he wants to make them fear ever again breaking the law. Baleman was basically just Master Chief in black, taking out mass numbers of mooks without a sweat and flying across the world on secret missions. But that isn't what Batman is supposed to be. Keaton is the perfect Batman, because underneath the costume he's still a man, and an incredibly troubled one at that. Christian Bale was so unemotive that Michael Caine was required to show the audience how to feel. Keaton doesn't require that. The most interesting side of his character isn't the hero punching out mobsters, but instead the broken vigilante who desperately needs to come to terms with the pain of his childhood.
While the Nolan movies did everything they could to add realism and reason to a rather silly concept, Batman (89) totally ran with it. Batman is supposed to be dark while also being outrageous, which meant that nothing felt out of place. One issue so many people had with The Dark Knight Rises was how incongruous the fantastical "Pit" was when compared with the general realism of the rest of the movie. The original side-steps this by only being as realistic as the movies need to be. The Burton films had a Gothic quality and a theatrical tone that matched the general feel of the pre-1950s comics, and no adaptation has topped them since.
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
Shirley Walker was a godess. She got the Danny Elfman score and expanded in amazing ways making it her own.
TAS' Main theme batman is probably the best that could work for a better batman movie.
Of curse Danny Elfman was incredible, without him, Shirley wouldnt have the cue to create her magic, so mad props to both to making Batman sound like Batman.
Zimmer can go to fucking hell with the horns and shitty "atmospheric" score in Batman and Superman. Thanks for destroying melody marches on DC hero movies fucker.
At least Marvel is still trying to do something similar to having a melody march for their heroes.
FunnyBunny
Member
Batman '89 easily remains my favorite, largely for one major reason: ATMOSPHERE.
Hot damn, the atmosphere, visuals, and music all worked to transport me to a world that only existed in printed comics before.
This wasn't a normal world; it was a world so dark, dirty, and corrupt it was literally oozing through the architecture, so smoggy and filthy that even in daytime a perpetual shadow was cast over the entire city.
I loved the irony that the only real color in the entire city actual came from the Joker's presence.
It was a movie where Batman was the scariest thing in existence, and yet he didn't have to yell or growl or give any cheesy pep talks or speeches. He was almost entirely a character whose actions defined him. What little he DID say resonated.
The plot... was incidental. I admit that freely, but that's not what the movie was ultimately about. It wasn't so much about a singular narrative as it was more of an EXPERIENCE, to drop reality for two hours and visit a world of shadow, fog, and darkness, where the innocent and noble are preyed upon by the ruthlessly corrupt, only to find themselves the prey of a dark hero.
It was pure dark fantasy, German expressionism, comic book sensibilities, gothic overtones, and superhero epic tossed into a dark, brooding blender.
As smart and well-told as future movies? No. As well-paced or edited? No. As focused and character-driven? No.
But when Danny Elfman's score begins to swell, when we see Batman, for the first time ever in history on the big screen, live in a such a relentlessly bleak world, and we see him stand atop the city as his symbol quite literally pierces the darkness of Gotham, it didn't matter anymore. That moment in history was transcendent.
This is the best post of all time.
Stevetopsy
Member
It was a different time then. Viewed today, it just illustrates how far the genre has come as well as what we expect from our comic book movies these days. It was groundbreaking and fresh back in its day for sure. Returns was always my favorite tho. It felt even darker than '89 and the Catwoman scenes were all so good.
EDIT: How could I forget it also had Elfman in absolute GODMODE. One of the most iconic scores ever written, up there with the best of Williams in my book.
EDIT: How could I forget it also had Elfman in absolute GODMODE. One of the most iconic scores ever written, up there with the best of Williams in my book.
What about the billionaire who's Batman ?
I watched this again a few months ago and it's still great fun, that and Batman Returns are still very watchable. I like their over the top 'gothic' sensibilities, very stylised but still great. This is still my favourite piece of music from any of the Batman films as well.
I'd also watch either of them over the fuckin risible The Dark Knight Returns anyday.
For some reason Returns has grown on me as I've grown older, where as when the films came out when I was a kid I loved the original more and thought Returns was bleh. But now I think I get the nuances of the characters more as I grew up. Where as I think I used to feel very sorry for the Penguin I realize now he was a twisted psycho who loved killing children. And that Selena Kyle becoming Catwoman was an escape from the shackles of her insecurities and self doubt.
But yeah, Elfman was just doing some amazing work and it's a shame that he was never nominated by the Oscars for his compositions which were truly masterful, especially in Returns I feel.
Kitsunebaby
Member
You're awful, OP.
I can, however, agree with this. I adore Returns. DeVito and Walken are absolutely fantastic in it.
I can, however, agree with this. I adore Returns. DeVito and Walken are absolutely fantastic in it.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Are we really having a backlash against Tim Burton's Batman almost 2 decades after the fact?
Batman was a good movie. It was everything good about Tim Burton's style of directing combined with Michael Keaton in probably the only good role he's ever done. And yeah, Danny Elfman's score is amazing to this day.
Batman was a good movie. It was everything good about Tim Burton's style of directing combined with Michael Keaton in probably the only good role he's ever done. And yeah, Danny Elfman's score is amazing to this day.
Agreed. I can't rewatch any of Nolan's movies for some reason.
Unknown Soldier
Member
edit: Made a thread instead
Begins does but the other two don't. Heath Ledgar was the saving grace of the second Batman movie and the third was quite terrible. Though for a Batman/action fix none are that bad unless you include Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.
Thanks to this thread I rewatched Returns yesterday after not seeing it for years. Man, what a weird movie it is. It's dark, grotesque and incredibly cheesy at the same time.
Visually it's ace. Best Gotham City realized on screen. It just oozes atmosphere, even though some scenes do look like props on a stage; but it's way better than generic modern city in Nolan's movie (especially TDK and TDKR). There are also a lot of shots that doesn't make sense if you think about it, but still look great and make the movie what it is:
It's a movie that puts style over logic and realism and I think it really helps it. Thanks to that decision it's still watchable even though modern comic book adaptation puts it to shame when it comes to plot, action, effects and resemblance to the source.
Costumes are really well done, even though Penguin's and Catwoman's characters and looks are totally different than what they were (are) in comic books (although TAS modeled their Penguin on Returns' version). I'm still in love in Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman:
People say that the movie spends more time on villains than it does on Batman and while that's true, I think it's fine. Villains here are just more interesting than a brooding millionaire. There's enough time for Bruce/Batman to do his job as a playboy, a detective and a vigilante and yet he doesn't over stay his welcome. It also helps to hide that Batman is the weakest part of the movie: action scenes are rather dreadful (punch here, kick here, use a gadget or two there and that's it), his costume is stiff (it's especially visible during Catwoman vs Batman scenes - Catwoman dances around while Batman stays still or moves rather slowly like a robot), can be easily beaten by anybody (hell, Shreck puts him down with just one bullet from revolver!) and his car can be hacked by a bunch of circus clowns.
It's a movie with flaws, but I love with for the audio-visual treat it is.
Visually it's ace. Best Gotham City realized on screen. It just oozes atmosphere, even though some scenes do look like props on a stage; but it's way better than generic modern city in Nolan's movie (especially TDK and TDKR). There are also a lot of shots that doesn't make sense if you think about it, but still look great and make the movie what it is:
It's a movie that puts style over logic and realism and I think it really helps it. Thanks to that decision it's still watchable even though modern comic book adaptation puts it to shame when it comes to plot, action, effects and resemblance to the source.
Costumes are really well done, even though Penguin's and Catwoman's characters and looks are totally different than what they were (are) in comic books (although TAS modeled their Penguin on Returns' version). I'm still in love in Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman:
People say that the movie spends more time on villains than it does on Batman and while that's true, I think it's fine. Villains here are just more interesting than a brooding millionaire. There's enough time for Bruce/Batman to do his job as a playboy, a detective and a vigilante and yet he doesn't over stay his welcome. It also helps to hide that Batman is the weakest part of the movie: action scenes are rather dreadful (punch here, kick here, use a gadget or two there and that's it), his costume is stiff (it's especially visible during Catwoman vs Batman scenes - Catwoman dances around while Batman stays still or moves rather slowly like a robot), can be easily beaten by anybody (hell, Shreck puts him down with just one bullet from revolver!) and his car can be hacked by a bunch of circus clowns.
It's a movie with flaws, but I love with for the audio-visual treat it is.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
That's not how you spell Aaron Eckhart.
Sequence Six
Member
He kind of lost me after he lost half his face and started bumpin' around town like he didn't have a gaping wound.
The Cowboy
Member
I do love that scene, but that gif cuts out so muchVisually it's ace. Best Gotham City realized on screen. It just oozes atmosphere, even though some scenes do look like props on a stage; but it's way better than generic modern city in Nolan's movie (especially TDK and TDKR). There are also a lot of shots that doesn't make sense if you think about it, but still look great and make the movie what it is:
.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Returns is imo, darker than Nolan's movies.
Batman '89 easily remains my favorite, largely for one major reason: ATMOSPHERE.
Hot damn, the atmosphere, visuals, and music all worked to transport me to a world that only existed in printed comics before.
This wasn't a normal world; it was a world so dark, dirty, and corrupt it was literally oozing through the architecture, so smoggy and filthy that even in daytime a perpetual shadow was cast over the entire city.
I loved the irony that the only real color in the entire city actual came from the Joker's presence.
It was a movie where Batman was the scariest thing in existence, and yet he didn't have to yell or growl or give any cheesy pep talks or speeches. He was almost entirely a character whose actions defined him. What little he DID say resonated.
The plot... was incidental. I admit that freely, but that's not what the movie was ultimately about. It wasn't so much about a singular narrative as it was more of an EXPERIENCE, to drop reality for two hours and visit a world of shadow, fog, and darkness, where the innocent and noble are preyed upon by the ruthlessly corrupt, only to find themselves the prey of a dark hero.
It was pure dark fantasy, German expressionism, comic book sensibilities, gothic overtones, and superhero epic tossed into a dark, brooding blender.
As smart and well-told as future movies? No. As well-paced or edited? No. As focused and character-driven? No.
But when Danny Elfman's score begins to swell, when we see Batman, for the first time ever in history on the big screen, live in a such a relentlessly bleak world, and we see him stand atop the city as his symbol quite literally pierces the darkness of Gotham, it didn't matter anymore. That moment in history was transcendent.
I have all batman movies and 89 version is amongst my favorite.
captainnapalm
Member
Batman '89 easily remains my favorite, largely for one major reason: ATMOSPHERE.
Hot damn, the atmosphere, visuals, and music all worked to transport me to a world that only existed in printed comics before.
This wasn't a normal world; it was a world so dark, dirty, and corrupt it was literally oozing through the architecture, so smoggy and filthy that even in daytime a perpetual shadow was cast over the entire city.
I loved the irony that the only real color in the entire city actual came from the Joker's presence.
It was a movie where Batman was the scariest thing in existence, and yet he didn't have to yell or growl or give any cheesy pep talks or speeches. He was almost entirely a character whose actions defined him. What little he DID say resonated.
The plot... was incidental. I admit that freely, but that's not what the movie was ultimately about. It wasn't so much about a singular narrative as it was more of an EXPERIENCE, to drop reality for two hours and visit a world of shadow, fog, and darkness, where the innocent and noble are preyed upon by the ruthlessly corrupt, only to find themselves the prey of a dark hero.
It was pure dark fantasy, German expressionism, comic book sensibilities, gothic overtones, and superhero epic tossed into a dark, brooding blender.
As smart and well-told as future movies? No. As well-paced or edited? No. As focused and character-driven? No.
But when Danny Elfman's score begins to swell, when we see Batman, for the first time ever in history on the big screen, live in a such a relentlessly bleak world, and we see him stand atop the city as his symbol quite literally pierces the darkness of Gotham, it didn't matter anymore. That moment in history was transcendent.
This guy gets it.
It was badass at the time though, where everything else was spandex.
I do love that scene, but that gif cuts out so much
I know, but that was the first version of the gif with the mansion shot that I found.
Returns isn't even a Batman movie. It's a Tim Burton movie with the word "Batman" slapped on it.
-The plot makes zero sense.
-Batman is even more of a sociopathic murderer than he was in 89.
-Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer give ace performances, but I hate how Penguin and Catwoman were characterized. If Penguin were Killer Croc and Catwoman were, idk Harley Quinn (and yes, I'm aware that Harley didn't exist at that point, but the point still stands), then maybe it could have work.
-Everyone in Gotham aside from Batman is an idiot and Gordon is once again treated terribly.
-WTH did Harvey Dent go.
-Max Schreck didn't need to be in this film (although Waken is great).
-Gotham looks even more fake and like a set than it did in the first movie. It seemed like most of the film was either the town square, or the surrounding few streets. Any sense of scale/grandeur is just, not there.
-I don't see how the movie is "dark." It's weird and grotesque, but hardly "dark." It's too juvenile and way too many campy moments to be "dark" imo.
-The plot makes zero sense.
-Batman is even more of a sociopathic murderer than he was in 89.
-Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer give ace performances, but I hate how Penguin and Catwoman were characterized. If Penguin were Killer Croc and Catwoman were, idk Harley Quinn (and yes, I'm aware that Harley didn't exist at that point, but the point still stands), then maybe it could have work.
-Everyone in Gotham aside from Batman is an idiot and Gordon is once again treated terribly.
-WTH did Harvey Dent go.
-Max Schreck didn't need to be in this film (although Waken is great).
-Gotham looks even more fake and like a set than it did in the first movie. It seemed like most of the film was either the town square, or the surrounding few streets. Any sense of scale/grandeur is just, not there.
-I don't see how the movie is "dark." It's weird and grotesque, but hardly "dark." It's too juvenile and way too many campy moments to be "dark" imo.
Yep. It's a geek show, full of twisted and grotesque characters. Batman is a non entity. The production design, while interesting architecturally, is small and claustrophobic. And the plot with Penguin is terrible. At least the first movie had Jack.
GeordieMark
Member
I remember Batman '89 being a huge deal at the time. It was Batmanmania.
I'm pretty sure it was the first movie ever given a 12 certificate in the UK too.
I love this incarnation of Batman. How can anyone not love a Joker played by Jack Nicholson? It did a great job of being dark, yet still pretty camp.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Thanks to this thread I rewatched Returns yesterday after not seeing it for years. Man, what a weird movie it is. It's dark, grotesque and incredibly cheesy at the same time.
Visually it's ace. Best Gotham City realized on screen. It just oozes atmosphere, even though some scenes do look like props on a stage; but it's way better than generic modern city in Nolan's movie (especially TDK and TDKR). There are also a lot of shots that doesn't make sense if you think about it, but still look great and make the movie what it is:
It's a movie that puts style over logic and realism and I think it really helps it. Thanks to that decision it's still watchable even though modern comic book adaptation puts it to shame when it comes to plot, action, effects and resemblance to the source.
Costumes are really well done, even though Penguin's and Catwoman's characters and looks are totally different than what they were (are) in comic books (although TAS modeled their Penguin on Returns' version). I'm still in love in Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman:
People say that the movie spends more time on villains than it does on Batman and while that's true, I think it's fine. Villains here are just more interesting than a brooding millionaire. There's enough time for Bruce/Batman to do his job as a playboy, a detective and a vigilante and yet he doesn't over stay his welcome. It also helps to hide that Batman is the weakest part of the movie: action scenes are rather dreadful (punch here, kick here, use a gadget or two there and that's it), his costume is stiff (it's especially visible during Catwoman vs Batman scenes - Catwoman dances around while Batman stays still or moves rather slowly like a robot), can be easily beaten by anybody (hell, Shreck puts him down with just one bullet from revolver!) and his car can be hacked by a bunch of circus clowns.
It's a movie with flaws, but I love with for the audio-visual treat it is.
First Christmas Batman in movie form, and I will always love it for that. Shreck and DeVito Penguin were basically comic Penguin split into two characters, and it was a bad idea.
I love this movie--I'll even admit that I actually had a really emotional response to it the first time I saw it--which had everything to do with the fantastic Bruce/Selena relationship. Rises was such a bitter disappointment in this regard. I hate that Returns' enduring legacy is ensuring how many of these movies would try to cram in more than one villain. Returns would have been better with only Catwoman, Rises without her.
The fact that TDK actually held that card the whole movie and then played it so effectively for me as a final twist, was amazing.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
fuzzyreactor
Banned
boner achieved
89 is a crap flick that only looks good compared to Forever and Batman & Robin (but then, what doesn't?). Batman Returns isn't even a Batman film, it's a Tim Burton film that for some reason has the protagonist (The typical misunderstood self-pitying asocial loser who is a stand in for Burton himself) dressing up as Batman every once in awhile. The only good thing about it is Catwoman.
Nolan's films are better in every conceivable aspect (with the massive exception of Catwoman. Anne Hathaway, what the FUCK were you thinking, Nolan!?), and I say that as somewhat who has long considered him an overrated, pretentious prick.
Nolan's films are better in every conceivable aspect (with the massive exception of Catwoman. Anne Hathaway, what the FUCK were you thinking, Nolan!?), and I say that as somewhat who has long considered him an overrated, pretentious prick.
You get it, you get it so damn well.Batman '89 easily remains my favorite, largely for one major reason: ATMOSPHERE.
Hot damn, the atmosphere, visuals, and music all worked to transport me to a world that only existed in printed comics before.
This wasn't a normal world; it was a world so dark, dirty, and corrupt it was literally oozing through the architecture, so smoggy and filthy that even in daytime a perpetual shadow was cast over the entire city.
I loved the irony that the only real color in the entire city actual came from the Joker's presence.
It was a movie where Batman was the scariest thing in existence, and yet he didn't have to yell or growl or give any cheesy pep talks or speeches. He was almost entirely a character whose actions defined him. What little he DID say resonated.
The plot... was incidental. I admit that freely, but that's not what the movie was ultimately about. It wasn't so much about a singular narrative as it was more of an EXPERIENCE, to drop reality for two hours and visit a world of shadow, fog, and darkness, where the innocent and noble are preyed upon by the ruthlessly corrupt, only to find themselves the prey of a dark hero.
It was pure dark fantasy, German expressionism, comic book sensibilities, gothic overtones, and superhero epic tossed into a dark, brooding blender.
As smart and well-told as future movies? No. As well-paced or edited? No. As focused and character-driven? No.
But when Danny Elfman's score begins to swell, when we see Batman, for the first time ever in history on the big screen, live in a such a relentlessly bleak world, and we see him stand atop the city as his symbol quite literally pierces the darkness of Gotham, it didn't matter anymore. That moment in history was transcendent.
I absolutely LOVED Ledger's performance as the Joker.
However, I actually prefer's Nicholson's version, and not because of nostalgia, but because I believe Nicholson managed to achieve a perfect balance between the cartoonish-goofy clown and the murderous crime lord that the Joker is supposed to be.
Ledger had the awesome nurse outfit scene, but besides that he barely even joked. He was just too serious (Ironic, considering his famous phrase). He claimed that he "didn't make plans", but he actually made and executed carefully orchestrated plans during the whole movie. He was menacing and scary, sure, but he didn't seem like a murderous clown to me, just a psychopath with face paint.
Nicholson is also a murderous son of a bitch who tried to gas an entire city. But he also had the more clown-ish devices like the punching glove gun, the acid-spitting flower, the loooooong revolver for comedic effect, the electrocution hand thing.... He was actually playing an murderous clown. Ledger was playing a psycho with a painted face and hair.
I love ALL of the film/TV Jokers, but when it comes to live action Nicholson gets my vote. I repeat, Ledger was just too serious. Nicholson had the "pprrrrrt!" scene when he leaves Vicky Vale's apartment, which was funny as shit.
However, I actually prefer's Nicholson's version, and not because of nostalgia, but because I believe Nicholson managed to achieve a perfect balance between the cartoonish-goofy clown and the murderous crime lord that the Joker is supposed to be.
Ledger had the awesome nurse outfit scene, but besides that he barely even joked. He was just too serious (Ironic, considering his famous phrase). He claimed that he "didn't make plans", but he actually made and executed carefully orchestrated plans during the whole movie. He was menacing and scary, sure, but he didn't seem like a murderous clown to me, just a psychopath with face paint.
Nicholson is also a murderous son of a bitch who tried to gas an entire city. But he also had the more clown-ish devices like the punching glove gun, the acid-spitting flower, the loooooong revolver for comedic effect, the electrocution hand thing.... He was actually playing an murderous clown. Ledger was playing a psycho with a painted face and hair.
I love ALL of the film/TV Jokers, but when it comes to live action Nicholson gets my vote. I repeat, Ledger was just too serious. Nicholson had the "pprrrrrt!" scene when he leaves Vicky Vale's apartment, which was funny as shit.
Sequence Six
Member
The thrust of the climax is stopping The Penguin from murdering the first-born children of Gotham's aristocracy. How is that not dark? I'm not asking you to enjoy the plot or think it's a good movie but I don't see how that's anything but grim.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It's a product of it's time. It's still an absolute favorite of mine, and as a child I probably watched it hundreds of times on VHS. You have to remember that the climate with comic book movies back then was far different from now. Most people's experience with Batman at that point was Adam West's TV show. Batman came out more than 10 years after the Superman series fizzled away with a couple of dud movies. I just look at it now as Tim Burton's own weird, twisted interpretation of the Batman universe. Like a weird Elseword's story, or a chapter from Batman Black and White. Considering where comic book movies were back then (non-existent really) it really pushed boundaries and opened doors for stuff to come later. At the time, there was really nothing else like it, which is why it blew up the way it did at the Box Office (still the longest lines I think I've ever seen for a movie) and became such a pop culture phenomenon.
My problem with that was that the climax to Penguin's plan was very weak. We only see a short scene where clowns were putting kids in cells, then Batman appeared and *cut*... next scene, monkey delivered a message from Batman to Penguin about him freeing kids. So Penguin decided that instead of killing first-born children, he will decimate the whole Gotham with his rocket-equipped penguins (that, in the end, hardly even destroyed the abandoned zoo Penguin was hiding in).
Ninja Scooter
Member
It was dark for the kind of movie it was at the time. Much of the "BR is extra dark" stuff comes from the issues WB had with licensing and merch, and how famously people complained to McDonalds about having toys for such a weird/twisted movie in Happy Meals, which led to WB ditching Burton and going Shumacher for something more family friendly. Was it dark in comparison to, say, a David Fincher movie? Of course not. But for the kind of movie that was expected to sell bed sheets and Happy Meals and toys? I think it was pretty dark.
No, I understand how Returns was dark, twisted and not really kid-friendly (although, seriously, I still don't understand how a franchise with comic books like "The Killing Joke" being one of the fan-favorites can be even considered a kid-friendly). I just thought that the whole kill first-born children (sons?) arc had a lot of build up and eventually didn't delivered, since it was dealt with in two really short scenes.
Why are people keep repeating this? How exactly wasn't Batman Returns a Batman movie? He wasn't a focus of the story, but it was still a Batman movie with him and his villains (although different than how they were portrayed in comic books at the time) in the center of the plot and the theme of living behind a mask being one of the main ones.
Why are people keep repeating this? How exactly wasn't Batman Returns a Batman movie? He wasn't a focus of the story, but it was still a Batman movie with him and his villains (although different than how they were portrayed in comic books at the time) in the center of the plot and the theme of living behind a mask being one of the main ones.
Sequence Six
Member
Because most people don't read comics and they still think of comics as something for kids. Even if you read some comics there's a ton of it out there so it's not automatic to know what goes on and has gone on with each character. Personally I never read DC comics even when I read comics at all. I hadn't heard of The Killing Joke until the buildup to Dark Knight started to kick into gear. Plus, if all you knew of Batman were the movies, would you guess that something like The Killing Joke was a part of the story?
Basically all I'm saying is there's a ton of Batman stuff out there and it's tough to know it all especially if you're not actively looking for it.
wondermega
Member
The old Batman movie - I was craving for this so bad when it was releasing (man that was a summer to be in your teens and watch action and comedy films!!). I remember going to the first show at the local theater, the day after school ended. They even printed the little Batman symbol in the newspaper next to the showtimes. Batman merch was everywhere. It was something to see.
I sat and watched through the beginning part of the film, and as the film wore on my 14-year-old self started thinking "man this film is... kinda dull, really." I still enjoyed it and rode the hype, enjoyed the cool stuff from it, but wasn't struck as it being this really great film or anything. Not as accessible and straightforward as, say, a Spielberg or popular sci-fi film of it's day.
In hindsight, I look at it and see it as art. It's a truly stunning movie aesthetically, for all the different elements. They did such a marvelous job of taking these pieces of the different Batman comicbook worlds and translating them into a movie world that made sense, looked great, and just felt and sounded so appropriately stylish - but also dark, twisted, psychological, interesting. It felt like they weren't concerned with being too true to the established comic persona of Batman as he was generally accepted, but instead reinvented him as something which was very cool and unique in a whole fresh and new way. Same with the Joker - I remember at the time, so much controversy about Keaton "Mr Mom" being Batman, and also Nicholson getting top billing - but they both really nailed the roles.
Returns, I was pretty excited to see it when it released a few years later. My instant takeaway upon leaving the theater was that it felt a lot more accessible than 89, lots more action/gadgets/steady moving story - and it was such a different movie, which was great,instead of the same crap rehashed - but it was too busy. Too many crazy characters all crammed in there. Walken is great but I wasn't happy with him being in the film at all. Penguin was also - he was just ridiculous. Catwoman was not bad but could have been incredible.
The whole thing slowly devolved into such a convoluted mess - giant missile penguins? Batman rips off his mask? Whaaaa? By the end I didn't care about this world or the characters, even Bats. There was a nice play between the characters in the predecessor, for the most part, and here it was just missing. It was like they forgot what was interesting about making a movie with this theme and just went with "let's crank everything up to the hilt!" and that sucks.
Both movies are ultimately cool because they are Burton Batman movies and I don't think he would have been capable of making a crappy one (maybe that's why he stopped). He's not the best filmmaker but he really brought his own unique blend to the table that I don't think anyone else could have rivaled, and it was exactly what comic book movies needed to evolve from the nowhere they were otherwise occupying. It was sad what the next 2 Batman movies degenerated into so I'll not waste breath on them.
As for Nolan's films, they are interesting. 1st one is probably the best but even that one falls apart too quickly. 2nd one - I may be the only one in the world who doesn't care about HL's Joker? And the 3rd one is laughably outrageous. It's not bad filmmaking, but the crazy plot and characters keep it from being able to be taken seriously or really enjoyed. Still, it was fun to talk in that Bane voice for a little while..
Anyway. Talking about Batman is still fun.
I sat and watched through the beginning part of the film, and as the film wore on my 14-year-old self started thinking "man this film is... kinda dull, really." I still enjoyed it and rode the hype, enjoyed the cool stuff from it, but wasn't struck as it being this really great film or anything. Not as accessible and straightforward as, say, a Spielberg or popular sci-fi film of it's day.
In hindsight, I look at it and see it as art. It's a truly stunning movie aesthetically, for all the different elements. They did such a marvelous job of taking these pieces of the different Batman comicbook worlds and translating them into a movie world that made sense, looked great, and just felt and sounded so appropriately stylish - but also dark, twisted, psychological, interesting. It felt like they weren't concerned with being too true to the established comic persona of Batman as he was generally accepted, but instead reinvented him as something which was very cool and unique in a whole fresh and new way. Same with the Joker - I remember at the time, so much controversy about Keaton "Mr Mom" being Batman, and also Nicholson getting top billing - but they both really nailed the roles.
Returns, I was pretty excited to see it when it released a few years later. My instant takeaway upon leaving the theater was that it felt a lot more accessible than 89, lots more action/gadgets/steady moving story - and it was such a different movie, which was great,instead of the same crap rehashed - but it was too busy. Too many crazy characters all crammed in there. Walken is great but I wasn't happy with him being in the film at all. Penguin was also - he was just ridiculous. Catwoman was not bad but could have been incredible.
The whole thing slowly devolved into such a convoluted mess - giant missile penguins? Batman rips off his mask? Whaaaa? By the end I didn't care about this world or the characters, even Bats. There was a nice play between the characters in the predecessor, for the most part, and here it was just missing. It was like they forgot what was interesting about making a movie with this theme and just went with "let's crank everything up to the hilt!" and that sucks.
Both movies are ultimately cool because they are Burton Batman movies and I don't think he would have been capable of making a crappy one (maybe that's why he stopped). He's not the best filmmaker but he really brought his own unique blend to the table that I don't think anyone else could have rivaled, and it was exactly what comic book movies needed to evolve from the nowhere they were otherwise occupying. It was sad what the next 2 Batman movies degenerated into so I'll not waste breath on them.
As for Nolan's films, they are interesting. 1st one is probably the best but even that one falls apart too quickly. 2nd one - I may be the only one in the world who doesn't care about HL's Joker? And the 3rd one is laughably outrageous. It's not bad filmmaking, but the crazy plot and characters keep it from being able to be taken seriously or really enjoyed. Still, it was fun to talk in that Bane voice for a little while..
Anyway. Talking about Batman is still fun.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
FUnny thing is it's the superhero movie that killed the campy shit Batman of the 60's.
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
Both soundtracks are godlike. Holy shit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked